No fetus found in Texas yard

Those who have contact with Chief Robert Pruett must beware, anything is fair game if it promotes his political careet.

Pruett is currently running for Brazoria County Sheriff, after losing several times at running for JP in Galena Park.

Here is my story..

I am a former police officer who was involved with this case. While I do believe that the suspects are guilty as charged, the tactics and actions of the police officers involved cloud the case. First, I find it strange that I received a call early in the morning the day after the entire gang was taken into custody, the call was for me to take a statement from James O'Malley. Strange because statements had been taken from every other suspect except James. When I arrived at the police dept, I found it strange that other officers were sitting around, joking, not doing anything, yet I had been called in on my day off to come to work, and take a statement from James. James was sitting there joking around with the officers. Uncuffed, very realized looking. After taking a statement from James, I was escorting him back to a cell, he told me he was suppose to go into a special cell, when I asked why, He said he was a deputy police officer. I said what, he said that the Chief and Assistant Chief Robert Pruett had deputized him. I didn;t believe him at the time, but later I heard from other officers that James had been deputized a recording was made by the chief and assistant chief. When I asked the Assistant Chief about James being a deputy, he laughed, and said "they'll get what they deserve", never denying the allegation. After struggling with this, I called the defense attorney, anonymously, and told them the above info. It would come out at the trial, that the defense attorney did receive the info, but thought they were being set up, so they didn't act on it. Several pretrial motions required me to go to court. Despite giving the defense attorney info, including the names of officers who knew info, my name included, I was never asked a question. I know Assst chief Pruiett was, because following a pre trial exam, after testifying, he walked into a room wher I was sitting waiting to testify, he told the Chief, in front of me, "if they think, I'll ever admit to there being another tape, or deputizing him, they're full of shit." The chief said that "there is no other tape now." Later, all the participants in the trial which was upcoming, were asked to come to the DA's office. I rode in a police car with 3 other officers to the meeting.

Read next comment as well

The two assistant DA's went over the entire case telling everyone what each person was testifying to. At the end, with everyone present, the Chief, Assistant Chief, all the police officers, the assistant DA's asked if anyone knew anything about James being deputized. None answered. I was scared for my job. So I didn't speak up. After leaving the meeting, myself and the other officers were riding back to the department. The question came up if anyone was asked about the deputizing what would they say? The officers with me were Officer Bates, now Assistant Chief, Offier Hearne and Officer Radar. Each said they had heard from James that he was deputized, or knew direct knowledge, but the conversation concluded that who ever spoke up with most likely be fired and out of law enforcement. I told them that I would not commit perjury for anyone. After getting back to the station, I left. I went to a pay phone and called the Da's office. I spoke with the lead assistant DA and told her the above info. She told me not to say anything, to only answer questions asked by the attorneys not to volunteer info. I was never asked any questions about James being deputized. The lead assist DA later admitted under oath the same info I wrote above. Within weeks of talking to the DA, and a short time after James trial ended, I was fired by Assist Chief Pruett. At the trial, under questioning by the defense attorney, officers admitted that they felt Pruett had it in for me, and wanted me fired, they would not elaborate on why, they said they didn't recall or didn't know, the same answer they gave about James being deputized.

Basso and her gang deserve the punishment handed down by the jury of their peers, but this case does bring to light the improper conduct of the Galena Park Police Dept and that particularly of Chief Robert Pruett. As keepers of the law, we must act with integrity and honesty, without that we are no better than those who break the law, for perjury is a crime.
----------
Evidence to supoort these alleged activities by the Galena Park PD:

10/27/2005 - Galena Park Police Chief Robert Pruett denies there was any abuse of a jail inmate in his care and is anxious for a grand jury to hear his case.

The allegations stem from a case in August of this year when a business owner on Holland Ave. in Galena Park asked for help with a customer who was assaulting him.

Eugenio Garate was arrested on Aug. 15 at approximately 3 p.m. for allegedly assaulting a mechanic.

According to the officer on the scene, the business owner did not want to press charges because he just wanted him to leave and never come back.

Police records indicate that Garate was handcuffed and was going to be transported to Ben Taub Hospital when he kicked out the back window of the police car.
"The officer didn't want to transport him any further without the window for fear he might escape or jump out and so he came to the police station," said Pruett.

During the booking process, Pruett said Garate was combative.

"In the booking area he was told to sit down and he kept jumping up and down off the bench," Pruett said.

"He was told several times to sit down and calm down, but he didn't follow the officer's instructions."

Pruett said he sat him down and Garate spat in his face. "I held my right hand in his face to keep him from spitting on me again and asked for help from nearby officers so we could take him to a cell."

Pruett said he spat on him again and then he spat back on Garate.

read next comment

----------Court Documents:
Before the appellant's (Basso vs The State of Texas) trial, her son and co-defendant, J.D. O'Malley, was tried and convicted for Musso's murder. During O'Malley's trial, questions were raised concerning the circumstances surrounding and the voluntariness of his confession to police. O'Malley, who suffered from mental deficiencies, claimed that officers from the Galena Park Police Department had "deputized" him in order to gain his cooperation and confession. Several officers, in turn, testified that they knew nothing about the "deputization." As a result of O'Malley's confession, police recovered evidence from a dumpster linking the appellant to the crime.
A former Galena Park police officer, Floyd Sanson, later spoke to the prosecuting attorney and expressed his belief that the officers, primarily Assistant Chief Robert Pruett, had committed perjury during O'Malley's trial by claiming they were unaware of the "deputization." Sanson provided this information also to F.B.I. special agents and an investigator with the public integrity division in district attorney's office. Prosecutors did not inform the appellant's defense attorneys of Sanson's allegations, but at some point, defense counsel learned of his claims and hired an investigator to locate Sanson. On the Friday before the trial was scheduled to begin, Sanson met with the appellant's attorneys to discuss the information. In addition to his allegations of perjury, Sanson suggested to the appellant's attorneys that police had recorded O'Malley's interrogation but had withheld or destroyed the audio tapes. This was supported by statments given by former police dispatcher Keys. Based on this information, the defense moved for a continuance, and the trial court held a one-day hearing on the motion. After hearing testimony from former and current members of the Galena Park Police Department, the court denied the appellant's motion for continuance, finding that the issue of O'Malley's "deputization" was not relevant to the appellant's trial.
These facts clearly indicate that, before trial, the defense knew of Sanson's claims, discovered the specific nature of them, and had the opportunity to investigate the allegations further. Even if the information regarding the circumstances of O'Malley's confession qualified as Brady material,(5) giving the State an affirmative duty to disclose it to the appellant, the State's failure to do so did not harm the appellant because she was already aware of the information.
The appellant's point is without merit for a second reason. Despite the interest that the appellant's defense attorneys may have had in the circumstances surrounding the taking of O'Malley's confession, the information does not constitute Brady material, and the State, therefore, was not obligated to disclose it to the defense. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to disclose only evidence that is (1) favorable to the defendant and (2) material either to guilt or punishment. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674 (1985); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Favorable evidence is that which "if disclosed and used effectively,... may make the difference between conviction and acquittal." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676. It includes exculpatory as well as impeachment evidence. Id.; Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. Cr. App. 1992). "[E]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682.

moe to come

The evidence complained of here was neither favorable to the defense nor material to the outcome in the appellant's trial. First, the evidence had no exculpatory value to the appellant. Assuming that O'Malley's confession was improperly obtained by police, the appellant has no standing to contest the issue. See McMahon v. State, 582 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978), cert. denied sub nom. McCormick v. Texas, 444 U.S. 919 (1979)(holding that the defendant was not entitled to suppression of a co-defendant's confession based on violations of the co-defendant's rights). Therefore, even if the appellant had learned of the evidence directly from the State, the evidence would have been irrelevant to and inadmissible at the appellant's trial. Evidence of violations of O'Malley's rights could not have been "used effectively" by the appellant's defense and would not have "made the difference between conviction and acquittal."
Second, the evidence of O'Malley's illegally obtained confession had no practical impeachment value to the appellant. Although, as the appellant argues, the allegations of perjury related to the credibility of certain officers, evidence of specific instances of their untruthfulness would have been inadmissible under Rule of Evidence 608(b) to impeach the officers' truthfulness in the appellant's trial.
Finally, the evidence at issue was not material to either the appellant's guilt or punishment. As stated above, disclosure of the means by which police obtained O'Malley's confession would not have assisted the appellant in her defense simply because the issue was not relevant to her trial. Because the evidence would have been inadmissible at her trial, it is not reasonably probable that disclosure of the information by the State would have led to a different result in the proceeding.
Evidence that police obtained O'Malley's confession in violation of his rights was not Brady material in the appellant's trial; therefore, the State was under no duty to disclose the evidence to the defense. The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion for continuance, as further investigation by the appellant's attorneys would not have materially affected her defense. Points of error seven and eight are overruled.
Likewise, there was no error in the court's refusal to reopen the hearing on the appellant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the dumpster (as a result of O'Malley's confession) and the appellant's own confession. The decision to hold a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence remains within the trial court's discretion, and the court may choose to evaluate the merits of the motion during the trial itself. Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645, 649 (Tex. Cr. App. 1988). Because the appellant had the opportunity to object to the evidence during the trial on the merits and had no standing to object to the fruits of O'Malley's confession, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant's motion to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress. Point of error thirteen is overruled.

I agree that this did not effect Sue Basso's case, but what you may not know is that no other person is on death roll for this crime, "why"? Because the DA's office did not pursue the death penalty due to these facts.


more to come

I did forget another fact which I told the defense attorneys, the day I took the statement from James, Assistant Chief Pruett sent myself and Off Heren over to Basso's house to secure the residence. Once there Off Heren entered the residence to lock the door. I waited outside. He asked Assist Chief Pruiett to go to another channel on the radio. I switched over as well. Pruett asked Herren to "check it out, let me know what you find." After 10 minutes, I got concerned because he had not come out, I went to the door and called in for Off Herren, I got no response, I then ented the house where I found Off Herren looking at a computer inside the residence. He was going through files. When I asked him what he was doing, he said seeing what was on the computer, he told me to go back outside. A short time later he came out with papers in his hand, it looked like computer print paper. We then went back to the police station where he met with Pruett. This was prior to the Galena Park Police dept obtaining a warrant

Part of my comments were from the court which affirmed her conviction. I do believe she was guilty, but originally the Harris County DA office was seeking the death penalty for all the defendants, but after it came to light that O'Malley was deputized, questions arose, so the death penalty was not sought in their cases. Only in Sue Basso's.

My concern is the integrity and honesty of the police officers conducting the investigation.

If police officers are sworn to up hold the law, yet intentionally break it or violate the rights of a suspect, not just a "technically", but a real violation of the persons rights, does this cloud the verdict handed down?

Once a person gets away with one crime, it is taught that they will continue to commit crimes until caught, and even then depending on their conscience or the consequence, may continue in their actions.This is based on criminal psychologist and crime stats.

If that is true, a police officer who commits perjury/lies, destroys evidence, has done this before and/or will continue to do this.

I would not want to be questioned or investigated by an officer who would do anything to get a conviction, Would you?

What if this officer so much believed you were guilty that he lied about you or destroyed or fabricated evidence?

That is my concern.

Regarding the facts I have stated, the appeals court basically ruled that the fact that perjury was committed, and that O'Malley's statement was possibly tainted, did not have bearing on Sue Basso's case, but did on O'Malley's, that is why he was given life in prison instead of the death penalty. O'Malley's attorney, as did O"Malley, believed that he was best served with life in prison with a chance of parole, then being released. Further, my allegations were never disproved, to the contrary they were confirmed by a former police dispatcher who I was not aware of as having heard the chief and assistant chief talking about O'Malley being deputiezed and a tape being destroyed, O'Malley's defense attorney (who testified outside the presence of the jury, that they received more than 5 phone calls from an anonymous source regarding O'Malley being deputized.). I testified under oath to the allegations, yet no investigation was done against me or was I ever charged with perjury. The DA's office asked other officers about O'Malley being deputized, and they said they knew nothing about it. So the DA's office to keep their conviction intact, choose not to present the perjury case against Chief McDonald and Assistant Chief Pruett to a grandjury.

more to come

Why I am I concerned? I've moved on with my life, started another career, and nothing to do with Pruett or the po.ice in general.

I want to make sure that the police do a good and complete investigation that there are no loop holes or any questions. Second the police need to follow the law and need to be of high integrity and honesty need to enforce the law. The corupt need to go.

i am Floyd's son. if you want more info email me at toolate03@hotmail.com. It shouldnt have been so complicated but because of the police department BS from times before the is the reason why he was a fomer officer at that time. i dont have contact with my dad but I rember what when on at that time

I'm not sure what John is implying, but if you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact John, then me. I can be reached at floydrn04@yahoo.com. I believe the truth will always prevail

I suffer from post traumatic stress. Early in my police career, I had to take the life of a suspect who shot a business owner 5 times, and shot at a teenage. I ordered the man to drop his weapon 5 times, according to witness statements. When the suspect raised his weapon toward the teenager, I had to discharge my service revovler. I won't go into everything, but I struggled after that. I was also the first to arrive on the scene of several good friends who died in the line of duty. This had an impact on me, emotionally, physically, mentally, professionally and privately. I never told my children that I suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. It was not until after I got completely out of police work, that I sought help from a medical standpoint.

Post Traumatic Stress is a type of stress encountered at incidents that are, or perceived as, capable of causing serious injury or death. The person encountering the stress does not have to be the one whose life is threatened. This stress can also occur to witnesses. By it's nature, Post Traumatic Stress is one of the worst types of stress a person can encounter. It is stress of a nature that is threatening to a person's survival. The psychological and physical reactions of our mind and body to Post Traumatic Stress are at the extremes.

PTSD is a serious illness and is defined and diagnosed by certain symptoms a person exhibits. It affects a person physically, mentally, and emotionally to the point it is life altering. The symptoms people with PTSD exhibit are extreme and typically adversely impact their lives everyday. To cope with these symptoms they may develop addictions. It can destroy their marriage, family relations and other relationships, and cause some of them to commit suicide.

I didn't intend to talk about post traumatic stress, but here are some of the signs and symptoms:

1. Irritability, being upset, angry, and short-tempered. Finding yourself over-reacting and snapping at people.

2. Sleep disturbances - either not being able to sleep well or, conversely, spending excessive time in bed hiding and avoiding contact with the real world.

3. Changes of eating patterns such as a loss of appetite or a compulsion to eat constantly.

4. Intrusive thoughts -- replaying or reliving events over and over again in your mind.

4. A feeling of guilt (I could have done more or I should have done things differently, etc.).

5. A lack of concentration or a sense of helplessness, anger (at self or others), frustration, alienation, loneliness or confusion.

6. Onset of physical maladies such as problems with the stomach, bowels, headaches, or skin disorders. Physical signs can also include cold or sweaty hands, constant muscular tension, especially in the back, neck, and shoulders, tension in the jaw or grinding your teeth, fatigue, and nervousness (feeling keyed up).

For police officers, it is not socially acceptable to show the emotions we feel about certain incidents we experience. It's a sign of weakness, when we have been trained to be strong under all circumstances. To show weakness is to experience a loss of control, and we are trained and programmed to not lose control under any circumstances. We certainly cannot allow anyone else to see this, especially not our peers. It is inbred into us in the academy, probationary training, and all aspects of law enforcement that if we can't handle the stress we need to get out, this is not a job for weak minded people.

We basically hide or deny our emotions. It's what our job trains us to do. Further compounding this issue is that many employers, especially law enforcement, are in major league denial that their personnel are affected by trauma, and perpetuate the opinion that feelings are more a sign of personal weakness or personal problems than a reflection of cops being affected by the trauma they encounter on the job.

I have seen things that I would never tell my family or children. What people could do to each other is a horrible thing to have to see and experience.

Children murdered and mutilated, men and women raped and ....... I can't even describe, I have seen the worst of what man and woman can do to each other, and could not share that.

I suffer from post traumatic stress, and my children suffered because of that. Other issues complicated the situation as well, but I will not eloborate.

I made mistakes, I failed, but I can tell you I never lied or commited perjury. So despite all this, I can tell you that the truth will set you free, and I never felt as free as the day I told the DA, the defense attorney that the administration of the Galena Park Police department lied. I will continue to spread this message.