Send a Message
to ANGLETURNER

Comments

27

Joined

Apr 19, 2011

ANGLETURNER Profile

Recent Posts

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

THE ORDER OF JUDGE JAMES W. KILLAM, III, AYER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE - MAY 15, 1979 EARL PETERS AND HIS SHOTGUN-PART II-d - See#78,#89,#92,#97 [NOTE: PART II-b inadvertently omitted] The Killam order may be found #28 (08/12/12) and #33 (10/12/12) Returning to the morning of Day 3, April 5, 1979, DeMichaelis (for the Commonwealth), Spadafora (for Aarhus), examined Sgt. Michael Menzie for some 160 pages. During a long morning session, after DeMichaelis had concluded his direct examination of Menzie, Spadafora (for Aahrus), on cross-examination, asked Menzie what Tyree and Peters had been "transporting ", referencing various alleged their joint criminal activities cited earlier by Menzie. "Q [Spadafora] Transporting what?" "A [Menzie] Stolen goods, and a lot of things." Day 3; P. 102, L. 7-8 Follow-ups to open-ended responses, such as "a lot of things", are dangerous; such can be a horn of plenty or a cruel trap for unwary interrogators. Spadfora plunged ahead: "Q What other things?" "A Let me refresh my memory. I've got it written down at home, but I haven't reviewed it, I haven't checked it out. But, most of this I've got written down is stuff that I got from Bill Tyree." "Q Directly? Did he give it to you directly?" "A Through the mail, yes." Day 3; P. 103, :L.11-18 Even ordinary lay folks cannot fail to see that a subtle change in the Tyree/Aarhus proceedings has just taken place. Menzie's entire testimony, some of it supportive of Tyree, some contrary to Tyree's penal interest, is clearly what most of us call 'hearsay', i.e., what one person said that another person said. Although William Tyree is sitting there, in the presence of Spadafora, DeMicahelis AND...the jury (in this case, Judge James W. Killam), he, through counsel, has decided not to testify. No one can ask him whether the'hearsay' of Menzie accurately describes his former communications with Menzie. Presumably, both Spadfora and Bradley (for Tyree) can attack Menzie's prior testimony, terming his responses as ' hearsay' if they see elements therein harmful to their clients. But...what if the recollections of Menzie, already on the record, are derived, at least in part, from written communications of Tyree to Menzie AFTER HIS ARREST? To date, the court has nothing in writing by Tyree produced by him after February 13, nothing but the oral "MR. TYREE: I do, your Honor." in response to Killam's query: "COURT: Mr. Tyree, do you want your attorney to represent you?" Day 1, April 3, 1979; P. 8, L. 23, 21-22 Although Tyree will remain silent throughout the Probable Cause hearings, what course will that proceeding take if he is allowed to speak though his own writings on pieces of paper in the possession of his friend, Sgt. Michael Menzie? If no one is able to disprove their authenticity, questions regarding THE CREDIBILITY OF WILLIAM TYREE will enter again, through his written statements, into the matter of the murder of Elaine Tyree. At this point, shortly before the lunch break, it does not appear that DeMichaelis (for the Commonwealth) was aware that Menzie's testimony (his witness) was, in part, based on the post-arrest writings of William Tyree, writings which were in the possession of Menzie. Much less did he realize that these writings are extant. EARL PETERS AND HIS SHOTGUN - End PART II-d  (Wednesday Jul 23 | post #105)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

THE ORDER OF JAMES W. KILLAM, III, AYER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE - MAY 15, 1979 EARL PETERS AND HIS SHOTGUN - PART II-c Reference to the Killam order may be found @ #28 (08/12/12) and #33 (1012/12/) The subject of the "three letters", sent by Tyree to Michael Menzie and Nancy Woodland, selectively, in March, 1979, permeates the later hearings which followed their first mention on the afternoon of Day 3, April 5, 1979. But first, it is imperative to review the previous 2 day and the testimony of Michael Menzie on Day 3 before lunch. We must also recall that neither Tyree nor Aarhus testified in the Probable Cause hearings (1979) or in their respective Superior Court trials (February, 1979). On Day 1 and 2 (April 3-4), Earl Peters testified extensively, consuming some 150 transcript pages. A review of his testimony fully describes the issue of "a shotgun" but fails to reveal any reference to his admission of corporate criminal activity with Tyree. However, during Day 3, Michael Menzie, before lunch, testified to his knowledge of the extensive joint criminal activity of both Peters and Tyree, without specifically citing that this knowledge resulted from a written source of this information, i.e., letters received from Tyree, after Feb. 13, the day of his arrest, and before the end of March. At this point, it becomes clear, from reading the transcript, that DeMichaelis, delighted to have a means of reversing some of Menzie's testimony thus far, some of it arguably favorable to Tyree, NOW BELIEVES MENZIE and, implicitly, NOW BELIEVES TYREE through Menzie's recitations, given under oath (of course, there is nothing malicious in this development - it is merely acceptable trial practice, available to defense and prosecution alike). But the entire case against Tyree, to date, is predicated on the truthfulness of ERIK AARHUS, in whom the Commonwealth CONTINUES TO BELIEVE and the concurrent position of the Commonwealth NOT TO BELIEVE TYREE and his description of the approach to Aarhus on Feb. 13, 2 WEEKS AFTER THE MURDER, rather than an ill-defined point in time, indicated by Aarhus, BEFORE THE CRIME. Moreover, it is clear that the alleged confession of Aarhus and his subsequent arrest could not have take place unless military and civilian authorities had BELIEVED TYREE'S accusation regarding the location of the murder weapon in the room of Aarhus. Of equal importance, the Commonwealth must now consider the future possibility of seeing Peters, the government's chief witness against Tyree, testify once again and risk having him confirm that they CONTINUE TO BELIEVE MENZIE and, we must assume, are forced to NOW BELIEVE WHAT TYREE HAS TOLD (or written) MENZIE. But the letters, IF BELIEVED, will confirm what both Peters (Day 2) and Menzie (Day3, before lunch) have testified about a shotgun. The letters, IF BELIEVED, will exculpate Erik Aarhus from the murder of Elaine Tyree- The letters, IF BELIEVED, will inculpate Earl Michael Peters, primary witness for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against Tyree, in the murder of Elaine Tyree. The transcript show that "the letters" will evidently play a part in the ultimate view of Judge James Killam regarding "...the credibility of [Earl] Michael Peters." Day 3: P. 113, L. 4-5 EARL PETERS AND HIS SHOTGUN - End PART II-c  (Wednesday Jul 16 | post #97)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Statements provided to CID and local authorities by Vias Williams, active at Fort Devens and resident at 104 Washington St., Ayer, Jan. 31 and Feb. 2, 1979: See above, #73, 03/07/14, #2-d and Massachusetts Supreme Court, Case No. SJ-2013-350, Docket #12, Filed 10/03/13  (Wednesday Jul 16 | post #96)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

THE ORDER OF JAMES KILLAM, AYER DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MAY 15, 1979 PART I - ERIK AARHUS AND THE KNIFE (See #28, #33, this blog) Late on Feb. 13, 1979, 2 weeks to the day from the murder of Elaine Tyree, William Tyree and his friend, Sgt. Michael Menzie, called Ayer P.D., informing them that the murder weapon may be found in the on-base room of Erik Aarhus, another Special Forces soldier, Someone also informed the police that the weapon, a knife, was to be found under the pillow of Erik Aarhus. Tyree later firmly denied that he had told the police this latter fact, during the earlier call with Menzie or at any time. Hours later, CID (Army Criminal Investigation Division) Special Agent Paul Mason and others entered Aarhus' room, Mason picked up the pillow on Aarhus' bed and found a knife wrapped in a plastic bag. The knife clearly belonged to Aarhus and had blood thereon matching the blood type of Elaine (no DNA analysis was then available nor performed since). Aarhus was quickly arrested, brought to Ford Devens CID headquarters at the time that Tyree, also at that office, was hand-writing a statement, claiming that he had approached Aarhus at lunch and offered him $5,000 for the return of the knife. According to that statement, at lunch, Aarhus had neither denied nor affirmed guilt in the murder but had indicated that he would attempt retrieval in return for the proffered money. In the order of 05/15/79, Judge Killam first approached the discovery of the bloody knife and declared a core improbability, based on the above facts: "The enlightened suspicion of 'frame' is inescapable." Reasonable minds might well consider the accumulated improbabilities now placed before Judge Killam (a former military officer),accruing to his view for the issue of 'frame'". Consider the person of Erik Aarhus, a young Special Forces soldier, trained in the arts of bodily offense and defense who; 1. Retained, for 2 weeks time, a severely soiled knife- 2. Retained, for 2 weeks time, a knife copiously soiled with blood- 3. Similarly, when that knife was soiled with human blood- 4. Similarly, when that knife was soiled with the blood of a victim who had been murdered by the knife's owner- 5. Stored that knife in an open, insecure area, subject to random discovery- 6. Similarly, while the knife's owner is a 'person of interest' in an ongoing murder investigation by military and civilian authorities, a murder of the person whose blood is arguably similar to that found on the knife. Moreover, Judge Killam was also informed by State Policeman John Dwyer that the knife, 2 months after recovery, did not have the fingerprints of Erik Aarhus thereon. No further inquiry was made by any party as to whether other prints were also found on the knife. END PART I - ERIK AARHUS AND THE KNIFE  (Jun 26, 2014 | post #78)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

DEAR TOPIX, I posted on this thread a few hours ago but it has not appeared. Can you clarify? ANGLETURNER  (Jun 24, 2014 | post #77)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

ON APRIL 11, 2014, THE TYREE DOCKET (SJC-11633) WAS CITED, NOTING THAT THE "RED BRIEF", I.E., THE REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE CLAIMS OF WILLIAM TYREE, WAS DUE ON "04/16/2014 " ON APRIL 24, THE COMMONWEALTH FILED A ONE-PAGE LETTER (DOCKET #13) STATING THAT "THE COMMONWEALTH WILL...NOT BE SUBMITTING A [RED] BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRESENT APPEAL" THE REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THIS FAILURE: "[BECAUSE] THE DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS DO NOT RAISE ANY NEW ISSUES NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED BY THE COMMONWEALTH IT ITS ORIGINAL OPPOSITION." THE LATTER STATEMENT IS KNOWINGLY FALSE. THE LATTER STATEMENT FOLLOWED EVIDENCE RECENTLY SUBMITTED WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN "PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED BY THE COMMONWEALTH" AT ANY TIME. AN ANALYSIS OF THIS JUNCTURE OF FACT AND LAW WILL FOLLOW.  (Jun 23, 2014 | post #75)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

ON MARCH 17, WILLIAM TYREE FILED THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE 6-MEMBER PANEL OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, CASE NO. SJC-11633: DOCKET # 3 - MOTION FOR NON-CONFORMING BRIEF DOCKET #4 - MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT, 79-1383 DOCKET #5 - MOTION FOR ARREST OF EARL MICHAEL PETERS DOCKET #6 - MOTION TO FILE SECOND APPEAL DOCKET #7 - SERVICE OF BRIEFS AND APPENDICIES THE (RED) BRIEF OF THE COMMONWEALTH IS DUE BY APRIL 16.  (Mar 20, 2014 | post #74)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

On February 10, 2014, Case No. SJC-11633, Bill Tyree's request to the highest court of the Commonwealth, was filed before a 6-member panel. Tyree's briefs ask for the following: 1. Find that he was denied counsel when the Commonwealth conducted an ex parte hearing before a single justice in 1979 (SJ-79-279) and failed to so advise him. The Commonwealth succeeded in voiding an arrest warrant against Earl Michael Peters for the first degree murder of Elaine Tyree, Jan. 20, 1979, issued by Judge James Killam, on and after May 15, 1979. The same proceeding decreed that no person was to be charged for her murder without the express permission of a "justice or justices" of the SJC (11/20/79). None of this information was known to Tyree until ca. 1998. 2. The Tyree briefs also includes evidence, in addition to the Killam finding and subsequent to 1979, which identifies Peters as the killer: a) An affidavit by Francis Gardner, Tyree landlord, that he saw Peters walking away from the Tyree residence, shortly after the murder. b) An authenticated letter from Elaine Tyree's father, Floyd (Jack) Hebb to D.A. John Droney, March 4, 1980, in which he related conversations with Peters, during which Peters openly acknowledged "cut[ing] her throat with a knife". c) An affidavit from Eric Aarhus, the co-defendant in the Tyree case, completely exonerating Tyree from any participation in his wife's murder. Aarhus, on 02/13/79, had accused Tyree of offering to pay Aarhus money to kill his wife. d) Available to the court panel is a "Motion to Amend" which cites the testimony and observations of Vias Williams who saw a man run from the Tyree building at the time of the murder. Williams was exposed to 2 or more lineups in which Aarhus had been placed. He failed to identify Aarhus as the man seen on that day. e) Also available is a "MOTION TO RECONSDER.." filed in the Superior court last year, in which perjury and fraud were detailed regarding the search of Aarhus' room by CID (Fort Devens) and Commonwealth police, February 13, 1979. f) The latter is further supported by a recent affidavit by Col. Forest S. Rittgers, Jr. (Ret.), the base commander of Fort Devens at the time of the crimes. This affidavit is also on file in the Superior Court. The Tyree position is that only the SJC can receive charges against the murder of his wife and his submissions charge the court with the duty of proceeding with the evidence provided. Tyree's (blue) brief is due in the court on March 24.  (Mar 7, 2014 | post #73)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

ON JULY 11, A MOTION WAS FILED IN COURT TO DIRECT THAT ENTRY TO SERVICE COMPANY BARRACKS (DEVENS) BY PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TYREE BE AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT (DOCKET # 166) ON JULY 16, THE COURT DENIED THIS MOTION, WITHOUT COMMENT OR LEGAL/PRECEDENTIAL REASONING. THE COMMONWEALTH HAD RAISED NO OBJECTION. ON AUGUST 12, A "MOTION TO RECONSIDER" WAS FILED IN THE COURT, CITING EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD BY BOTH THE CID AND CIVILIAN POLICE FOR THE SEARCH OF AARHUS' ROOM ON FEBRUARY 13, 1979 (DOCKET # 167). THE MOTION ALSO TRACES EVIDENCE OF "CLEAR ERROR" IN THE FAILURE OF BOTH THE COMMONWEALTH, SUPERIOR COURT AND SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT TO ADDRESS A FULLY ADVANCED CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TRANSCRIPT TESTIMONY OF CID AGENT JOSEPH BURZYNSKI AND THAT OF POST COMMANDER COLONEL FOREST S. RITTGERS, JR. ALL 3 OF THE ABOVE WILL BE POSTED ON THE FACEBOOK "FREE BILL TYREE, JR." CITED BY "INTERESTED PERSON" ON JUNE 10, 2013 (#55, ABOVE).  (Aug 19, 2013 | post #57)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

TYREE STATEMENT - P.D. FILE- MID 1979 - PART 5 - MISSPELLINGS, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION SELECTIVELY RETAINED FROM ORIGINAL. BRYNESKI SAID THAT EVERYONE THAT KNEW ME WOULD BELIVE IT, BECUSE THEY KNEW I WAS INVOLVED IN ALL SORTS OF THINGS AND THAT AARHUS HAD JUST GOTTON A "ARTICAL 15" FOR PERJURY SO NO ONE WOULD BELIVE HIM. I TOLD HIM ABOUT THE THREAT[EN]ING PHONE CALLS WE WERE GETTING AND HE SAID HE GUESSED THEY WERE AARHUS (AND SMILED, THEN SORTA WINKED) AND EVEN THOUGHT I KNEW PETERS DID IT, I KNEW AARHUS WAS AROUND, AND FIGURED TO DEAL WITH HIM (PETERS) LATER THAT NIGHT. 1ST SGT HENRY TESTIFIED THAT ELAINE TOLD HIM IN MY ABSENCE THAT SHE HAD RECIVED A THREATINING PHONE CALL HER SELF.) OVER> THIS SHOWS ALONG WITH CHIEF ADAMSON BEING ALMOST CHARGED TWICE WITH "CONTEMPT " FOR TRYING TO GET 2 WITNESS'S AT PROABLE CUSE TO TESTIFIE TO LIES 1- THEY DO TRY AND GET ANYONE THEY CAN TO VERIFIE WHAT EVEN MUST BE VERIFIED EVEN IF IT MEANS TO LIE. THEY ALSO APPROACHED SFC MENZIE AT PROABLE CUSE (THE D.A. DAMICHEALLIS) AND TRYED TO GET HIM TO LIE. (PETERS EVEN SAID DURING THE COURT-MARTIAL TO CPT. CARRIGAN THAT, WHAT HE TOLD CID AND WHAT APPEARED ON TWO STATEMENTS WERE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS, THATS HOW THEY ARE). I HAVE NEVER TESTIFIED SO MY LIE IS STILL SMALL, BUT AFTER I SAW WHAT CID WAS DOING I KNEW I HAD TO COME ACROSS WITH THE TRUTH, AND QUICK, I FIRMLY BELIEVE CID, WAS PLAYING, US ONE AGAINST THE OTHER FIGURING TO GET US ALL, AND ANY WAY I TRULY BELIVED HE KILLED MY WIFE, OR I NEVER WOULD OF WENT TO CID ON AARHUS, I HATE THEM ******, END OF PART 5 END OF TYREE STATEMENT FROM P.D. FILE, MID-1979  (Jun 10, 2013 | post #54)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

TYREE STATEMENT - P.D. FILE - MID 1979-PART 4 MISSPELLINGS, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION SELECTIVELY RETAINED FROM ORIGINAL. THEN IS WHEN BRYNESKI SAID: WE HAVE TO HAVE A REASON FOR THE MURDER WE HAVE THE WEAPON, WE NEED A MO-TIVE, I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW WHY, BRYNESKI SAID DID AARHUS HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR EXTRA-ACTIVITES, (I SMILED, SORTA) I DENIED ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES, HE SAID, "STOP [*****]AROUND "!!!YOUR WIFES DEAD, YOU WANT THIS PIECE OF [****] TO GET AWAY WITH IT! I SAID HE MAY OF, HE SAID HERES HOW WE ARE GOING TO STATE IT HAPPENED," HE WAS BLACKMAILING THREAT[EN] ING, TO TELL US (CID) ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES, AND WHEN YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T PAY HIM ANYMORE, HE WENT TO YOUR APARTMENT THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MURDER THREATENED YOUR WIFE AND TOLD HER THE WHOLE STORY, THE NEXT DAY HE WENT TO YOUR APARTMNT, LET HIMSELF IN WITH A KEY HE HAD MADE FROM WHEN HE BORROWED YOUR TRUCK (SEE I TOLD THEM NO ONE HAD A KEY EXCEPT PETERS,AND MY APARTMNT KEY WAS WITH MY TRUCK KEY, HE (CID)SAID, ANYONE EVER USE MY TRUCK, I TOLD THEM PETERS DID AND THAT I KNEW HE HAD AT ONE TIME, A KEY TO THE APARTMENT THUS WE ARRIVED AT, HIM (AARHUS) BORROWING THE TRUCK AND LIKELY MAKING A KEY. ANYWAY, HE WAS IN THE APT. (OR SO BRYNESKI WANTED IT) ELAINE WALKED IN HE DEMANDED MONEY SHE REFUSED HE KILLED HER. (PRIOR TO HER ARRIVAL HE SEARCHED THE APT. FOR MONEY) AND WENT OUT THE BEDROOM WINDOW. SO (OR ALMOS) MY STATEMENT, READS. HE TOLD ME THEY HAD TO HAVE A STATEMENT FROM ME SO THEY COUD USE IT TO GET A WRITTEN SEARCH WARRENT. AND A MOTIVE FOR THE KILLING BACKED UP BY THE MURDER WEAPON WOULD BE ENOUGH. END PART 4  (May 31, 2013 | post #51)

Ayer, MA

Serving life for Ayer murder, ex-Green Beret sues for las...

TYREE STATMENT - P.D. FILE - MID 1979 PART 3 MISSPELLINGS, GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION SELECTIVELY RETAINED FROM OIGINAL. I RELATED TO HIM [PETERS]WHAT HE HAD TOLD ME, HE (PETER) SAID, AARHUS WAS LYING BECUSE HE WAS JUST IN AARHUS ROOM, AND SEEN AARHUS TAKE THE KNIFE OUT OF A COAT AND PUT IT UNDER THE PILLOW ON HIS BED (I TOLD CID, IT WAS ME THAT SEEN HIM)SO I WENT OUT TO THE FRONT OF SERVICE COMPANY (SVC. CO) TO WAIT FOR CID, CUSE I FIGURED THEY'D COME ON LIKE A GANG BUSTER. WHILE I WAS WAITING, PETERS CAME UP TO ME AND STUCK THE GUN IN MY RIBS AND TOLD ME HOW IT HAPPENED (ELAINE'S DEATH). [INSERTED FROM SIDE] I NEVER MENTIONED WHAT PETERS SAID, BUT I WAS DROPPING HINTS LIKE NO TOMORROW. ANYWAY[,] MENZIE CAME BY, I GOT IN HIS CAR AND WE DROVE UP TO CID, CUSE THE CID HAD ARRIVED AND WERE CONDUCTING A SEARCH AT APPROX. 6:00[.] ONCE IN CID THEY (THEY CID) BRYNESKI TOLD ME TO WRITE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHERE THE WEAPON WAS AT, EVERY THING THAT HAD HAPPENED THAT DAY AND THEN HE CALLED COL. RITTGERS AT THIS TIME HE READ MY STATEMENT HE SAID TO RE-WRITE IT AND ADD THE KNIFE (PETERS SAID WAS IN "1" PLASTIC BAG) WAS IN "2" PLASTIC BAGS. (WELL I SAID AARHUS TOLD ME) SO I PUT AARHUS SAID WHOEVER DID IT PUT IT IN SEVERAL PLASTIC BAGS (2). BEFORE WE WER FINISHED MY STATEMENT READ "AARHUS SAID WHOEVER DID IT PUT IT IN A PLASTIC BAG." I TOLD THEM THAT IT WAS PETERS NOT AARHUS WHO HAD MENTIONED PLASTIC BAGS, THEY SAID AARHUS MIGHT OF TOLD PETERS. IT SOUNDED RESONABLE. I THEN TOLD THEM IT WAS PETERS NOT AARHUS WHO TOLD ME WHERE THE KNIFE WAS, AGAIN THE SAME REPLY, CID BRYNESKI SAID THEY HAD THE WEAPON (IT WAS 6:20 BECUSE I WAS SEATED UNDER THE CLOCK IN THE CID OFFICE) NOT TO WORRY, THAT IT WAS COOL, [INSERT] ADAMSON LATER SAID IT WAS A COOL IDEA. END PART 3  (May 23, 2013 | post #50)