[Sansabelt Savior has long been one of most articulate, intelligent and constructive contributors here on Non-Prophet. Listen up!]
May 12, 2006To all of my friends on Non-Prophet,
For the better part of 18 months, I’ve been battling a wrongful charge (and the subsequent wrongful prosecution) of 2nd degree murder. I’ve done so quietly because lawyers, it seems, possess an innate aversion to media outlets in this town, and because to anger the apparatchiks in the public trust in Colorado Springs is to beg the wrath of a system with unlimited resources and unlimited power.
My attorneys would apparently still have me cower in silence rather than to confront publicly the injustice of my case, but the reality is that the abuses of the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department and the 4th Judicial District Attorney’s office imperil every citizen in our community; moreover, they imperil the principles that underlie our entire system of government. I cannot in good conscience remain silent, whatever the personal cost. And, frankly, I’m tired of being coerced by a powerful system full of dishonorable people.
Because of appellate concerns, I’m still reluctant to discuss the specifics of my case; at any rate I anticipate at least one story to come out shortly, written by a journalist in possession of my discovery documents and perhaps better able than I would be to condense the facts of my case into something accurate and readable. I do feel compelled to publicly and unwaveringly assert my innocence of the horrible crime of which I have been convicted. A young man by the name of Anthony Madril was stabbed once to the heart and died from this wound. Anthony, no doubt, was absolutely undeserving of this fate; the crime of his murder is a vision of all the worst tendencies of human nature. But I had no quarrel with Anthony Madril – I exchanged neither words nor blows with Anthony Madril; I most assuredly did not stab Anthony Madril.
My trial and subsequent conviction has illustrated that a malicious and mendacious prosecution can all too easily direct the vindictive inclinations of a jury just as readily towards the innocent as the guilty. As such, it stands as an urgent call for a legislative check on prosecutors unswayed by basic notions of honesty and fairness, motivated only by their own caprice and arrogance. Convicting and imprisoning an innocent man doesn’t serve the memory of Anthony Madril, it doesn’t serve the interests of the community, and it doesn’t serve the rule of law.
When officials in positions of public trust place the exercise of their own power over the interests of the community, over the service of the truth, they subvert the very law they are pledged to uphold, they attack the values of the constitution they are pledged to protect. In a free and healthy republic, such abuses cannot long stand, for the institutions of democracy and liberty are only as sound as the principles that serve as their foundation.
I encourage everyone to become involved in calling for legal reform, to become involved in the local politics which so gravely affect the conduct of local police and local prosecutors. I will be doing everything in my power to push for such reform, whether in prison or free. I beg you to help in this important fight. I also encourage you to support your local chapter of the ACLU.
Todd Newmiller
aka sansabelt saviorP.S. On a more personal note, for those who care to know, I’m currently residing in the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center, in one of the maximum security wards. I spend most of my time either reading or writing and trying desperately to choose inner peace and compassion and hope in the face of much frustration and emotional chaos. Your positive thoughts, prayers, meditations, etc. are all greatly appreciated.
San,
You are in my prayers, we have had many decent discussions. Let me know how you are doing.
Posted by: Andy | May 21, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Yesterday, Todd Newmiller was sentenced to 31 years in prison.
For more details, check out the story at:
http://www.highplainsmessenger.com/2006/05/newmiller_gets_31_years_for_st.php
Posted by: Yeltsin | May 25, 2006 at 12:27 PM
I wish Sansabelt the strength to deal with these difficult times. You are in my thoughts.
Posted by: Non-Prophet | May 25, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Sad, very sad.
My thoughts are with you my friend.
Posted by: wob | May 26, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Although Todd is absolutely correct about the system and it's penchant for gaining convictions regardless of guilt, no one spoke up and said that some one else did the crime. No one else spoke up in Todd's defense until it became clear he might be convicted. No one had any information as to how the crime occured and no one pressent seemed to be responsible. Anthony Madril certainly did not stab himself in the heart. Some one did the crime and now the guilty party must do the time. We extend our prayers for Todd for his salvation and repentance and at the same time pray that he serves the time that he so well deserves. If he is not guilty of the crime then we certainly will be just as eager to extend our personal support as he rebuilds his life. Until that time might come, we will support the decision of his peers and laud them for their service to our community. If some one else is guilty of this crime we exhort them to step up to the plate and and be a man. They should take the medicine they so justly deserve; this applies to Todd Newmiller as well. In the end justice will surely be served and the guilty party will be exposed for all to see.
Posted by: Brent Cole and the Moreno family in Dallas, cousins of Anthony Madril | May 27, 2006 at 09:59 AM
Our criminal justice system is not designed to seek truth or justice. Lawyers are paid only to argue to get the best outcome for their own client. This very often leads to prosecuting the innocent, making deals with the guilty to futher that end, or conversely, arguing for the innocence of the guilty. Unless the previous poster is referring to the un-erring justice of the Almighty, I would argue that it is far more likely that in this life, justice will *not* necessarily be served. I would be willing to bet that in the end the guy with the best lawyers will win. I was not privy to the full documents of the trial, so I cannot second guess the jury's decision. I can only say that I find the crime to be suspiciously out of character for the person I came to know on this blog.
Posted by: Nate | May 27, 2006 at 02:03 PM
What I know about Todd is this - He says he didn't commit the crime, and he defends his innocence. He didn't see who did, and refuses to pretend otherwise. Some would call that integrity.
I don't know what happened that night. I wasn't there. Nor do I know Todd beyond this blog. But I am deeply troubled by those who would indiscriminately point to Todd's past (nonviolent) indiscretions as proof of a "double life". Who among us doesn't have skeletons in the closet? And I am deeply troubled by the fact that the majority of witnesses that night claim that Todd NEVER got close to Anthony. That is was Brad Orgill who fought with Anthony. That it was Brad Orgill who was given immunity by the DA if he testified against Todd.
One has to wonder if the DA was interested in getting the right man, or just in padding the politcal resume with an arbitrary conviction. It is a question that deserves to be asked.
Posted by: Zen | May 27, 2006 at 04:08 PM
As Anthonys aunt, who sat through the whole trial , I find it insulting to our family that people could comment on Todd Newmillers innocence. They do not know the facts, the evidence or testimony. I believe that alcohol played a big part in the memories of certain individuals that night, to the point of uncertainty. On the other hand others recalled very well what happened because of the lack of alcohol. Forensic evidence, testimony, and confession all played a huge part in Mr. Newmillers conviction.... Anthonys blood was found on his knife. In his own words ( which we heard) he told a friend of his that he was "popped" a couple of times that night but denied ever being in a fight. His own brother testified against him, even though he now says that he lied because he didnt believe his brother stabbed anybody, and that he didnt think his statement would " be an issue". His attorneys tried to make it look like it could have been anybody , even some "ghost" person wandering the fields out there that killed Anthony. Give me a break! I also recall a statement that was not allowed into court, about Mr. Newmillers lack of remorse. I truely find it hard to believe that he has any now, other than the fact that he did get convicted of a crime this crime. I believe that the ElPaso county sheriffs department and the district attorneys office proved their case. The jury made this decision based on the evidence presented to them and it pointed directly to Mr. Newmiller. Ultimately nobody will know exactly what happened that night except Anthony, Mr. Newmiller and The Almighty. We sympathize with the Newmiller family and understand their pain, only ours is tenfold... at least Todd still lives. Anthony was a vital part of many lives. Due to the neglegence and a total lack of respect for life, that was taken from all who knew him. We believe justice has been served!
Posted by: | June 01, 2006 at 01:42 AM
Just to let anybody know
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 01, 2006 at 03:38 AM
I am Todd Newmiller’s father.
Todd and his family appreciate the open discussion that has appeared here, and we wish to encourage all who seek the truth in this case.
We’ve long been certain of Todd’s innocence, not only because we believe in Todd’s goodness, but also because we’ve read the police reports, reviewed witness statements, and sat through all the preliminary hearings as well as the trial. We didn’t speak publicly on the advice of Todd’s attorneys, who believed that our system of justice would not fail. However, we did everything we could to make known to the authorities that Todd was innocent. Todd even directed his attorney to warn Amy Mullaney, the prosecutor handling the case at the time, that she should complete the investigation before cutting a deal with Brad Orgill, who everyone knows was the only person seen fighting with Anthony that night. Todd’s attorney outlined for Amy Mullaney and Lead Investigator Jeff Nohr how Chisum Lopez had Todd under observation as Brad and Anthony started fighting, how Chas Schwartz saw Anthony and Brad fight across the street away from Todd and the others, how Brad was covered with Anthony’s blood, and how Anthony emerged from his fight with Brad saying he’d just been stabbed. All of this information is contained in official police reports. Nevertheless Mullaney decided to cut an early deal with Brad, and thus eliminate any motivation for further investigation of his culpability. Since the guilty verdict was returned, we’ve decided to tell our story in the public forum, believing that as more light is shed on this case, it will illuminate Todd’s innocence.
We have in our possession a .pdf file of law-enforcement reports (almost 1500 pages long), commonly called “discovery.” We also have transcripts of video statements Chas Schwartz and Chisum Lopez made to police in the hours after Anthony was stabbed. We are in the process of securing videotapes of all eye-witness accounts made by the Sheriff investigators. These official records contain a great amount of exculpatory evidence that points away from Todd as Anthony’s assailant. We are glad to make any and all of these materials available to those who wish to see these source documents.
Finally, I want to reiterate the deep sympathy we have for the family and friends of Anthony Madril. We cannot fathom the depths of your loss. We know, however, that had circumstances been reversed that night, had Todd been stabbed, we would want to know the truth of what happened. We think that the family and friends of victims are the most deserving of truth. And we encourage those who would defend Todd’s innocence to keep in mind always that the search for the truth of what happened that terrible night ultimately has to do with justice for Anthony. We in Todd’s family are further certain that justice for Anthony will mean exoneration for Todd.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 01, 2006 at 07:48 AM
if newmiller did not do it how did he did? Anthony Madril did not do it to him self you would have to be fucking dumb as a rock for that one! newmiller is 32-33 years old Anthony was only 23! he is dead!
to todd newmiller you will be about 64 when you get out how do you feel about that? cuz im fucking happy. and dont talk about the system! and just cuz your friends say you did not do it aint shit!
to the dad! his good-ness? ok then (a killer is a killer is a killer) thats so good dont you think!?
Posted by: matt k. | June 04, 2006 at 06:47 AM
From all the press reports I read (online newspapers like the one in the Denver Post) it really seems like the witnesses admitted that Todd wasn't even close to Mr Madril, but that another man was - and that man got immunity for testifying against Todd. I can understand why Mr. Madril's family and friends would want this all settled as quickly as possible, but I'm sure they would also want to make sure the right guy pays the price. On a personal note, a friend of mine was killed at age 24 by a drunk driver. The drunk driver lived, and since she was the only witness, she said my friend ran the red light and she walked free. Only one person knows the truth of what happened that night and it was very frustrating to my friend's parents. At least there is a chance in Mr Madril's case to come to the truth, if all the evidence is brought before a jury. It doesn't seem like all of it came out to me, am I wrong?
Posted by: Nate | June 04, 2006 at 09:05 AM
The eyewitness accounts by Anthony's friends clearly indicate that:
1. Todd and Anthony are never together.
2. Anthony and Brad Orgill are fighting with each other across the road from where Todd and Chisum Lopez face each other.
3. After the fight Anthony is bleeding from his chest and says that he just got stabbed.
4. Brad Orgill is covered with Anthony's blood.
5. Todd's clothing does NOT have any blood from Anthony.
If you were investigating this crime, would you suspect the killer to be the person who was fighting with Anthony and covered with his blood, or to be the person who was in a stare-down with Chisum? The tragedy of Anthony's death is that an innocent person was prosecuted and convicted, and that the person who fought brutally with Anthony and the last person with him before his fatal wounding is free.
Matt, if you wish to see the police documentation that confirms everything I've written here, I'll be pleased to send it to you.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 04, 2006 at 09:14 AM
Peace to you, Matt K. I'm sorry you are so angry. But for the grace of God go you.
Posted by: Zen | June 05, 2006 at 12:27 AM
I would love to see the PDF files backing up what Mr. Newmiller says but, we all know he would make it available if he actually had it. If he was in possession of such evidence that clears his son then he would post it on a webpage for anyone to download. After all he is an Ex-FBI guy and Air Force Academy professor right? I think the AFA should reconsider who they have teaching our young men and women if Professor Newmiller is so stupid as to tell one son to rat the other one out by telling the police his brother stabbed a guy. It seems no one in this whole family can tell the truth. What a croc of shit these people are spewing all because of this sociopath of a son they reared. Bill Newmiller sounds somewhat delusional just like his murdering, lying, peice of shit son Todd (AKA Stabber Todd AKA Sansabelt Savior) What the hell is that name all about? Hey Bill, how about talking about the other problems your stabber son had with the police like when they had to mace him after a high speed chase to your house. Get a life Bill Newmiller! That is more than Antony Madril has. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Larry | June 05, 2006 at 04:34 PM
While I do not moderate this forum, nor do I delete comments I would at this point like to ask all parties to refrain from slinging insults. This is a highly charged topic and I think it would be best if it was approached with compassion and respect, especially in light of the tremendous loss that has been felt on both sides.
Posted by: Non-Prophet | June 05, 2006 at 04:47 PM
Hey Bill Newmiller!
What about your younger son( the one you told to lie to the police about Todd Stabbing someone) Can we dicsuss the rumored criminal record about stealing an assuault weapon. If I am incorrect please tell me or, you could just lie. You are proficient at that. You said someone else was covered in blood. Do you have a statement or recording saying that. IF you don't you might want to shut your fucking mouth before you get sued.
Posted by: Larry | June 05, 2006 at 04:50 PM
I will be nicer and kinder but,,,,,,, Bill Newmiller better be very careful from this point forward about his accusations and and inferences ( we know he lies he said so) or I will continue publishing more information that he or his family members might find emabarrasing. Peace be with you Mr. Bill and rmemeber the old Buddist saying:
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.
CAO
Posted by: Larry | June 05, 2006 at 05:03 PM
Larry,
I understand your anger, but it's been directed against the wrong people. I do appreciate your request for documentation to back up what I've said here, and I'm pleased with your willingness to read it. I am sending an email to you that contains some of the evidence I refer to. I cannot send or post the entire PDF file because it is over 60 megs in size.
The email I'm sending to you has in PDF format transcripts of the police interviews conducted with Anthony's companions the night he was stabbed, Chas Schwartz and Chisum Lopez. These interviews were conducted within 48 hours of Anthony's death.
In these interviews, Chisum says he exited Chas's truck first and is immediately confronted by Todd (the tall guy in the leather jacket). At the time Chisum returns to the truck, Chas says that he sees Anthony fighting fiercely with Brad (described as the "big heavy-set, fat guy") in front of his truck. At this time Anthony is defending himself well, and he shouts to his friends "It's on, it's on," while the fight moves to the opposite side of the street. Chas sees Anthony and Brad fall to the street and when Anthony stands back up, he's bleeding. Anthony tells Chas "I just got stabbed."
These interviews are not my words; they are those of Anthony friends. They were simply reporting to police what happened that night, and they had no motivation to lie.
Larry, if you provide me with a mailing address, I'll send you the entire 60+ meg file on a CD. This file contains the official police reports that were available to the attorneys on both sides in this case.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 05, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Wow.
Posted by: NNon-Prophet | June 05, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Bill:
I suspected you would want to send out only the evidence you want me to see. Send me the whole file or shut up. 60 meg is not a big deal. It is 2006 Mr. Professor and you sir are a manipulator just like your stabber son. Face the truth and raise your other son better so you don't have two prisoners to visit each month
Posted by: Larry | June 05, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Actually, Larry, 60 meg is a big deal for email or web download. Many email accounts limit attachments to a couple megs or less. Many email servers limit users to space less than 60 megs. Maybe I'm not completely up-to-date on the latest technology, so if someone here has a workaround, I'll give a try. Otherwise, give me a mailing address, Larry, and I'll send you the CD.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 05, 2006 at 08:35 PM
Bill - If you would like, I can store that 60MB PDF file on a publically accessible FTP server that I control for a month or two -- no charge. That way you can direct people to the FTP site where they can freely download the file as they see fit.
If the original file isn't locked, I can probably compress the file size a bit too.
As long as this is freely available public information, let's get it out there. You can email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this further.
Posted by: Zen | June 05, 2006 at 09:57 PM
For the record, Larry's email is shown as an AOL account.
From the
AOL postmaster FAQ:
6. What is the maximum e-mail message size that AOL Members can accept from the Internet?
The largest piece of e-mail that an AOL member can accept from or send to the Internet is 16 megabytes. This includes the message text, headers and the attachment combined. This size cannot be configured by the Member, or adjusted by the Postmaster.
Posted by: Nate | June 06, 2006 at 04:29 AM
Here are the facts as of today on this lively exchange about evidence and guilt in case of convicted killer/stabber(and felony eluder)Todd Newmiller
1. If I can receive only 16 mega bites then it would seem to reason that Professor Bill Newmiller would simply need to send me about 4 emails.
2. It also seems that they (Stabber Lovers and yes this includes you Craig) are trying to move the discussion to the capacity of the AOL email system instead of the truth.
3. I read the 3 transcripts sent to me by Bill Newmiller of the two friends of Anthony Madril and they do not support what Bill Newmiller says. Not even close! The same fat guy he describes has balck hair in one transcript and is bald in the other two. I agree Bill, you should hang you defense hat on this info for sure ,,,,,,not!
As I have said in earlier posts, send me all the info or shut up. By the way Todd got some more time added I understand for his prior offenses.
Posted by: Larry | June 06, 2006 at 08:34 AM
Thanks to those of you who have offered to host the files Larry and I have been discussing. Until something can be worked out for hosting the material, I'll gladly email anyone who wishes to see them the files I sent to Larry. You can decide for yourselves if Larry's interpretation or mine is more reasonable. I can also provide a crime scene analysis published by the the Colorado Springs Metro Forensics unit. It acknowledges that Brad was fighting with Anthony, that Brad was covered in Anthony's blood, and that Brad cannot be ruled out as the assailant. This report was done in January of this year, almost 10 months after Brad was given a deferred sentence, which placed him beyond prosecution for the crime. Jason Melick, another witness that night, also reports that Brad fights with a person wearing a blue shirt and glasses--that night Anthony wore a blue shirt and glasses.
I must say that I cannot understand why mailing a CD to Larry is apparently an unacceptable mode of transmission.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 06, 2006 at 09:35 AM
...and I must say that I resent any suggestion that I am a 'Stabber Lover' simply because I stated that the facts of the case (what I have read about them in the news) seem to suggest that there might be some question as to Todd's guilt, or because I have read Todd's posts here in the past (under the moniker 'Sansabelt Saviour') and found them to be generally thoughtful, coherent, and intelligent. I do not condone fighting much less murder, or for that matter - strip clubs.
Posted by: Nate | June 06, 2006 at 12:25 PM
What is the hold up in posting Bill? You have a free offer for an FTP site. Why do you only want to send out the 3 interviews you sent me. What did those two boys have to say at the trial? You were there right? You really want my address bad don't you? I have heard about your family and friends of your family so I don't think that would be a good idea given the amount of felony activity in your group. How about you email me some more info or better yet just simply post it all so everyone can read it nad make up their own minds. By the way, how long have you known Rick Tosches? He seems to have taken over for the Todd supporters at the High Plains Messenger. You people are relentless at spinning this story through every media outlet that Todd's friends work at. I wonder why 12 Jurors seen the same evidence and sent Todd Newmiller to Prison for 31 years? Can you answer that?
Posted by: Larry | June 06, 2006 at 02:25 PM
Hey Larry... what's you're motivation in all this? We know Bill's motivation -- he's Todd's father. And he's probably doing what any father would do.
Where's your place in all this? You have a side to the story too.
Posted by: Zen | June 06, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Mr. Newmiller,
You might try sending your information to Larry at the following address:
1550 Owl Ridge Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Posted by: Amicus Curiae | June 06, 2006 at 03:48 PM
IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and I have a few questions: I think it's a fair question to ask that if there is a lot of evidence pointing to Todd's innocence and it's so obvious and glaring - why did the jury convict? Did the jury have access to all the evidence that Mr. Newmiller has on his CD or was some of it witheld, and if so, why? Is there any basis for an appeal? I'm supposing there would be if there was evidence that wasn't seen by the first jury? What are the legal ramifications regarding any possible appeal of releasing all the info to the media? Wouldn't it predjudice the next jury? It seemed that the judge was pretty harsh to the defendants in the excerpts I read. Was the victim latino? The judge's last name was Martinez, right? Is it possible that there was some unspoken feeling in that courtroom that there was a racial motivation for the attack? It certainly didn't come out in the News, I just got that feeling for some reason. OK - here come the flame wars on Nate.
Posted by: Nate | June 06, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Mr. Newmiller-
I sincerely respect your situation and can not imagine the pain that you and your family are experiencing, it must be terrible. I’m so sorry for you, truly I am. But please don’t take these readers for fools. It’s disrespectful. It’s also disrespectful and quite insulting to the jurors whose civic duty it was to listen to all testimony (over two weeks worth), review all of the findings (over eight hours of deliberation) , and finally render a verdict on matters of FACT. Judge Martinez adequately instructed the jury on the seriousness of the charges and all evidence from BOTH sides was made available, including the discovery. Don’t misquote the discovery with half-truths. Don’t leave out important points from the court’s findings. Twelve well informed jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Todd was guilty. The prosecution proved four simple points.
1. Todd confessed to two of his friends and his brother that he might have stabbed someone that night.
2. Two of Todd’s friends watched him wash and clean his folding combat knife and stood by as Todd burned his shirt and other clothing after the “fight”
3. Investigators (crime scene experts) say Todd was the only one that had the opportunity to stab Madril.
4. Forensic evidence shows that Madril’s DNA\blood was found on Todd’s knife (the murder weapon).
I believe your statements about the prosecution granting immunity are misleading. Todd’s friends were charged with accessory to murder and plead guilty to felony charges. They were not granted immunity to testify in this case. As a matter of fact, the poor guy that you’re making slanderous statements about made his statement before he was even charged. Maybe the DA was lenient on him because he came forward and told the truth of his own free will. If I recall correctly, Todd’s brother was the only witness that the DA granted immunity to. This immunity deal was given in exchange for his testimony against Todd.
Mr. Newmiller the horrible truth has already been told. It’s undeniable. Yes it’s sad for the Newmiller family, but what’s more sad is the grief suffered by the Madril family. Illusive stories written by opinion columnists and stories that over-state the facts not only insult the truth, but they stir emotions and impede the healing process. This terrible tragedy has destroyed so many lives and I pray that you and your family may one day reconcile with the truth.
I offer my sincerest sympathy to the Newmiller and Madril families. May God be with you all.
A Friend of the Truth
P.S. Mr. Newmiller- please share the discovery documents online. Zen has made a graceful offer to host the documents or I think you can host them yourself for $5-10 per month.
Posted by: The Truth | June 06, 2006 at 05:28 PM
Mr. Newmiller:
Where is a copy of Todd's statement to the police? Could you send that to me please?
Posted by: Larry | June 07, 2006 at 07:18 AM
To everyone—apologies for such a long post. I could write a book, and probably will….
Nate,
You ask many good questions; I’ll do my best to respond honestly and responsibly. We were stunned by the jury’s verdict. We thought that Todd’s defense was strong. Since the trial, of course, we’ve given a lot of thought to how we could have lost a case where there was so much exculpatory evidence. In retrospect, I think the defense made three major mistakes: 1) Todd, on the advice of his attorneys didn’t testify on his own behalf, 2) we didn’t retain a medical expert to explain why it is implausible for someone who has just been stabbed in both the right and left ventricles of his heart, to enter into a fierce fight with someone else, 3) we didn’t retain a memory expert who could have explained the false memories consistent with court testimony, memories that are influenced by subsequent events, alcohol, and in at least one case—coerced—recollections that the prosecution claimed to be confessions. What the prosecutors claimed to be confessions is considered hearsay in every other instance in court.
The information on the CD was used by both the prosecutor and the defense; however, the CD contains almost 1500 pages, more than could have been read during the three weeks of the trial. Necessarily, some things get greater emphasis and other things receive less. It’s difficult to know exactly what the jury was thinking, how well they understood the technical evidence, what moved them emotionally. I believe Brian Arnot at the High Plains Messenger is planning to do a piece that will address some of these issues.
Regarding the wisdom of posting the entire discovery online, Nate, you raise a point of caution that I’d be irresponsible not to consider. I’ve noticed that the bottom of each page is marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” That gives me pause as I don’t want to do anything that is illegal or that might damage Todd’s chances for appeal.
Concerning appeal, we’ve retained an appellate attorney, but the process is a very slow and technical process. It will be months before our attorney will be able to assess the grounds that we have for appeal. As it turns out, appeals depend upon procedural errors during the trial. An appeal is not the kind of “do-over” that many might think it to be.
Concerning Judge Martinez, I was present at Todd’s sentencing, and I don’t think he was harsh in his comments to Todd. We hoped for greater leniency, but we appreciated his acceptance of Todd’s maintaining innocence.
Finally, none of us think that ethnicity was an issue in the trial. The prosecutors, however, did try to inject economic status into the trial; though we are solidly in the middle class (less solidly now with all these legal costs), the prosecutors tried to paint us as wealthy people who would waste money defending our son.
For “The Truth”: Much of what I’ve written to Nate responds to questions you raise, but there are a few loose ends:
1. I’d like to know the source of your information, because it is inconsistent with the sheriff’s department’s own reports.
2. See what I’ve mentioned to Nate regarding what you call “confessions.”
3. Todd did not wash and clean his knife. Brad suggested that he wipe it with a wet Kleenex, which he did demonstrating that there was no blood on the knife. Had the knife been used to stab Anthony, surely there would have been blood on it, and that blood would have been transferred to his pockets where the knife was kept. Anthony’s blood was not found in or on any of Todd’s clothing.
4. A report written by Jeff Saviano and Kimberly Bjorndahl (of the Colorado Springs Metro Forensics Laboratory) in January of this year states that Brad Orgill can not be ruled out as the person who stabbed Anthony. None of the witnesses that night ever saw Todd near Anthony, everyone reported seeing Brad with Anthony, fighting, and Brad’s clothing (the items he did not burn) were covered with Anthony’s blood. Everything that Brad touched—his seat in the vehicle, the person who sat next to him in the vehicle, the door handle, etc.—became stained with Anthony’s blood.
5. Det Richar of the Sheriff’s Department inspected Todd’s knife closely shortly after Anthony was stabbed. He noted that the knife had debris on it, but no blood was noted. In February 2005 all evidence was sent to the state crime lab. When they opened the evidence in May, the knife was missing. It was discovered in the Sheriff’s evidence room in Colorado Springs. When the knife eventually found its way to the state crime lab, it no longer had the debris Det Richar’s noted. But it now had a microscopic amount of blood on it that tested to be Anthony’s. There are many ways that this small amount of blood could have arrived on the knife. That it was transferred some time after Anthony’s stabbing is supported by the facts that there was no blood in the mechanism of the knife or in the channel for the blade, there was none of Anthony’s blood on Todd’s clothing, none in his pockets where the knife was kept. Forensic testing determined that this was blood that was transferred to the knife, not blood resulting from it coming in direct contact with the source. The testing was done by Technical Associates and presented at trial by expert witness Elizabeth Johnson, Ph.D. There was a hearing one day prior to the start of jury selection regarding the fact that the evidence on the knife was altered. Todd’s defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Martinez indicated that he was greatly concerned about it, but obviously did not dismiss the case against Todd and did not grant any sanctions regarding the irregularities noted.
6. I don’t believe I ever stated that Brad was given immunity. He was given a plea bargain in exchange for testifying against Todd. The plea, in turn, has placed him off-limits for further prosecution. The same is true for Mike Lee. In Brad’s case, the plea bargain was made many months before the investigation was completed, even before his bloody clothing was sent for testing.
7. I have slandered no one. I have simply repeated here information that was collected by Sheriff’s investigators and testimony given in court.
8. I appreciate your sympathy, but the truth we have to reconcile is that our son is serving 31 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 07, 2006 at 08:03 AM
So I guess we can not get the evidence that Mr. Bill Newmiller promised. I figured as much. We will just have to trust that he repeats it correctly and in full context. I think the freedom of information act would make this evidence public information. Let me see if I can get it and post it. Is the FTP offer good for me to Zen?
Posted by: Larry | June 07, 2006 at 08:39 AM
Larry,
Thank you for your request for Todd’s statement. It gives me a chance to explain how the investigation of Anthony’s death got off track early in the process.
On the afternoon of November 20, about 12 hours after Anthony died, Sheriff’s Detective Brad Shannon called our house and spoke with my wife. He said that our sons were witnesses to a stabbing death and needed to speak to the police. He explained that Brad Orgill had stabbed and killed someone.
I need to explain to everyone here that I’ve spent my entire life under an oath to “protect and defend” our Constitution. I believe that it is a sacred duty to exercise the rights granted to citizens of this great country, one of which is the right to legal counsel when being questioned by the police. We immediately arranged for legal counsel. This insistence on exercising a Constitutional right did not sit well with Detective Shannon, who told us that if our sons didn’t speak without counsel, they would be considered suspects rather than witnesses. It was a threat the authorities made good four days later when Todd was charged with Anthony’s murder.
Please keep in mind that Brad, who was fighting with Anthony, was the only person in his group who knew what happened that night. He spoke to police right away and using the knowledge that only he had, pointed the police away from himself and to Todd as the stabber. He also lied to the police and stated that the jeans he was wearing were the ones he had worn the previous night, knowing full well that he had burned his jeans covered in Anthony’s blood that he wore in his fight with Anthony.
After Todd had counsel, the police would not talk with him. Todd was never given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. If he had, though, true to his integrity, he would not have made suppositions and accusations. It simply isn’t in his nature. It quite honestly was months before Todd accepted the fact that Brad was painting him as the perpetrator, since Todd tends to believe that others have his same sense of integrity.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 07, 2006 at 08:40 AM
Larry--regarding the posting of the evidence: I just want to be sure that the issues Nate raised are addressed.
By the way, did you ever answer Zen's question about your connection here?
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 07, 2006 at 08:43 AM
Larry -- my offer is to post the 60+ MB document Bill says he has - provided that it is in fact public information - and to publish the link to said document here only. It is not my intention to publicize the availability of said document outside of this forum.
However, I did not know that the documents were stamped "official use only", and I do not know how Bill came to possess them in the first place. Given that, I would highly recommend that Bill talk to his son's lawyers first. We can all bitch and moan and attack each other all the live long day over this, but in the end, none of it is going to get Todd an appeal or new trial. But if Bill jeopardizes the case by posting official information online illegally, it could very well cost him one. Being that he is Todd's father, I certainly understand his hesitancy. I would do the same.
The offer could be extended to you as well, but only if you first come clean with your identity, and your motivation in all this. I don't think that's too much to ask. I will not post anything without an identity to link it to.
Posted by: Zen | June 07, 2006 at 05:41 PM
I COMMEND TODD NEWMILLERS FAMILY FOR STANDING BY HIM.UNFORTUNETLY HE IS A MURDERER. YOU PROCLAIM HIS INNOCENCE, AT THE SAME TIME YOU CONVICT HIM. I BELIEVE JOEL NEWMILLERS STATEMENT... I SLASHED A TIRE ... AND I STABBED ONE OF THEM, WAS THE CLOSING CASE AGAINST YOUR SON. HE THEN SAID THAT HE LIED .... HE NEVER SAID,I SLASHED A TIRE , AND I STABBED ONE OF THEM, JOEL SAID THAT TODD SAID, I SLASHED A TIRE, I STABBED ONE OF THEM, REFERING TO THE TIRE, I DIDNT BELIEVE TODD KILLED ANYDBODY SO I DIDNT THINK IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE, IN AN INTERVIEW TO THE DENVER POST. I LIED BECAUSE I DIDNT THINK IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE, WOULD THAT NOT BE CONSIDERED PURGERY?? ANTHONYS BLOOD WAS FOUND ON TODD NEWMILLERS KNIFE. WAS THIS A FIGMANT OF IMAGINATION?? I THINK NOT. THE BLOOD SPATTER EVIDENCE POINTS TO A FIGHT BEFORE ANTHONY AND ORGILL GOT INTO A FIGHT, IN THE PARKING LOT.THE TESTIMONY OF CHAZ(WHO WAS SOBER) CLAIMS HE DID NOT SEE ANTHONY WITH ANY BLOOD AT THAT POINT,(WHEN ORGILL AND MADRIL STARTED FIGHTING)ANTHONY WAS STABBED IN THE PARKING LOT) WHERE THE FIGHT STARTED...EXPERTS SAID THAT HE COULD STILL LIVE AT THIS POINT,WITH MINIMAL BLOOD LOSS BECAUSE HE WAS BLEEDING INTO HIS CHEST CAVITY. YOU ALL TRIED TO BLAME THIS ON HIS ASTHMA/ A BLOODY NOSE WHICH WE PROVED HE DIDNT HAVE, GIVE IT UP!! I BELIEVE CHISMS TESTIMONY WAS DISTORTED TO THE FACTS AS WERE OTHER PERSONS UNDER THE INFLUENCE THAT NIGHT.( TO INCLUDE NEWMILLER AND HIS PARTY) EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE TRIED TO MAKE ANTHONY LOOK LIKE A SISSY HE WAS A VERY HEALTHY YOUNG MAN DESPITE HIS ASTHMA. ANTHONY DID NOT FIGHT IN VAIN THAT NIGHT...HE KICKED ASS.. TOO BAD HE DIDNT KICK THE RIGHT ASS, BELIEVE ME MR. NEWMILLER, WITHOUT THE KNIFE... HE WOULD HAVE BEAT YOURS!!!!! YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS KNOW THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT WAS WHAT CONVICTED YOU AND NOT WRONGLY, YOU HAD THE KNIFE THE OPPORTUNITY, AND THE STUPIDITY TO DO IT, I HOPE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE TO BE SOMEBODYS PRISION BITCH... TO MR. BILL NEWMILLER, I ONCE AGAIN APPLAUDE YOU AND YOUR WIFE ON YOUR COMMITMENT TO YOUR SON. THERE WAS NO COMMENT ON THE MADRILS SIDE AS TO YOUR WEALTH, WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THAT?? YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BROUGHT THE EDUCATION AND POSSIBILITY OF WEALTH TO THE COURTS ATTENTION,SPEAK IN DUMMIES TERMS NEXT TIME OK. DO YOU THINK WE WANT THAT FROM YOU??? YOU ARE MISTAKEN , WE ONLY WANT JUSTICE. WE STILL DONT HAVE THAT.. WE WOULD HAVE CAPITOL PUNNISHMENT
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 08, 2006 at 02:41 AM
To the truth,
The Madril very much respects the opinion you have given. It depicts the truth ,and in this case we appreciate it very much. Bill Newmiller was never in the courtroom as this trail proceeded, he is only going by police statements that his sons defense has made, he has never seen Todds cockiness his arrogance through-out the trial, it made us (the Madril family) sick to know that he could possibly get away with murder. It was like a circus show to us at points. I do have to say that it brought us all back down to earth when Mr. Newmiller was sentenced, because we do understand his familys pain, heratache, and dissapointment. Under different circumstances, Im sure there could have been a friendship between familys. Once again I will state .... it is so sad that two lives touched for such a short amount of time and they ended up like this!!!!
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 08, 2006 at 03:48 AM
Mr. Bill Newmiller,
Do you think you have the ultimate right to defend our constitution?? We are also citezens of the USA, we pay the retirtement you get every month. Unfortunately we also get to pay for the time your son spends in jail. I would like for you to explain to me exactly how you gave one son up for another, knowing full well as an ex- FBI agent that a confession from one son to another would not end in a conviction. You are not giving all of the details to theses people that should be known about your sons conviction ............... just like you said were not total truths in court. Were you there???in court I mean?? Did you hear the testimony, did you see the pictures??? ... No I think not. Like I said .. I commend you on your sons defense, but at some point you have to believe what is put before you
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 08, 2006 at 05:20 AM
New story up at www.highplainsmessenger.com
Posted by: Brian Arnot | June 08, 2006 at 09:15 AM
Linda: It seems that two separate people posted under your name. The first post deserves no response, however I would like to follow up on the second: I find it strange that Mr. Newmiller would not have attended his son's trial. Is this statement true? Was he absent for the entire trial, or some days of it? If he was absent, does that change anything if he has read all the transcripts and eyewitness statements? Also, I fail to see how Todd's alleged 'cockiness' or 'arrogance' at trial has any place in this discussion. I've read that Todd didn't even testify, so you must be referring to body language? Isn't it possible that since you are convinced of his guilt you may have 'misread' his behavior?
So far the only coherent response to Mr. Newmiller's points has been from 'The Truth' who didn't identify himself, or his sources, and didn't respond when Mr. Newmiller replied refuting his arguments.
Personally, I find the statement by the 'juror' to be shocking. It seems unfair that Todd would end up with a jury of stupid people... aren't we supposed to be tried by a jury of our peers?
Posted by: Nate | June 08, 2006 at 01:01 PM
It's true that I wasn't present for most of the trial, not by choice, but because the prosecution prohibited me from attending it. Before the trial began, the District Attorney's office subpoenaed me as a witness for the prosecution. I think it was simply out of mean-spiritedness because the prosecution never called me to the stand. Prior to the start of the trial the court ruled that witnesses would be barred from attending the trial. This is a normal safeguard to keep witnesses from being influenced by the testimony of those who precede them to the stand. However, as I said earlier, the prosecution never actually called me as a witness. When the defense's turn came, our attorneys decided to call me to the stand themselves (taking advantage of the prosecution's subpoena) to counter the prosecution's innuendo about how retaining legal counsel is something only a guilty party would do. At that time, the prosecution actually objected to my being called to the stand, but they were over-ruled. Once I had testified on the last day of the trial, the prosecution released me from their subpoena and allowed me to remain for what little of the trial was left.
I do need to point out, though, that in addition to Todd, my wife (a licensed marriage and family therapist) and daughter (an internal medicine physician) were present for every session of the trial. Whenever I post anything here about the trial, they are the the first-person sources that are used. Additionally, throughout the last year and half, I've closely monitored all the developments in this case, working closely with Todd, his attorneys, and with private investigators we've retained. We are absolutely doing our best to present accurate factual support in a rational and respectful way because we know the truth is on our side.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 08, 2006 at 01:42 PM
Nate,
This does not surprise me in the least. When's the last time you were called for jury duty?
I was called about a year ago, I didn't have to serve, but what I observed is how blaze' people are about the whole thing. It disgusts me. They don't want to be there, they bitch all the time, they think that the defendant is guilty and needs to prove their innocence, etc.
This all leads to the root problem of this country in many ways: The notion of Civic Duty is DEAD, including people who have to serve on a jury. They are also exteremely uneducated, or miseducated about the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and the question that the reporter brought up in the High Plains Messenger: "Do you think beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it?". From the people I have chatted with while waiting to be called up for jury duty, they have NO idea what this means, nor do they really care. They just want to go back to their little consumerist lives and not give a damn about the person who is in court that may or may not be guilty. To most of these ppl, doing their civic duty is one big hassle and inconvience that they have no interest in, and certainly feel no responsibility towards.
Also I think there is a lack of teaching in civic duty areas, and that our education system really needs to fix this. How can we maintain a democratic government when most of it's citizens has no idea what "innocent until proven guilty" really means?
So yeah, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the jury was full of uneducated people on how the process really works. I'd be scared to death to have a trial by jury in this day and age from a jury of my peers.
Posted by: wob | June 08, 2006 at 02:03 PM
I'm with Wob. We have a system that assumes the jurors are not ignorant regarding the basic principles of being a juror. I'm not sure there is something more fair than what we have now though, even if it is doomed to frequent failure. A "jury of peers" is an important, enlightened concept. It should be taught in detail to every child in every school. The only class I took in high school on criminal justice was an elective, and I don't remember covering reasonable doubt.
Posted by: Non-Prophet | June 08, 2006 at 07:38 PM
When I was in High School down in NM, in 9th grade we were required to take an American History and Civics class. This is where we were taught about how our govt works, what trial by jury really means, etc. I think this should be a requirement for every public and private school to teach a class like this. I am not sure what would be the best time to teach it, but my gut tells me probably junior or sr year of HS would make the most sense.
And I do agree that this is still one of the better systems in the world, when used appropriately and with educated people on the jury.
Maybe you start giving a simple quiz before you're qualified to sit on the jury? Hell, maybe that would weed out so many people that noone would ever serve?
Posted by: wob | June 09, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Gee, Where is Mrs. Newmillers say in all of this? Does she know more than we all do. A Mother knows best...... Is this the same Todd Newmiller who has run form the police on a high speed chases, many DUI's, locked himself up in a room with a loaded handgun and had to have the whole neighborhood on lockdown with CSPD Swat! One in the same............Brother who has illegal weapons charges so I hear.............Sounds like good stock to me..........A Saint, yeah right!
Posted by: Sweet Justice | June 12, 2006 at 05:58 AM
Hi! Nice site, coool!
my guestbook, safskincare.info
Posted by: Leon | June 12, 2006 at 06:54 AM
sweet justice: are you a member of law enforcement or someone in the DA's office, or what? i'm just curious about where your allegations come from:
Todd Newmiller who has run form the police on a high speed chases, many DUI's, locked himself up in a room with a loaded handgun and had to have the whole neighborhood on lockdown with CSPD Swat!
Brother who has illegal weapons charges so I hear
Please cite your sources, i would be interested to learn more about all of this.
Posted by: vagabong | June 12, 2006 at 08:09 AM
Sweet Justice:
Even if any of those charges are true, that doesn't mean that the defendant deserves an unfair, unjust, trial. Everyone has the right to an honest court appearance, and the more I read about this whole thing, the more I am convinced of how corrupt our criminal justice system is.
Posted by: wob | June 12, 2006 at 09:42 AM
Sweet Justice:
I am Todd's mother. Anyone who knows me, knows how completely I support Todd's innocence and how involved I am in supporting the effort to exonerate him from this wrongful conviction. Anyone who knows Todd understands that he could not have done such a senseless and horrible act, and the evidence certainly supports his innocence and points to Brad Orgill, the person who initiated the fight and who was seen fighting with the victim when he was stabbed. The postings, Bill, Todd's father, has made to both Non-Prophet and High Plains Messenger, have been a collaborative effort which have included both our daughter and me, and both Bill and our daughter have been involved in correspondence I have sent to various public officials, Senators and State Representatives. When Bill posts something, everyone in our family has had a chance to edit and add to the posting. When I write something, everyone has had a chance to edit and change it as well. We are striving for accuracy and completeness in the information that we share. Additionally, we are all doing things behind the scenes that are unique to our positions, interests and avenues of influence. While our family is completely involved in Todd's case everyday, Todd had a huge outpouring of support from family and friends at his sentencing, where many (approximately 20) persons spoke on his behalf and even more were present in the audience to support him. No, sweet justice, it is not just Bill who supports Todd's innocence and is fighting this great injustice. I hope this allays any misgivings you may have about my involvement.
Posted by: Gloria Newmiller | June 12, 2006 at 08:46 PM
ok mr. newmiller! dont tell me "Peace to you" im not angry dont say or think i am! and what the hell is (But for the grace of God go you) do say any thing about god to me! I my self dont think that (a god) or any kind of god and or god's is real! but do tell me whats the (But for the grace of God go you) and to all other person's i thank all for standing by Anthony and his family! i find that the newmiller's have the good-ness thay need and i see that! but todd has nothing! mr. N plase have your son wright a note! and you can post it on this page! a noye about how he feels, what he did the nite and hr of the death, and how it all(ALL) whent down! do that for every one to see!
Posted by: Matt. K | June 19, 2006 at 10:28 AM
ok mr. newmiller! dont tell me "Peace to you" im not angry dont say or think i am! and what the hell is (But for the grace of God go you) do say any thing about god to me! I my self dont think that (a god) or any kind of god and or god's is real! but do tell me whats the (But for the grace of God go you) and to all other person's i thank all for standing by Anthony and his family! i find that the newmiller's have the good-ness thay need and i see that! but todd has nothing! mr. N plase have your son wright a note! and you can post it on this page! a noye about how he feels, what he did the nite and hr of the death, and how it all(ALL) whent down! do that for every one to see!
Posted by: Matt. K | June 19, 2006 at 10:28 AM
Matt K,
How can any of your statements be taken seriously, when you do not bother to spell check, grammar check, or any other checking related to the correct usage of the english language in your posts?
You come off as inflammatory and ignorant, therefore it is not worth considering any of your statements.
If you truly have something to say that really matters to you, then please say it, and take the time to double check your work. If all you have to offer is inflammatory remarks, then noone is going to take anything you say seriously.
Posted by: wob | June 19, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Matt K - I am the one who wished peace to you. I am the one who reminded you but for the grace of God go you. I stand by my words. I am sorry you don't choose to accept them.
Posted by: Zen | June 19, 2006 at 01:13 PM
wob: I don't think you can count on somebody with the email moniker 'bratboy' to be able to spell or offer meaningful insight into very many topics.
zen: I wasn't going to respond at all to that post, but jeez - what a maroon to go off like that all the while ranting at the wrong guy!
Posted by: Nate | June 19, 2006 at 04:20 PM
Nate,
This is very true. But if this guy is here as a friend and/or defender of Anthony, you would think he would be a little more intelligent with his statements. All he does is make the situation worse all around.
Posted by: wob | June 19, 2006 at 04:41 PM
Yeah, Matt. It's okay to be crude and hateful here (only if you're a liberal), but make damn sure you use spell chekker.
c
Posted by: c | June 19, 2006 at 06:00 PM
c - don't troll. You know that most of the regular posters here are very nice, intelligent folks despite their political (or religious) viewpoints. Matt is the poster child for wob's earlier point about the importance of education and civic duty. Imagine you were wrongly accused and Matt (bratboy) was on the jury.
Posted by: Nate | June 19, 2006 at 06:51 PM
Is this you bratboy?:
http://pictari.com/show_user.aspx?tab=friends&user=bratboy787
or this:?
http://www.ratemybody.com/profile.aspx?id=bratboy787
Are you also the same bratboy that is a member of the icp pueblo meet-up?
Bratboy's a pimp!
Posted by: Landed Gentry | June 19, 2006 at 08:25 PM
Nice research, Landed Gentry.
Posted by: Zen | June 19, 2006 at 08:36 PM
I'll admit it, I'm slow - but I didn't realize until just now how ironic it really was that our new friend Matt went off on Mr. Newmiller (the elder) for comments he didn't make. He really seemed convinced that an injustice had been done, and yet - the evidence was RIGHT ON THIS PAGE that those statements weren't made by Mr. Newmiller.
Posted by: Nate | June 19, 2006 at 09:00 PM
I miss Larry. Anyone else miss Larry? He was like a cousin to me. A cousin larry to me.
Posted by: Landed Gentry | June 19, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Nate:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Just because I can easily expose some of you as crude and hateful, doesn't mean your not intelligent folks. If you didn't take yourself so seriously, maybe critical comments would not raise your blood pressure. But it's much easier to dismiss someone as a troll if they disagree with you, rather than defend your flimsy positions.
c
Posted by: c | June 20, 2006 at 07:09 AM
c: well, I am not dismissing *you*, I took issue with your previous post as 'trolling' because I think you only said it to start a fight and not to participate in any meaningful way in this discussion. The definition of 'trolling' being when someone posts 'messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion'. Is that what you think it means?
You certainly can't argue that I am a crude or hateful person, and in any case it would be difficult to make such an argument based on a smattering of writings on a blog. Your comment didn't 'raise my blood pressure' as you suggested, and I wasn't trying to dismiss you - merely steer the conversation back to the rathar grave subject at hand. I'm not 'taking myself seriously', this is a serious subject: Murder and death. Also, I don't have many 'flimsy positions' and am prepared to debate them with you given a more appropriate forum.
Posted by: Nate | June 20, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Well, to all that chose to speak about Matts spelling and lack of education, I as his mother find you all idiots. He is putting into words exactly how he feels about his cousins death. It has effected him greatly, he is just trying to express his frustration over the whole situation. Apparently you understood everything that he was saying for comments to be posted about it. Not all people are blessed with the ability to read/spell.. Ever heard of a learning disability?? Whats really funny is that you all are picking on him... wheres your focus, not on Todd Newmiller where it should be! If you dont like my sons postings then dont read them!!!!! You all speak of knowing the facts, how funny (especially you Nate) intelligence isnt based on how well you spell now is it???
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 21, 2006 at 02:41 AM
Linda -- Well said. Well taken. Arrogance is as damning as ignorance. Thank you for your words of explanation. Peace to your family.
Posted by: Zen | June 21, 2006 at 02:56 AM
Linda: well, I don't know why you singled me out especially as 'unintelligent' (or a good speller ;) unless I read that wrong. I made two points regarding Matt's post.
1. His email address is 'Bratboy' which seems to suggest that Matt considers himself a 'brat' for some reason. I guess I just react negatively to that kind of thing, and I don't expect much adult conversation from brats.
2. He seemed very angry at the elder Mr. Newmiller when it was another poster who made the statements he quoted! I tried to suggest that this was just like the trial, where there seems to be a lot of evidence that Todd might not be the one who killed Anthony, but most of Anthony's family seem to be convinced otherwise despite this. I can understand why the elder Mr Newmiller is supporting his son so strongly, but I don't understand why Anthony's family seem so convinced.
By the way, I have had friends with learning disabilities that consider themselves men not brats; can spell better than I; and would be very upset that their mom mentioned their disability in this forum.
I have said repeatedly here that i don't know Todd, I live in NY and never met him (or Anthony). I didn't attend the trial and I don't have access to the alleged 1500 pages of evidence, but in this forum the only person who has offered any convincing arguments on this case is Mr. Newmiller. if I had to decide the case on the arguments I have heard here, I would say they got the wrong guy.
Posted by: Nate | June 21, 2006 at 05:13 AM
Linda,
If you son wants to vent, fine, go for it. But can he do it in a constructive manner is the question, and apparently he cannot. Furthermore, please explain to me how I was supposed to know that he has a learning disability, on a free, public forum, where anyone from Co Springs to Timbuktu can comment.
I think Nate sums up nicely everything else I would have to say in reply to this. I stand by my statements.
Posted by: wob | June 21, 2006 at 09:22 AM
"Can't we all just get along?"
-- His Holiness, Rodney King
Posted by: Zen | June 21, 2006 at 12:01 PM
"if I had to decide the case on the arguments I have heard here, I would say they got the wrong guy."
I too am an outsider to this case, but I would venture to guess that it is exactly this kind of thoughtless comment that provokes those who have lost the most to lash out against those who post in Todd's defense. The few minutes it takes to read these posts are hardly enough to form anything but an under-informed opinion. While this case certainly appears to warrant scrutiny, designating oneself an armchair juror is more than an little inappropriate when a life has been lost.
Posted by: 4profit | June 21, 2006 at 02:33 PM
4profit: This, at least, is a coherent and reasonable argument to make. If I had not so carefully explained that I DID NOT have access to all the facts in the case that the jurors did - which a HUGE caveat, I'll admit - I would take your off-hand dismissal of my comment as 'thoughtless' to heart. If the statement by the alleged juror on the case as quoted in the 'High Plains Messenger' above is real, I would say we're way past 'warranting scrutiny' and into mistrial, bud.
Posted by: Nate | June 21, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Nate: I've read this article as well and agree that this case has mistrial written all over it. But my point is that there is an important difference between recognizing a mistrial and the claim "they got the wrong guy." Caveats from onlookers such as ourselves are of little comfort to grieving families which is why I believe restraint from such statements is the only decent way to approach this topic in such a forum.
Posted by: 4profit | June 21, 2006 at 06:31 PM
4profit: I may have stepped over the line with that comment, I'll concede you that. I have been very careful to hold back throughout this entire thread, and it's really not in my nature to do so - just ask NP! :) Some of the heated and poorly written comments by Mr. Madril's relatives (above) riled me up pretty good though, without offering even the tinyiest scrap of reason or evidence to doubt Mr. Newmiller's obviously well considered points.
Posted by: Nate | June 21, 2006 at 06:48 PM
After Todd’s conviction, we realized that it was important to let the public know that we remained completely certain that he did NOT stab Anthony Madril. Had we not spoken out publicly, we would have been seen as accepting of the guilty verdict. We have labored to show the reasons for our certainty in Todd’s innocence, and we greatly appreciate the comments of many thoughtful people (including independent journalists who have had access to all the documentation we possess), who recognize the volume and power of the exculpatory evidence gathered in his case. From a personal perspective, our task will not be done until Todd is exonerated by the legal system. Our motives, however, go beyond the personal. Take a moment and re-read Todd’s statement, which begins this blog.
“When officials in positions of public trust place the exercise of their own power over the interests of the community, over the service of the truth, they subvert the very law they are pledged to uphold, they attack the values of the constitution they are pledged to protect. In a free and healthy republic, such abuses cannot long stand, for the institutions of democracy and liberty are only as sound as the principles that serve as their foundation.”
In a recent NY Times op-ed piece, David R. Dow, University Distinguished Professor, University of Houston School of Law, points out that scholars estimate that the percentage of innocent people on death row is 6% - 8%. Professor Dow goes on to claim that in 98% of the 50 cases he’s handled “there were appalling violations of legal principles: prosecutors struck jurors based on their race; the police hid or manufactured evidence; prosecutors reached secret deals with jailhouse snitches; lab analysts misrepresented forensic results.”
It is up to us, the public, to hold our elected leaders accountable for their actions. In El Paso County, Colorado, the buck stops with Sheriff Terry Makita and District Attorney John Newsome, who have tolerated unacceptable performance from those in whom they’ve placed the public trust.
The handling of Anthony Madril’s stabbing illustrates many of the reasons why the El Paso County Criminal Justice System is broken. Among the examples of things gone wrong:
Deal-making with the person who should have been the prime suspect: Recently elevated to the number 2 position in the DA’s office, Amy Mullaney forged a deal with Brad Orgill before the forensic evidence had even been opened by the state crime lab. The deal effectively placed Orgill beyond prosecution for the crime. During Orgill’s interview with Jeff Nohr, the lead Sheriff’s investigator in the case, Orgill was told that if he talked early, he’d have an advantage. It was a promise that was fulfilled by Mullaney.
Misrepresentation of forensic results: Rebecca Strub, a crime lab analyst with the CBI crime lab changed her testimony at the trial. Her testimony on the witness stand in front of jurors was substantially different from the report she had made in a pre-trial hearing one day before the trial began. Prosecutors Jeff Lindsey and Stephanie Rikeman misrepresented the nature of the injuries to Anthony’s hands during their closing argument, stating that they resulted from his hitting Todd. The corner’s report clearly shows that the injuries to his hands were defensive wounds caused by a knife. The distinction is crucial because the prosecution was trying to match the injuries on Anthony’s hand to knicks on Todd’s face, an attempt by the prosecution to argue that Todd and Anthony were together even though no one saw them together.
Encouragement of misrepresentation by prosecutors: Jeff Lindsey and Stephanie Rikeman, attorneys with the District Attorney’s office, invited Rebecca Strub to sit with them to offer counsel in their cross-examination of our expert crime lab witness after her impeached testimony.
Hiding of evidence: Detective Rick Frady wrote misleading reports of statements made by witnesses he interviewed, and failed to interrogate Brad Orgill with appropriate skepticism, or to ask obvious questions about his involvement, or even to confront him with the obvious inconsistencies in his stories. These reports were crucial in the process the DA’s office went through as they decided to charge Todd with murder.
There are other examples as well, and we will be revealing them over the coming weeks and months. We will also be asking for investigations of both the Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office.
What has happened to Todd, can happen to anyone, and according to Professor Dow, it happens too often.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 21, 2006 at 07:03 PM
I’m sorry to Mr. NewMiller. And to “Wob” I ask you how can any one take your name seriously?
And Wob, Nate, C, and Zen please excuse my illiteracy, grammar. Also Wob no one is not noone and you have the nerve to talk about me needing to use spell check! And to C its spell check not spell chekker take the ER off and take one of the K’s and YOU CAN SPELL! Zen my email moniker may be 'bratboy' but if you take into account that it is over 7 years old! Being a Liberal has really nothing to do with this and that is stereotypical. I am not a poster child for any thing that has to do with any of you! Landed Gentry thanks for researching me I don’t know if I should be complimented on your search of me, or if I should be worried and appalled……. But thanks! I may not be the most intelligent or well spoken, but im not the one (one‘s) getting on some one’s ass and off the subject at hand! My conversation and intellect is good and fine my spelling is not so great, but I have a excellent understanding of the English language. Also comprehension far beyond you! Your friends ability to learn is not comparable to me, or my situation! And so what if my mother said something! I’m above this, and all of you. I don’t expect all of you to understand. Have a high-quality day and don’t forget to use SPELL CHECK your own selves.
Posted by: Matt K. | June 21, 2006 at 09:48 PM
Hey Matt... what can I say except, "Nice to meet you. Thanks for sharing."
Peace
Posted by: Zen | June 21, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Excuse me if I speak out of turn,those of you who chose to comment about my sons intelligence know who you are!! Wob you didnt know that about my son, just like you dont know all the facts in this case,and like you said its a free public forum, do not berate somebody for their opinion when you know only a one sided story.I would also like to know if anybody in your family has been murdered and how you dealt with it.. "vented"??? Believe it or not this is a way for all effected by this to vent, whether it be constructive or not. Thank you very much!!! By the way Nate.. my son and I are not embarresed by his disability, we are very proud of his accomplishments.So should you be of your friends that have been able to "overcome" this. I did not comment on anybodys intelligence or spelling except Matts. Like I said .. intelligence is not based on how well you spell, correct?? Your refferal to him being on a jury "wrongfully" charged was what got my Goat! Like he is a total idiot or something. Believe me when I say that you are wrong.
If I was an outsider reading the postings in this blog, I would have to say that I agree also with Mr. Newmillers family on the accounts of that night. On the other hand I have first hand knowledge. Were any of you there, ONCE AGAIN did any of you see evidence, hear testimony??? Nate I know that you werent, comment all you like, I was there for the whole trial, heard all, seen all. The Madril family can not give you a detailed account of what happened that night like the Newmillers, they claim to know exactly what happened,from statements that were given.. by their son/s who apparently purgered himself under oath. We can not give you Anthonys account of the story because he is dead, we are going by what the prosecution presented to us ( which proved the case) and by what the jury handed down. If the defense was so wrong why did the Newmillers stick with them??? Why did he not testify in his own defense??? I sure as hell would have if I was being wrongly accused no matter what my attorneys said, wouldnt you??? Joel Newmiller stated .. under oath.. that Todd Newmiller got back into the Jeep and STATED, "I slashed a tire and.... (and) being the snare... I stabbed one of them. Anthonys blood was found on Newmillers knife.. Could any of you possibly believe that he got back into the truck,(Anthony) told the people closest to him at that time, that he loved them and to please not let him die, if one of them had stabbed him ?? Was he suicidal?? Think not ... he was begging for his life. The only other knife that was found was Newmillers ,had Anthonys blood on it but, which they claim went through Hell And Highwater before it was tested??? Was the prosecution so intent on finding Todd guilty that they planted evedince?? Chism never fought with Todd Newmiller,as is claimed in the high plains messenger, never claimed to have a ring or any jewelry on for that matter .. the defense tried to blame that on the bouncer. The phone call heard in court was between Todd and his exoctic dancer girlfriend... when Todd stated that he got "popped a couple times"." He exchanged words nor blows" with Anthony... so how did he get "popped"???He never got into a fight that night.. said by Newmiller himself. All of this came out shortly before sentencing. I have seen the tape of my nephews last moments , I know that the Jeep sped out of the parking lot to meet up with the vehicle that my nephew was in. I have seen things that most people would not like to see, I am convinced that Todd Newmiller commited this crime, by the forensic evidence by testimony and by a confession!!!Once again, Antonys blood was found on his knife, (Todd Newmillers) and his knife only. Brad Orgill was not the one to turn him in the next day.. but Jason Mellock( dont forget about him saying that he heard Todd Newmiller say that nobody knew anything.... am I incorrect about this Bill Newmiller, am I incorrect about your other son saying ( in court that Todd had said I slashed a tire ... AND I stabbed one of them) I think not because you werent there. I also recall the defense trying to make it look like he said.. I slashed a tire, I stabbed one of them. Refering to the tire. I remember very clearly what he said and how he said it. I also remember the defense trying to make it sound like he was only stabbing the tire. Too bad Chaz chose to try and get Anthony to the hospital at that point, I am sure his blood would have been found on the tire also! What calmed your son so much that night??? Your other son stabbing a tire in revenge of getting "popped"??? Why didnt he drive the Jeep to your house when he knew that he was going to be questioned by the police the next day?? Im sorry but I cant believe that him knowing that there was a fight the previous night that he didnt check first to see if there was any blood in his vehicle. Im sure he did and that is why he didnt drive it to your house. I did like the excuse for that ..by the way. He cooperated at that point because he didnt have a choice, you Mr Newmiller would have known your/his right at that point an ex FBI agent, right!! There may be evidence that points away from Todd, but there is more that points to him as being the assailant. What about the phone call between the stripper and your son as to being in a fight that night???? Your wife and daughter may have been there ... but you know about those memories... people recall things differently, I see things one way you all see them another. Fortunately the court system seen it their way this time and convicted a murderer.
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 22, 2006 at 03:40 AM
Linda,
As you'll recall from the pre-trial hearing, Todd's knife was missing for a period of two months and when it reappeared, it's condition had changed. The tire debris identified earlier by Det Richar was missing, and transfer blood, which had not been seen by Det Richar was now present. How do you account for the fact that Brad is the only person seen fighting with Anthony, that Brad is covered in Anthony's blood, that Anthony emerges from his fight with Brad saying to Chas (who, as you pointed out earlier was probably the most sober person there) "I just got stabbed"?
The premature deal made by the prosecution with Brad (before the CBI examined the physical evidence) cut off an important avenue of investigation and left them with only Todd to pursue.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 22, 2006 at 07:48 AM
I am an outsider. I do not live in the CS area nor do I have access to all the information. I do have to agree with Nate. From what has been given between here and the HP Messenger, the least I can gather is that with the evidence is less than sufficent to prove that Todd did this beyond a reasonable doubt. Just the fact that it was another guy (Brad) that was only seen fighting with Anthony would give me the reasonable doubt. I have lost a close family member due to a similar crime and the one who perpetrated the crime was let go. I, myself would like to know that if someone was prosecuted, that it was definately the right guy and not have the doubt that the real perpetrator was not held responsible. To the family of Anthony, My heart saddens for your loss. And to the Newmillers, If Todd is truly innocent, I hope the guilty person is brought to the true justice he deserves.
Posted by: Richard | June 22, 2006 at 07:48 AM
Zen- what do you mean by "Thanks for sharing" and i have not and most likey never meet you!
Posted by: Matt K. | June 22, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Linda,
Suppose the situation were reversed and Todd was the person stabbed. Suppose all witnesses reported that Todd was only confronted by Chisum Lopez, that Chisum Lopez is covered in Todd’s blood, and that Todd was never seen with Anthony. However, Chas reported hearing Anthony say, “Let’s go, I got my f----g knife,” and Anthony had past encounters with the police, but Chisum didn’t. Let’s further suppose that none of Todd’s blood appears on Anthony. Would it be ok with you if early in the investigation they discounted the possibility that Chisum could have been Todd’s assailant, and instead, they charged Anthony, who was never near Todd, with stabbing him, rather than the person everyone knew was with him and was covered in Todd’s blood? As Todd’s mom, that wouldn’t be ok with me, and it shouldn’t be ok with anyone else.
Posted by: Gloria Newmiller | June 22, 2006 at 02:44 PM
-sorry for the long post, thanks for the forum NP-
I am Todd Newmiller's younger brother Joel. I appreciate the questions that have been asked regarding the statements attributed to me in Rich Tosches' article. I would like to reiterate, however, that I am not quoted in Rich’s article and that often, when a writer is bound by the constraints of his medium (such as journalism) large and complex ideas are often refined so that the complexity of the material can be available to the average reader. I never used the words “I lied,” when talking to Rich about my statement, but his interpretation is not entirely fallacious.
I think that is important to understand the way that the Sheriff’s department approached their investigation in this case, in order to understand the emotional statements I gave about Todd’s alleged “confession.” On the morning of Nov. 24, 2004 (this date my not be entirely accurate, so don’t quote me on it), approximately four days after the death of Anthony Madrill, I received a telephone call from my attorney informing me that the investigators had enough “information” about my involvement in the case to charge me with accomplice to second degree murder. My attorney informed that I needed to come in immediately and talk to him about the repercussions of this charge. At about 9:00 am, I arrived at my attorney’s office. The first thing my attorney reviewed with me was the seriousness of the crime which the DA and investigators were threatening to charge me with, including the range of sentencing and the probability of spending many years in jail. I was then informed that the DA was willing to grant me immunity, if I was willing to address a “specific statement” that Todd had made in my car after the altercation between Anthony and his friends had occurred. With this in mind, I gave my version of the story, including the statement that I remembered Todd making in response to my anger that he had a visible cut on his face, “Don’t worry about it, I slashed their tire.” My attorney then advised me to leave the room, so that he could call the DA and give them my side of the story. After about twenty minutes of conversation, I was then allowed to reenter his office, where he informed me that I had not been truthful regarding the “specific statement” that Todd made, and that three other people in my car had corroborated that the “specific statement” was much more serious then the version I had given them. With this in mind, I was encouraged to rethink the “specific statement,” so that I didn’t leave out any of the details. I then explained to my attorney, that after Todd had gotten back in the car from the altercation, I noticed that he had a cut on his face, and at that point I had realized how serious the fight was and became infuriated since someone had hurt my brother. I began ranting about retribution (which to this day still tortures me, now knowing that the fight, which my brother never engaged in, led to the death of Anthony Madril). My brother told me to calm down, that it was ok, and said that he had got them; he slashed one of their tires. Again, my attorney made me leave his office so that he could call the DA and give them my “new” version of the story. After I was allowed to reenter, at which point I was informed that my statement was not accurate and that the DA would pursue charges against me if I did not refine my statement. Again, my attorney emphasized that the “specific statement” was much more serious in nature then the statement I had given him, and that all the other passengers in my car verified the seriousness of this statement. He said that the DA was looking for “specific wording” about the statement Todd made in my car and unless this “specific wording” was addressed I would not be given immunity for my testimony. At this point, feeling utterly confused, and privy only to what I had witnessed and heard that night, my attorney and I decided to recess for lunch so I could think about the “specific statement” that Todd had made.
I spent about an hour and a half at Bonn Park, with my girlfriend and father, trying to relive the events that occurred on November 20, 2004. Unsure of what part of the “specific statement” was incorrect, and knowing only that the statement was “much more serious” then the version I had given them, I tried to retrace the conversation from beginning to end, to which I still could not deduce what was incorrect about my statement. I was also painfully aware that if I did not address this “specific statement” accurately that I would be charged with accomplice to second degree murder. Furthermore, at this point in the investigation, I was unaware that the person my brother had confronted during the fight was Chisum Lopez, and not Anthony Madril. And finally, I was told by my attorney that the three other passengers in my car said that Todd has made a “serious statement” implicating his involvement in the death of Anthony Madril.
Upon returning to my attorney’s office, the final “correction” I made to my statement was changing the word “slashed” to “stabbed,” which was apparently what they required in order to offer me an immunity agreement. The statement that I gave to the police later that day, which is found in the transcript, is, “I slashed their tire … I stabbed one of them.” This statement, based on my recollection of the evening of Todd stating that he slashed their tire, was obviously taken out of context, which reiterates why it is so important to build a case on empirical evidence and not on hearsay.
I have been reluctant to post, since I am still under my immunity agreement, which is maintained for any future trials or grand jury investigations regarding my testimony. The point of this post is this: was I coerced, no. But the psychological inferences and expectations introduced by the DA, the Sheriff’s department, and my attorney, definitely affected my interpretation of the events that night and the statements I made to the police. It should be noted that I eventually discovered that I was given false information about the corroboration of the “specific statement” that was made in my car, and that only one person claimed to hear Todd make this statement.
Our judicial system, at least idealistically, is largely a product of Plato’s political philosophy and dissertations regarding the common good and democracy, where two separate parties in pursuit of the “truth” are able to openly debate the facts regarding an event in question. However, having witnessed the behavior of the executive and judicial branches during my brother’s investigation, prosecution, and subsequent trial it seems to me our current political system is more of an industry, where a conviction is based on pathos, rhetorical arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Using these methods to address truth instead of logic, a posteriori reasoning, and empirical evidence greatly diminishes the ability of reasonable people to understand and accept the truth from either side of the debate. Furthermore, by diluting events and obfuscating reality with inaccurate information leads to erroneous investigations, prosecutions, and convictions. I think it fair to say, that any side involved in an argument truly believes that they are justified in their claims, but their claims must be based on the evidence supporting the debate. With that said, I encourage an open debate about the issues regarding this case, but genuinely ask that people involved in both sides refrain from attacking each other based on emotional and unfounded claims. Again, I deeply appreciate and understand that there are two sides to every story, but I also believe that slanderous attacks on my family, my friends, and my brother greatly diminishes the truth about the events that lead to Anthony Madril’s death on Nov. 20, 2004. Please, do not stop seeking the truth, but bear in mind to accept the truth means to understand both sides of the story.
Posted by: Joel Newmiller | June 22, 2006 at 06:08 PM
You all are grasping at straws! All the shoulda, woulda, coulda's, and what if's wont bring Anthony back, now will it?? We know the truth, I pray that one day you will too.......
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 22, 2006 at 11:12 PM
First of all Mrs. Newmiller, lets say the rolls were reversed... and your son lay dead. Wouldn't you rely on people that know the lagalities and know the justice system to bring the person that was accused of murdering your son to the justice he deserved??? I think that you would. I know for a fact that if it had been Anthony that had stabbed your son, he would have admitted to it, that was the kind of person he was. I have read many one sided stories by your family.. to include Todd himself, and understand your position, I also understand that IF the rolls were reversed you would be commited to seeking justice. Somebody took your sons life, alot of the evidence pointed to the person that was on trial, would you question that, or take it as the truth?? I have seen the web pages posted by Bill Newmiller and am no less convinced of Todds innocence. I have seen the evidence first hand in court, as you did, and I respect your position on the matter. I also know that not all is being told in this forum, and that all who read it should know all.. to be able to make a qualified determination in this case! With all of the evidence that was heard, I find it hard to believe that questioning Todds innocence has never come to your mind. If the rolls were reversed I definately would have had doubt!
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 23, 2006 at 03:12 AM
Although I don't find it very surprising that he hasn't posted here himself, I do find it notable that despite the assertions made that Brad Orgill may have been the real culprit, there hasn't been any comment made here in his defense by anyone (as yet). Was Brad a good friend of Todd's or just an aquaintance? If Todd is only an accomplice (as it has been suggested that Todd helped burn Brad's bloody clothing), and Brad was really the one who stabbed Anthony, what kind of person must he be to let Todd do 31 years in jail for his crime? The same kind of person who would stab another man to death perhaps?
Posted by: Nate | June 23, 2006 at 07:42 AM
Linda,
Just as Anthony would have admitted it if he did it, Todd would as well. Todd has always been accountable for his behavior. He is a gentle, kind soul, who from all accounts from everyone present, didn't throw a punch at anyone that night. He states that he was struck by Chisum Lopez, who of course wouldn't admit it, and at that point popped the tire with the knife he had in his pocket which he used for opening boxes at his ebay business. The scenario I created for you suggests Anthony didn't do it, but was convicted instead of the perpetrator. I can't imagine you'd be ok with the prosecution convicting him for a crime he didn't commit, and wouldn't pursue justice for Anthony just as we are doing for Todd.
Nate,
Brad was a good friend and business partner of Todd's. The things we have learned about Brad since this horrible night have shocked all of us.
Posted by: Gloria Newmiller | June 23, 2006 at 09:06 AM
All I see from Anthony's side of the family is venom, hate, anger. While I certainly understand the anger (and yes Linda, when I was in HS I had a friend who was killed by a drunk driver, not the exact same circumstances, but the same end result), I do not understand all the venom and hate towards the Newmiller family.
On the other hand, I see the Newmiller family who have been open, honest, and not slinging any venom at all, especially not towards anyone from Anthony's side of the family. All I see is facts. I certainly would think the whole Newmiller family would be angry as well over the potential injustice that has happened to their son/brother/etc.
My question is, is Anthony's family truly interested in justice for Anthony, or do they feel that justice was served, regardless of who is behind bars right now?
This is my last post on this thread. Good luck to the Newmillers, I hope this all turns out alright. I hope that someday Anthony's relatives find the peace they are looking for, regardless of the turnout.
Posted by: wob | June 23, 2006 at 04:54 PM
Oh and one last comment/quote:
"Think for yourself. Question authority. If you cannot think for yourself, you cannot question authority."
The root of the problem is the CO Springs criminal justice system, no more, no less.
Posted by: wob | June 23, 2006 at 04:59 PM
To the entire Newmiller family. ENOUGH!!!
I sat in that courtroom every day for the better part of three weeks. I saw and heard it all.
It is time for you all to get a grip. Todd had oppertunity,motive,the only weapon proven to be on site (which was also proven to have Anthonys blood on it).He along with others destroyed evidence and he "CONFESSED" not puffed his chest, not made up a story a calm his little brother, "CONFESSED".
Any doubt there could have been in even your minds should have faded with the 12 reasonable thinking adults verdict of guilty and their answering of all the required questions with a yes! The very phrase Reasonable Doubt dosen't mean absolute guilt. It means that there was no other reasonable option based on the facts of the case.
It is time for us all to move on with our shattered lives. Quit grasping at straws, quit chasing the media for attention quit giving your one sided onterviews(I've read all your half truths and down right lies in the papers and on the internet) and accept the reality of what has happened. Anthony is gone forever and for his crime Todd will be gone for a very long time.
Posted by: David A Atherton | June 25, 2006 at 01:49 PM
The very phrase Reasonable Doubt dosen't mean absolute guilt. It means that there was no other reasonable option based on the facts of the case.
So Todd is maybe or probably guilty. But not necessarily abolutely guilty. And that's okay with you? That's okay that he is doing 31 years based on probably? David, that's not the country, nor the legal system I want to live in or under.
Posted by: Zen | June 25, 2006 at 09:26 PM
The problem here is that everybody is hearing a one sided story. Unfortunately I am not in possesion of the 1500 pages of transcript that the Newmillers have. All I can tell you is that Todd Newmiller was the only one found to have a knife that night,other than Anthonys which was folded neatly on the seat of the truck. It did not show any evidence of being used even though it was suggested that Anthony may have fallen on his own knife or possibly stabbed himself,(suicidal maybe). There was blood on it .. consistant with with a transfer(when they slid him across the seat). I also recall a bouncer that was questioned at length about the jewelry he was wearing that night(watch and a pinky ring)sugessting that he was the one that caused Todds injury. From my best recollection, Chism never stated in court that he and Todd never went to blows... just a stare down and words. (By the way , you do not know chism well enough to say what he would or would not admit), and I dont see what he would gain in not being truthful, he was not being accused of anything. Not only did Brad Orgill burn his clothes, Todd Newmiller and Michael Lee also burned articles of clothing that night.( Destruction of evidence) Blood was found not only on all three of the men that sat in the back but in the passenger seat (where Todd sat) as well, and on the passenger door handle (where he got back into the vehicle). I also recall Chaz saying that Anthony and Chism exited the truck before he had even stopped and were walking back to it when the other vehicle pulled up to them. (opportunity) After the altercation Todd even chased after the truck.. with knife in hand I'm assuming.. Gentle, kind soul??? Sounds to me like he wanted more. He then MADE a confession when he got back into his own vehicle. Jason Mellock stated that he heard Todd say that nobody knew nothing, Joel said he heard him say what ever it was , it has become so vague at this point, about popping the tire... All I know is what I heard in court under oath, I slashed a tire and I stabbed one of them. What about the taped confession about being popped a couple of times??? But he was never got into a fight that night... maybe he was refering to the tire again. How did Anthonys blood end up on Todds knife and on the seat where Todd was sitting??? Oops I forgot Brad was slinging blood everywhere and it accidently got there! (Transfer) It seems to me that all the blame was, and is, being displaced. Apparently anybody could have done this crime... including ourselves. I have also heard about the "Horrible" things Brad Orgill had done, wasn't that found to be false??? There is alot more to this story, will any of us know the whole truth probably not, but from what I ve seen and heard... I believe the right man was convicted of this crime. I mean no disrespect to the Newmiller family.. just say that I agree to disagree. Linda
Posted by: | June 26, 2006 at 03:08 AM
correction,
should be that he and Todd ever went to blows.
Linda
Posted by: | June 26, 2006 at 03:11 AM
Linda brings up some things we've not heard here before - the most damning being the blood found in the jeep in various spots. I remember there being a question of where Todd was sitting in the Jeep when they left the bar and when he returned to it from Mr. Newmiller. This seems to be a critical point. If Todd was driving when they pulled up behind the other vehicle, and he then exited the vehicle to confront whoever exited the leading vehicle, it stands to reason he would have confronted the person on the drivers side. What was the sitting arrangements in the car Anthony was in when they arrived?
Posted by: Nate | June 26, 2006 at 04:53 AM
OK - Im just reading the statements posted on newmiller.com now, I shouldv'e read them first I see.
Posted by: Nate | June 26, 2006 at 04:57 AM
Who's Jeep was it? Charles Schwartz suggests that the stabber was driving when they left the bar. Of the group with Todd who was the biggest one? Charles says it was the big, bald, heavy set, tall guy with a tiny goatee who was the main instigator. How tall is Todd and how much does he weigh? Did he have hair? A goatee? Charles says he could see the actual altercation - it was in front of his truck (he stayed in the truck), but Chisum was apparently arguing with a guy in a leather jacket with brown hair (not the bald, fat guy) off the passenger side and when Chisum got into the truck, Charles heard his tire pop. Anthony was in a fight with the fat guy in front of the truck one on one according to Charles. Charles states that he could definitely identify the guy who was fighting Anthony. Did this ever happen in court? According to this transcript of Charles' video deposition, you've got a witness (a friend of Anthony's) that says he can identify the guy who killed Anthony! This seems like pretty important evidence, no?
Posted by: Nate | June 26, 2006 at 05:22 AM
There were a number of points that were not in disupute between the prosecution and the defense:
1. Brad is the only person person seen fighting with Anthony. He is the person Charles (Chas) Schwartz refers to as fighting with Anthony.
2. Brad's clothing is covered with Anthony's blood
3. Todd is never seen fighting with Anthony.
4. Anthony's blood appears nowhere on Todd's clothing.
5. Todd sat in the front passenger seat of the Jeep. Joel, Todd's brother, was the driver.
6. There was no blood in the front seats of the Jeep, with the exception of the headrest. There was considerable blood in the back seat where Brad was sitting. The blood on the front passenger headrest appears to be transfer, possible from a bloody hand as a rear seat passenger entered.
7. Brad admitted that burning clothing was his idea; he talked the others into participating.
Later today or tomorrow, I'll post crime scene analysis done by the metro forensics unit. Though it was written to support the prosecution, it admits that Brad cannot be ruled out as the assailant. It was written 9-10 months after the DA cut the deal with Brad.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 26, 2006 at 08:56 AM
As promised, I've posted the Crime Scene Analysis done by the Colorado Springs Metro Forensics Lab. Please read the intro and find the link to the report at:
http://newmiller.com/CrimeScene/csAnalysis/crime_scene_analysis_by_the_colo.htm.
Posted by: Bill Newmiller | June 26, 2006 at 10:37 PM
From my understanding, Chism and Anthony exited the vehicle before Chaz had even stopped. They were walking back to the truck (their vehicle) when the other vehicle sped up to them. It may show that there was about a 30 second time span between the time that Anthonys vehicle left and the Newmillers left.You have to see the whole video tape to see exactly how fast the Jeep took off(newmillers) and how slow the truck(Anthonys) was going..as Chaz stated, it was a diesel and when it's cold i'ts cold and takes a while to heat up.. to understand that it did'nt take much time to catch up to the truck that Anthony was in. The tape showed Newmillers vehicle going over a dip at a high rate of speed..enough to bounce the headlights... you could tell they were in persuit of the truck.. looking for a fight. Mr. Newmillers posting of the positions of the vehicles does not depict what I saw in court or testimony for that matter. Chaz stated that he was almost pulled up in the driveway, the one on this site shows him pulled up far behind the driveway( where the blood trail started), THIS is close to where Chaz said that he saw Anthony and Brad Orgill FIRST fighting. He also said that he never saw Todd Newmiller until Chism got back into the truck (was in his line of sight at that point) and as soon as Chism got back into the truck, they heard a "pop". Chaz also stated that he did not see any blood on Anthony at that point(fighting in front of the truck)even though the blood spatter showed that he started to bleed in the driveway, when he was out of sight from both Chaz and Chism. He was bleeding into his chest cavity. The defense tried to blame this on a bloody nose(Anthonys) even though pictures taken of Anthony at the second crime scene proved that Anthony was not bleeding from the nose(where Chaz and Chism pulled him from the truck) and where he died. The blood spatter experts showed when Anthony started to bleed(in the driveway) how the fight progressed and what direction he was moving, when Brad Orgill and Anthony fell(he was already bleeding profusely by that point) and at what point Anthony got into the truck. I do recall the prosecution saying that there was a spot of blood on the passenger seat where Todd Newmiller was sitting, if I am incorrect please correct me but I don't think I am. Blood was also found on the passenger side door handle(outside). No blood was found on Todds jacket except his own because the Newmillers only chose to test blood that they knew would be his own, did the CBI test any??? I cant remember. Todd also chased after the truck, quite a way down the road,(on foot) after he had slashed the tire. He made statements in the vehicle when he got back in and then they proceeded to try and find the other vehicle that Anthont was in. At least until Todd said something that "calmed" Joel, and he broke off the search. Brad Orgill, Todd Newmiller and Michael Lee went back to Brads house where they all destroyed evidence(articles of clothing). Does it really matter who suggested it?? The following day Brad and Todd were aressted and Todd was found to have a knife on him which eventually was found to have Anthonys blood on it. From pictures it looked as if it had been "scrubbed" like somebody had recently tried to clean it. I do not think the detectives that examined the knife were qualified to make a judgement as to determine whether the "debris" that was found on the knife was blood or tire rubber or both. As a matter of fact I recall them saying that they were not. I do know that Anthonys blood was found on Todds knife. The defense tried to make that look as if it were a transfer of some sort. Brad Orgill and Michael Lee said that neither touched the Knife when they examined it,(at Brads house) and where Todd had said he was unsure if he had stabbed somebody and wiped it with a tissue to see if there was blood on it.. thats why they were looking at in the first place, at least that is my understanding. They all then shared a beer and then they ALL destroyed evidence. Nobody ever seen Anthony and Todd together that night.. that does not mean that there was not opportunity, if I am correct most were pretty intoxicated that night and even if they weren't, something that took a couple of seconds to do could have went unnoticed. I know that it would like to be proven that when Anthony and Brad fell to the ground during the fight, it was at that moment Anthony was stabbed... the blood spatter evidence and photos prove otherwise. I hope the other readers/people that comment, can see beyond all of the sorrow and heartache(on both sides) and come to an educated conclusion.. by knowing all of the facts! Linda
Posted by: Linda Atherton | June 27, 2006 at 03:40 AM