Sixty-Three Police Lies and Distortions
When police arrived at our family home on the morning of March 10, 1983, they found my 66-year-old mother brutally beaten, stabbed, and dying from a five-weapon assault — and me, the only uninjured person on the premises.
Initial scrutiny was reasonable. Violent crime most often originates within the victim’s immediate circle. 244 Neighbors told arriving officers that my mother and I argued frequently; 245 detectives were briefed. 247 I was hysterical, in a torn shirt, blood on my hands. 187 The house showed no forced entry 250 apart from the window I had described using; 257 nothing was ransacked; 256 my mother’s car keys lay on a dresser in my former bedroom; 254 a bloodied Little League trophy lay beside a stain on the master-bedroom floor. 255 The headlong rush to judgment that followed — foreclosing every other explanation within minutes — was not.
Within minutes, Monsue and his partner used their bare hands to touch every doorknob and closure at every exit, 185 destroying any latent fingerprints. 186 Though officially a “possible witness,” I was handcuffed in a guarded patrol car 261 and driven to Van Nuys station. 264 Monsue refused my father’s request to take me to the hospital, 262 refused mine to be interviewed there, 265 refused to let me wash my mother’s dried blood off my hands, 267 refused to call the hospital for an update. 266 He later admitted he had considered me a suspect well before transport 260 and would have stopped me had I tried to leave 263 — both facts he had earlier denied. The accusatory looks during the drive 659 confirmed what I already understood: I was their suspect from the moment they arrived.
Across the entire investigation, detectives suppressed, mischaracterized, destroyed, and fabricated evidence in service of a single objective: convicting me, at whatever cost to the truth.
- Monsue perjured himself in his signed, sworn application for a warrant to search my car.
- He swore that the discrepancies between my account and the physical evidence had not been identified until “AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERVIEW.” 127
At a later proceeding he testified that it was “ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE INTERVIEW, WHEN I REACHED THE POINT IN THE INTERVIEW WHERE I CONSIDERED HIM A SUSPECT.” 128 The Appellate Court ultimately ruled that Miranda should have been delivered before the interview began at all. 268 The warrant application contains no hint of this timing problem.
- He also swore that my car was possessed “BY A PERSON WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A PUBLIC OFFENSE OR IS POSSESSED BY ANOTHER TO WHOM HE MAY HAVE DELIVERED IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING IT OR PREVENTING ITS DISCOVERY.” 127
False on its face. Police had impounded the car before noon on March 10. No civilian ever possessed it; I could not have delivered it to anyone — I was in police custody.
- Monsue’s Follow-Up report was attached to his Statement of Probable Cause and incorporated “AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN” into his sworn Affidavit. By taking that oath, he swore that every inaccuracy, misstatement, and fabrication in that report was the truth. [Cf. §§ III (3), (7); §§ IV (2) (a) through (y), (3) (a), (4) (b) (e) (g) (k) (l), (7), (8), (9), (11) (a), (14), (15); §§ VIII (1); §§ IX (1) through (5)]
- He swore that the discrepancies between my account and the physical evidence had not been identified until “AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERVIEW.” 127
- Monsue’s Follow-Up report is riddled with factual errors, misstatements, and fabrications. The following are listed in the order they appear in the report, not in order of significance.
- The report states that Prado and Derousseau arrived to find me “RUNNING AROUND IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THE LOCATION.” 129 Both officers testified on cross that they had seen me walking hurriedly toward them 270 — not running, not moving “around” anything.
- The report states: “DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED A LARGE AREA OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR AT THE END OF THE ENTRY HALLWAY.” 132
Shown a crime-scene photograph on the stand, Monsue could substantiate no large area; 84 he conceded he had seen only small areas, 592 and my father observed none. 107 Two working drafts survive in the LAPD Murder Book and document a deliberate softening of the claim, revision by revision. The earliest read:
“DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A VERY LARGE SPOT”.
Then, struck and replaced:
“DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A VERY LARGE SPOT NUMEROUS SPOTS OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR IN THE ENTRY HALLWAY”.
Then edited again by hand, in Monsue’s block printing:
“DETECTIVES ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE AND OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A VERY LARGE SPOT
NUMEROUS SPOTS OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR IN THE ENTRY HALLWAYA LARGE AREA OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR AT THE END OF THE ENTRY HALLWAY”.“A very large spot” to “numerous spots” to “a large area” — each rewording moving the description further from anything a photograph could falsify. Even the final overstates the record: a single blood spot, larger than a quarter coin.
- Monsue wrote that he could not see into the house through the rear windows “WITHOUT PLACING HIS FACE UP AGAINST THE GLASS.” 23 The implication: neither could I. He later conceded I could “conceivably” have seen inside without touching the glass, 24 exactly as I described. Landgren, 28 LAPD photographer Wilson, 5 and attorney Johnson 3, 4 all testified they’d been able to see inside.
- He wrote that the sunshade awning above the living-room window forced “SOMEONE LOOKING INTO THE WINDOW TO BEND DOWN AND CLIMB UNDER IT.” 31 He later admitted he could look under the awning by bending down on the sidewalk — without entering the planter, without climbing under anything. 32 Landgren confirmed the same. 33
- The report says “DETECTIVES OBSERVED SEVERAL FOOTPRINTS IN THE MUD ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE. THE FOOTPRINTS LED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE KITCHEN WINDOW SUBJECT USED TO ENTER THE HOUSE.” 135 Monsue later clarified that “several” meant two or three partial prints. 36 North-facing footprints may be visible * in People’s Exhibits 29 and 31. 37 Monsue himself acknowledges three prints in Exhibit 29 and another two or three in Exhibit 31 38 — five or six total, where he had previously claimed two or three. SID was never asked to examine them; 39 no casts or impressions were taken. 205
* It should be noted that due to the wording of Monsue’s testimony it is unclear whether it was the footprints or the directionality indicator which faced north. Re-examination of the photographs in question appears the only way to resolve the issue.
His characterization of the soil as “MUD” is, at best, an exaggeration. [Cf. § VIII (2)]
- Monsue wrote that I had “USED THAT [kitchen] WINDOW MAYBE 4 OR 5 TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO TO BREAK INTO THE HOUSE.” 136
The interrogation tape — in his custody as he wrote — records me saying I had used the window exactly three times over two years, all during the period I lived at home. 138 My father’s account confirmed it. 137
- After I tearfully described removing the steak knives from my mother’s back, Monsue wrote that I had “EXPLAINED IN DETAIL HOW HE GRABBED THE KNIVES WITH HIS FOREFINGERS AND THUMB, SO THE KNIVES WOULD NOT HAVE HIS PRINTS ON THEM,” and repeated the claim at my April 4 hearing. 139
He later conceded I had told him I removed the knives that way to preserve the killer’s fingerprints, 140 not to keep my own off them. The distinction is not subtle: one is civic instinct under shock; the other is premeditation. My actual words: “I TRIED TO TOUCH THEM THE LEAST I COULD, BUT AT THE MOMENT I WASN’T THINKING ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION, I WAS THINKING ABOUT MY MOTHER.” 141
- Monsue wrote that I “STATED HE CHECKED HIS FATHER’S SAFE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM.” 145 I never said that. What I told him from the patrol car was that the safe had occurred to me as a possible motive, and I asked police to check on it and told them where it was. 146
- The report has me saying I “HELD HER IN [my] ARMS,” 147 a characterization contradicted by the absence of soaked-in blood on either shirt. 80
I used the word “hugged” — describing how I stayed with my mother, cradled her head, 79 and raised her arm to take her pulse. I clarified almost immediately: “YEAH, I WAS HUGGING, HOLDING HER.” 660 Monsue built a full-body embrace from a single imprecise word spoken by a traumatized 17-year-old, ignoring my repeated statements that the blood had horrified me. 89, 90, 91
- Monsue wrote: “I/O RECALLED THAT WHILE AT THE HOUSE HE OBSERVED THE TELEPHONE AND NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE HANDLE OF THE PHONE BUT THERE WAS A SMALL SMEAR OF BLOOD ON THE PHONE CRADLE.” 148 The implication — never explained — was that the smear somehow undermined my account. The supposed stain was never photographed, 211 never tested to confirm it was blood, 212 and the phone was never taken into evidence. 213
- On the supposedly one-way footprints, Monsue wrote: “THE FOOTPRINTS IN THE MUD ONLY LED TOWARD THE KITCHEN WINDOW AND THERE WERE NO FOOTPRINTS LEADING AWAY FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.” 150
Two-way footprints may, in fact, be present. [Cf. § VIII (1)] The “mud” characterization is suspect. [Cf. § VIII (2)]
- Monsue wrote: “SUBJECT STATED HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE PURSE, REMOVING THE WALLET, TO CHECK IF THE MONEY IN THERE WAS GONE.” 151
I never said that. Monsue’s own transcription records me describing how I had leaned over the open purse and nudged the wallet to see the empty cash section. 661 Where the transcript reads “PICK IT UP, EVENT,” my actual words were “I DIDN’T PICK IT UP, EVEN.” Without the audio tape to verify — and given his track record — his hand-transcription cannot be treated as authoritative.
- Monsue wrote that I “WAS CONSTANTLY MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE, ‘IF I WOULD HAVE KILLED HER, DO YOU THINK I WOULD HAVE CALLED THE PARAMEDICS AND STAYED AROUND?’” 153 If I had made such statements “constantly,” at least one would appear in the fifty-two-page transcript. None does. [See § I, “In Support of My Account,” for the supporting analysis.]
- Monsue wrote that I “APPEARED TO HAVE AN UNUSUAL KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AND LEGAL PROCEDURES IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION.” 154 A subjective characterization, from a dishonest detective, of an articulate teenager whose father was an attorney and who had grown up watching Dragnet, Perry Mason, and Adam-12. No statement from the interrogation is offered in support.
- Monsue wrote that I “STATED THE VICTIMS IN THE BOOK [Helter Skelter] WERE KILLED WITH TWO KNIVES AND A ROPE AND COMPARED THESE FACTS TO HIS MOTHER’S DEATH.” 156
No statement in the transcript supports the claim. When Monsue asked my former roommate — the likely killer — Mike Ryan about my supposed “FASCINATION WITH THIS HELTER SKELTER,” Ryan could not substantiate it despite every incentive to cast me in a damning light. 663 I owned the paperback; framing that as “fascination” was a deliberate attempt to drag my case into proximity with the most incendiary murder case in twentieth-century Los Angeles.
- Monsue wrote that my father “STATED THAT FINALLY, HE HAD MOVED SUBJECT OUT OF THE HOME IN MAY 1982 BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM BETWEEN HIM AND HIS MOTHER.” 160
Not accurate. When I dropped out of high school in May 1982, my father decided — in answer to my long-standing requests, and as a lesson in self-sufficiency — that I should support myself. He offered to cover rent until I found work; I found a $210-a-month bachelor apartment and moved in. His testimony confirms it. 161 During my interrogation, Monsue yelled, “THEN WHY IN THE FUCK AIN’T YOU LIVING WITH HER THERE[?]” I answered, “BECAUSE WE COULDN’T GET ALONG LIVING TOGETHER.” 662 Those words were the rationale I had used months earlier to persuade my father to let me have the apartment — a habit of speech, not a confession.
- Monsue wrote that my father had given me the exercise bar, and that I had put it in my old bedroom or taken it to my apartment. 162
The bar was never given to me. It belonged to my father — a Christmas gift from the late 1970s — and its ordinary location was the master bedroom, where police found it. 273 Even Mike Ryan, with every reason to implicate me in his place, told Monsue he had never seen the bar in my apartment or in my room. 664
- Monsue wrote that I “ATTEMPTED TO RE-ENTER THE LOCATION SEVERAL TIMES AFTER HAVING BEEN TOLD TO REMAIN WITH THE OFFICER” 129 and “BECAME COMBATIVE WITH THE OFFICERS.” 129
Prado and Derousseau told me to stay outside during their two- to three-minute search, 311 and I complied 312 — never crossing the threshold, never stepping onto the porch. 313 Prado testified I never pushed past either officer. 314 After one officer put me in a chokehold from behind, I instinctively resisted. No one, trained or otherwise, fails to react to that — moments after discovering a brutalized parent.
- The report states that upon arriving at my parents’ house, I “REALIZED [I] NEEDED A JACK” to repair my car. 197
The jack in my mother’s car was the reason I drove over. I had my own tools in the back seat; 202 only the jack was missing.
- Monsue wrote: “SUBJECT STATED . . . SHE HAD A HOLE IN THE HEAD.” 136
I never said that. The transcript: “HER WHOLE HEAD WAS DARK RED, I COULD NOT SEE HER FACE. I THOUGHT THAT CUT THAT WAS OVER HER EYE WAS HER EYE.” 666 No “hole” existed in my mother’s head when I last saw her — that opening did not exist until Encino emergency surgeons removed pieces of her fractured frontal skull. It was, however, visible to Monsue at her autopsy on March 11 — three days before he issued the Follow-Up report.
- Monsue wrote: “SUBJECT STATED HE WAS SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS AT THIS TIME, YELLING AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE.” 136
The transcript contains no such statement. My only remarks were that after removing the knives I “STARTED SCREAMING, OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! TO NOBODY.” 666
- Monsue wrote that after removing the knives, I “GRABBED TWO LARGE KITCHEN BUTCHER KNIVES, THEN RAN THROUGH THE HOUSE SEARCHING FOR THE PERSON WHO HAD DONE THIS TO HIS MOTHER.” 136
The very next words I spoke were: “[I] CALLED THE PARAMEDICS RIGHT THEN.” The call came first — not the search. I plainly described that order at the time.
- Monsue’s report concedes that during interrogation, “DETECTIVE MONSUE ASKED IF SUBJECT REMEMBERED SEEING ANY KEYS INSIDE THE DOOR TO HIS ROOM ON THE DESK. SUBJECT STATED, NO.” 148
The passage sets up a fabricated discrepancy. Monsue wrote that after the interrogation, I asked him and Landgren, “WHY WOULD I LEAVE MY MOTHER’S KEYS ON MY DRESSER?” 167 — cited as “guilty knowledge.” 168 But the passage itself concedes — and the transcript confirms — that Monsue had first introduced the keys by asking, “HOW DID YOUR MOTHER’S CAR KEYS GET INTO YOUR BEDROOM?” 668
- Monsue claimed: “SUBJECT STATED THAT HIS MOTHER SHOULD HAVE HAD A $150.00 IN [her] WALLET. HE EXPLAINED THAT SHE ALWAYS KEPT ABOUT THAT MUCH MONEY IN HER PURSE.” 152
I did not know how much money my mother habitually carried, and not a single statement in the transcript supports the claim. Monsue alleged I had been at the house the evening before when my father gave my mother her weekly $150 allowance. My father testified: “THE $150.00 GIVEN TO MRS. LISKER THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 9, 1983, WAS GIVEN TO HER BY ME RIGHT AFTER I CAME HOME THAT AFTERNOON. BRUCE LISKER WAS NOT AT HOME WHEN I DID THIS.” 667
- Monsue attributed several suspicious statements to me — statements either fabricated outright or stripped of the context that made them innocent.
- Monsue claimed I told Officer Douglas Johnson, while seated in the patrol car at the curb, “ARE THEY GOING TO ARREST ME? THIS IS SO BAD.” 169
Neither Johnson’s written report nor his trial testimony — in which he read his complete notes into the record 170 — contains any trace of the statement. 172
- During interrogation I drew a pencil diagram of our house for Monsue. A line began at the kitchen window and ended in an arrow positioned beside a figure representing where my mother lay; the arrow did not touch the figure’s head. 173, 174 As I drew the final segment I said I “FELL FROM HERE TO HERE ON MY KNEES AND LANDED RIGHT HERE.” 175
Monsue denied the line had any connection to what I said, insisting it represented only my path — and that when I said “landed right here” I had been pointing, not drawing, to the spot near my mother’s head. He had to deny its meaning, because so much of his accusation rested on the claim that I had knelt in direct contact with her — a claim the absence of soaked-in stains on my pant knees flatly contradicted. The line, in my own hand, placed me a slight distance from her head.
- Monsue claimed I told Officer Douglas Johnson, while seated in the patrol car at the curb, “ARE THEY GOING TO ARREST ME? THIS IS SO BAD.” 169
- Police systematically mishandled the physical evidence.
- On arrival, detectives were told that nothing inside the house had been disturbed. 184 Monsue and Landgren nevertheless went to every door and window leading out and, with their bare hands, touched every knob and closure “to see if they were locked.” 185 Latent fingerprints are among the most fragile evidence in forensic work; once carelessly handled, they are destroyed permanently. 186 These were trained homicide detectives, not patrol officers. The only explanation for their immediate destruction of exit-point prints is that they had already concluded the attacker was on the premises — handcuffed, in the back of a patrol car out front. That bias is legible in nearly every decision that followed.
- Having destroyed any fingerprint evidence on the exit points, the same detectives then claimed every door and window apart from the one I had described was “LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE.” 188 No photographs were taken to substantiate the claim. The uncorroborated assertions of the two detectives who had just rendered those exit points uninvestigable are the entirety of the evidence for it.
- Monsue denied having done anything with the bloodstained entry-hall rug on which my mother lay. 189, 190 It was Monsue himself who, that evening, helped my father roll up the rug and discard it in a trash can on the east side of our property. 191
- Police took no photographs of my car — though it sat in the driveway 192 throughout the investigation. The red-handled pliers I had used to remove window panes came from it; 35 a broken rear shock absorber 193 was the reason I had driven over. A photograph could have established each of the following:
- The broken rear shock absorber; 193
- The “automobile repair tools” Monsue admitted finding in the rear seat; 202
- Job application forms in the back seat, consistent with the job-hunt 195 funded by the ten dollars my father had given me; 194
- The car backed in, 196 consistent with preparing to jack the rear end up using my mother’s bumper jack; 197, 519
- Nuts and washers on the center console, 198, 199 bought en route;
- The gas gauge, which would have shown the money 194 had reached the tank.
My worn work clothes, 200 covered in “numerous dark, textured, non-blood stains” 201 consistent with grease, corroborated it further. Monsue never investigated whether the shock absorber was broken, 203 never confirmed the dark stains were grease, never compared the nuts and washers to the shock absorber, never verified the morning purchase at Van Nuys Builder’s Emporium, 204 and never impounded the repair tools. 202 He halted every investigation that, pursued, would have corroborated my account. [Cf. § IV (5)]
- No casts or impressions were taken 205 of the supposedly one-way, 206 north-facing 34 footprints behind the garage. SID was never asked to examine them. 39
North-facing footprints may be visible † in People’s Exhibits 29 and 31. 37 Monsue himself acknowledges three prints in Exhibit 29 and another two or three in Exhibit 31 38 — five or six total, against his earlier claim of two or three.
† It should be noted that due to the wording of Monsue’s testimony it is unclear whether it was the footprints or the directionality indicator which faced north. Re-examination of the photographs in question appears the only way to resolve the issue. - Monsue took the cassette recording of my ninety-minute interrogation 208 and “transcribed” it by hand — writing out his rendering in longhand and having his secretary prepare the official police transcript from those notes, not the tape. 209 Every error in his notes flowed unedited into the official record. Given his documented bias, that transcript deserves deep skepticism.
- The “suspicious pattern of blood” detectives claimed to have found on the telephone I used to call for help 210 was never photographed, 211 never tested to confirm it was blood, 212 and the phone was never taken into evidence. 213
- No blood testing was performed on the kitchen sink 214 — even though detectives insisted the faint footprint that “LED TO THE KITCHEN SINK” 122 proved I had gone there for some guilty reason.
- Both police and jailhouse informant Robert Donald Hughes claimed that my mother and I had engaged in a hand-to-hand struggle and that she had torn my shirt in the process. 564
Police nevertheless took no photographs of my unclothed body 216 or my hands, 215 which would have documented my complete absence of injury 217 — the kind of injury close-quarters struggle invariably produces. No shirt fibers were found under my mother’s fingernails. 565 Her hands showed no marks consistent with gripping fabric, and not one fingernail was broken.
- Monsue claimed gestures I made during interrogation demonstrated I had held my mother’s body tightly off the floor in my arms, 218 and that he could synchronize those gestures precisely with statements in the transcript. 219
The evolution of the account exposes it. At interrogation I had told him: “I DIDN’T WANT TO PICK HER UP,” 89 “I DIDN’T WANT TO MOVE HER OR TOUCH HER,” 90 and “I DIDN’T REALLY WANT TO GET ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, ON MY BODY.” 91 Three days later his report had me “HELD HER IN [my] ARMS.” 136 At my April 4 hearing he retreated, conceding I had only indicated reaching for her. 81 By October 1983, I had “BENT DOWN AND CRADLED HER IN [my] ARM.” 80 By 1985, at trial, he offered a courtroom demonstration with a precise 45-degree arm angle. 218 The escalating specificity across four proceedings is its own refutation.
- Police never investigated the pre-March 10 condition of the shirt they alleged my mother had torn during the struggle. Monsue could have asked my father at any time — he never did. 226 The absence of shirt fibers under her fingernails, 227 the absence of gripping marks on her hands, 228 the absence of broken fingernails, and the complete absence of injury on my body 229 together establish that the “torn shirt struggle” narrative has no physical support whatsoever.
- Monsue implied that a bloody footprint “facing” the kitchen sink 230 proved I had returned there for some culpable purpose.
The impression consisted only of the ball portion of a shoe; 124 police could not determine the foot, size, or any other identifying characteristic. No evidence-quality photographs were taken. 231 SID never examined or collected it, and none of the chemical or physical development techniques available in 1983 233 was applied. 234 The path from the hallway to the knife drawer required a wide right turn around which the sink sat on the outer arc; in mid-stride, centrifugal force could have canted my foot toward the sink rather than the drawer. The two guilty theories both collapse. That I washed blood from my hands at the sink: the blood from my first-aid attempt was still on my hands when police arrived, 187 and officers saw no water in or near the sink. That I went to the window to stage a fake break-in: the blood on my hands would have transferred to the panes, sill, screen, or pliers — none of which carried any. 298 This may be why the kitchen footprint was barely raised at trial.
- On the order of the phone calls I placed after finding my mother, Monsue conceded under oath that he would have wanted to know what the telephone records showed. 235 He never checked them. The call sequence, placed in exactly the order I described, would have corroborated my account. A 10:22 a.m. call placed from our house — roughly forty minutes before my arrival — went to a number differing from Mike Ryan’s mother’s phone by a single final digit. [Cf. § VII (3)]
- My mother’s purse was altered between Landgren’s initial observation of it and the police photographs taken of it. Landgren testified its contents had not been removed or scattered when he first saw it. 316 Though he denied police had gone through it at the scene, 317 the crime-scene photographs show papers removed and spread across the love seat. 318
- In the course of my job search that morning, I had collected three application forms. 236 Monsue claimed he had recovered two from my car 237 and that they did not match the businesses I had named.
Three forms were found 238 and later produced at trial. 239 Two were generic forms with no company identification — they could not “match” any business. The third was from the International House of Pancakes, one of the businesses I had named. 241 Monsue acknowledged that the two generic forms had handwritten notes 240 — my own notations identifying which store each had come from. He never attempted to contact the owners. I had long, distinctive hair — which police felt compelled to describe as an “AFRO” 242 — and weighed ninety-seven pounds. 277 Identifying me would have been straightforward.
- To justify proceeding without Miranda warnings, Monsue claimed I had not been a suspect prior to transport — that it was only midway through the interview that he first considered me one.
The Appellate Court later found I had been in custody well before we left the scene, and that Miranda should have been delivered before any questioning. 268 Most of what Monsue claimed to have learned during interrogation, he already knew at the scene: that I was the victim’s son, that we argued often, 245 and what I had told arriving officers. 247 He had seen me agitated, in a torn shirt, with blood on my hands, locked in a guarded patrol car. 187 He had noted the “suspicious” smear on the phone. 249 He saw no forced entry apart from the window I had described, 250, 251, 257 no ransacking, 256 all other exits supposedly locked. 258 He had looked for and claimed to have found one-way footprints; 253 had tried and supposedly failed to see through the rear windows. 252 Detectives had seen the car keys on my old dresser 254 and the bloody trophy by the master-bedroom stain. 255 Monsue ultimately admitted on cross that I had been a suspect before transport. 260 The “material witness” framing was a transparent attempt to evade Miranda.
- I told Monsue I had been distraught after finding my mother — screaming and crying inside the house. He challenged that, claiming it was impossible because our neighbors to the east heard nothing unusual. 460
Prado and Derousseau observed me yelling loudly in the open driveway as they arrived 270 — and even that less-obstructed outburst was apparently not heard by neighbors. 271 More to the point, the field-interview notes misidentify our actual next-door neighbors. They list “Robert Griffith and his wife” our neighbors were the Kaufmans. Thirteen-year-old Brooke Kaufman and her mother Carol were held at our common property line after emergency vehicles arrived — the people I looked at, first handcuffed by the front wheel of my car, then again from the patrol car. Substituting a fictitious name raises a direct question: what did the Kaufmans actually say that made it necessary to obscure their identity?
- Monsue claimed my parents had given me the exercise bar used in the attack, and that I had taken it to my former bedroom or my apartment. 272 The bar was a Christmas gift to my father, purchased by my mother in the late 1970s. It was never given to me. Its ordinary location was the master bedroom, where police found it. 273 Even Mike Ryan — my mother’s probable killer, with every reason to implicate me — told Monsue he had never seen the bar in my apartment or in my room. 664
- Monsue’s reports falsely characterized the physical disparity between my mother and me in a way consistently favorable to his theory. The reports listed my height as 5’6” and my weight as 165 pounds, 274 and my mother as 5’2” and 140 pounds. 275 At autopsy, my mother was confirmed at 5’4” and 170 pounds. 276 At my last medical visit, on January 14, 1983, I weighed 97 pounds. 277
The reports have me outweighing my mother by 25 pounds. The actual figures have her outweighing me by 73 — a 98-pound discrepancy. The errors appear in both sets of data, in both height and weight, and they do not affect any other statistical entry. Each is consistently helpful to the theory the same detective was simultaneously building.
- Four knives were associated with the crime scene. Two small steak-type knives were used in the attack, both embedded in my mother’s back when I found her; I removed them in shock, trying to help her. I then retrieved two larger kitchen knives to search the house, fearing the attacker might still be inside. These carried my left index fingerprint 279 and a small blood smear on the blade beside the handle 298 — both almost certainly deposited by the same finger that had become bloody removing the steak knives moments earlier.
If police could link the larger “search” knives to any of my mother’s injuries, the case would be substantially stronger. Monsue invented the link. He testified that Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Irwin L. Golden had concluded a wound on my mother’s cheek had “A CONSISTENT SHAPE COMPARABLE TO THE TWO [larger] KNIVES THAT [I] INDICATED [I] HAD PICKED OUT OF THE DRAWERS.” 280
A fabrication. Golden never concluded the cheek wound matched any characteristic of the larger knives. He stated only that because the wound was wider than the search-knife blades, he could not rule them out. The larger knives were explicitly ruled out as the cause of every other penetrating stab wound. 281 The cheek wound had been surgically enlarged during emergency treatment — opened, packed, and sutured closed 283 — making its dimensions unreliable as any guide to weapon characteristics. Dr. Golden was visibly reluctant to characterize it as a stab wound at all. 282 And the underlying premise is absurd: why would I retrieve two kitchen knives to construct an alibi that I had searched the house — only to then stab my mother with them, fouling the alibi and incriminating myself?
- Monsue distorted the chronology of events whenever doing so served his narrative.
- His Follow-Up report states that on arriving he “OBSERVED THE SUBJECT IN THE BACK SEAT OF A POLICE UNIT . . . [and] OBSERVED THAT SUBJECT HAD WHAT APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD ON BOTH OF HIS HANDS.” 284
Physically impossible at the moment claimed. I was handcuffed behind my back. 285 Monsue did not approach the car until after surveying the scene. 286 Johnson had stood directly over me and seen no blood on my clothing or person, and could not see my hands below the forearms. 285
- Monsue testified that prior to interrogation, neighbors had told police only that I was the household’s son and had once lived there. 289 They had told him substantially more — including that my relationship with my mother was troubled and we argued often. 290 [See also § IV (7), where police falsely record those same neighbors’ names.]
- Monsue claimed he had arrived simultaneously with Landgren. 291 The LAPD Chronological Log shows him arriving at 12:15 p.m. and Landgren at 12:30. 293 When Landgren arrived, Monsue was already inside the house. 292
- Monsue claimed he had realized — back at Van Nuys station — that I could not have seen through the rear windows the way I described. By his own testimony, while at the house he had not yet known I claimed to have looked through them at all. 295 His check was an apparent afterthought; 294 the conclusion that I was lying rested on a casual glance taken before he knew the glance was relevant. Wilson, 5 Landgren, 28, 33 and attorney Johnson 3, 4 all later testified they could see in without difficulty. Monsue ultimately conceded I could “conceivably” have done so after all. 24
- His Follow-Up report states that on arriving he “OBSERVED THE SUBJECT IN THE BACK SEAT OF A POLICE UNIT . . . [and] OBSERVED THAT SUBJECT HAD WHAT APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD ON BOTH OF HIS HANDS.” 284
- I told Monsue that after seeing my mother through the window, I retrieved a magnetic Hide-A-Key from a cabinet on the back patio, found the spare key missing, threw the case down near the living-room window, 296 and circled back toward the kitchen window I ultimately used to enter. Monsue mentioned no Hide-A-Key in any police report 297 — another item of physical evidence that corroborated my account, omitted.
- When the Hide-A-Key was raised in court, Monsue claimed he had found it in our back yard on March 10. 299 False. On March 11, attorney Robert Johnson found the case in the pea gravel outside the living-room window 300 — exactly where I had said I threw it. My father witnessed the discovery. 301
- Monsue denied seeing my mother’s car keys on the dresser in my former bedroom 302 and testified under oath that he had done nothing with them. 303 He later admitted he had seen them. 304 Landgren testified that Monsue had not only seen them — he took them to the garage and tested them in my mother’s car. 305
- Prado and Derousseau testified that I had been uncontrollable, 306 had repeatedly tried to re-enter the house, 307 had interfered with paramedics treating my mother, 308 and had actually disturbed the crime scene. Paramedic Lovato claimed I had re-entered and positioned myself in their way. 309, 310
The record tells a different story. Prado and Derousseau observed me walking hurriedly toward them and told me to wait outside. I complied — on the driveway, 312 north of the porch, for two or three minutes 311 while they searched for “other possible suspects.” I never stepped onto the porch, never crossed the threshold, 313 and never pushed past either officer. 314 Their own cross-examination cuts directly against the accusation that I had just committed a five-weapon, out-of-control assault: I was hysterical 224 — but I consistently did what they told me to do.
- During my first jury trial, Monsue discussed my case in the presence of a sitting juror, requiring that juror’s dismissal. Judge Kolostian counseled the detective, though mildly. 315 Unaware of the extent of Monsue’s dishonesty in this case, the judge likely extended to him the deference many of us instinctively give to police.
- One hundred fifty dollars was stolen from my mother’s purse during her murder. 545 Despite more than five and a half hours of continuous police presence, 548 the money was never found. 549 I had only pocket change when police detained me. 544 There was no interval in which I could have left the scene, concealed the money, and returned. 547 My car was impounded and searched; the money was not there. Monsue conceded he had not thoroughly searched my old bedroom 550 — though finding the money there would have been the most straightforward evidence he could have asked for against the only suspect he ever considered. 164 Ryan, meanwhile, had claimed to have spent more during his Los Angeles visit than he actually had, and had been at the house asking my mother for money the day before. [See § VII, “The Probable Killer: John Michael Ryan, Jr.”]
- On April 7, 1998, Monsue wrote to the California Board of Prison Terms urging it to deny my parole. He claimed subsequent owners of our house had told him they found the missing $150, along with other items, hidden in the attic above my old bedroom — confirming, he said, that I had robbed my mother, hidden the money before police arrived, and remained at the scene. 669
He was lying. I retained Paul H. Ingels — a well-regarded former homicide detective — to investigate. Ingels contacted both subsequent owners; both were unequivocal: no money had ever been found in the house. 670, 671 The first owner had actually contacted Monsue himself after learning a homicide had occurred there. Both were explicit that Monsue had never been told any money was found.
The physical scenario is also implausible. The only attic access was a ceiling opening in the hallway, six feet from my bedroom door, requiring a freestanding ladder from the garage. The attic itself was unfinished, dirty, full of cobwebs. Anyone who climbed in would have come back down visibly filthy. Police reported no dirt or cobwebs on me, my clothing, the access panel, or either ladder. Paramedics arrived eight minutes after my call — in which interval Monsue’s theory requires that I stole the money, washed and dried my hands, retrieved the ladder, opened the panel, hid the cash, climbed down, returned the ladder, closed the panel, removed every trace of attic debris from my clothing and skin, and re-bloodied my hands before police arrived. Monsue appears to have assumed a direct attic access inside my bedroom. He was wrong about that too.
Footnotes
These "TWO OR THREE" footprints were depicted in three People's Exhibits (photographs) 26, 29, and 31. Each purported to show a footprint in the moist earth at the northeast corner of the house, behind the garage.
↩Here, Monsue claims the quantity of blood which I supposedly reported seeing on my mom's shirt didn't accord with the lack of blood on my own. But why would he rely on my account of the bloodiness of my mom's shirt when the shirt remained in evidence throughout my trials. Have the shirt itself examined! And I'd never indicated to Monsue or anyone else that I'd "cradled" my mom in my arms. Yet because it buoyed his false case to trumpet the claim, he did so ceaselessly throughout my case.
↩So, only one blood spot larger than a quarter was visible in the photo of the entry hall — near where my mother lay when I discovered her and knelt at her side — in sharp contrast with Monsue's claim of large spots in the entry hall [Cf. § IV (2) (b)].
↩Monsue/Lisker Interrogation, March 10, 1983, page 10
↩Monsue/Lisker Interrogation, March 10, 1983, page 16
↩Monsue/Lisker Interrogation, March 10, 1983, page 10
↩Monsue repeated this false claim in response to a leading question by the prosecutor at the:
All of the taped statements which I made concerning fingerprints and knives are as follows:
No other statements are found anywhere in the transcript concerning fingerprints and knives. Unless I'd conveyed this supposed fear, that my fingerprints on the knives would implicate me in the murder, to detective Monsue telepathically, he's caught himself in yet another lie.
↩This deception had a clear purpose: To subtly fashion my account into an ever more implausible tale which the detective could 'debunk.' Yet no support for Monsue's lie appears in the interrogation transcript, which makes him the liar.
↩(People's 53 – the diagram I drew at interrogation, describing my movements through the house after arriving and finding my mother.)
↩Though it is clear from Lovato's testimony that my mom's head was nearer, and in fact extended several inches beyond, the planter's northeastern edge (and I can confirm her having been in this position when I arrived) it is further illustrative of our respective positions that I placed the arrowhead representing were I fell to my knees a distance from her head.
↩Fingerprints are fragile evidence, and great care must be taken to preserve these so-called "latent prints" prior to their being recorded and preserved for later evaluation. Consider:
Monsue disputed my having knelt beside my mom on what he characterized as the blood-soaked entry hall rug, citing as evidence the fact I had no soaking wet bloodstains on my pant knees [Cf. § III (2) (b)]. Examining rug itself was the only logical way to resolve the issue. But his own actions in helping to throw the rug away prevented that.
↩I'd been given ten dollars on the evening of March 9, 1983, the night before my mom's robbery and murder, and could expect that my dad would similarly support me, at least through my eighteenth birthday. Consider:
(emphasis added]; and Id at page 958-959
↩Actually, three work application forms were found, exactly as I told police they would. These were later admitted as Defense Exhibits M, N, and 0.
↩; and officer Prado, testifying regarding his notes:
I didn't somehow realize I needed the jack; it was the exact reason I'd come over that morning.
↩I put on these worn out clothes for the repair precisely because of their poor condition.
↩In March 1983, Builder's Emporium stood at 5960 N. Sepulveda Boulevard in Van Nuys — roughly halfway between my apartment at 6500 Sepulveda and the house on Huston Street, in the 15000 block just west of the San Diego Freeway. I stopped at the apartment to change clothes, then drove on to the house to work on my car.
↩Not in an evidence quality photograph featuring the phone as its subject, which would have allowed for later analysis of this claim. The phone was featured at a distance in a general shot of the porch approaching the front door. Consider:
Police claimed I had battled hand to hand with my mom, she grabbing and rippig my shirt in the process of my executing a brutal, five-weapon attack on her life. She was viciously beaten with a trophy and an exercise bar, repeatedly slashed and stabbed with two steak knives, and choked with a length of narrow cord. Had I done all that, I certainly would have bore some evidence of it; a nick, a scratch, a bump or a bruise. Yet none was found, despite Monsue's observation of me as he ordered that I disrobe [Cf. S V (5)];
Mr. Mulcahy:"MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS IS HOLDING HIS TWO HANDS DIRECTLY STRAIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF HIM AND THEY ARE BENT UP AT THE WRIST SLIGHTLY. PROBABLY A 45-DEGREE ANGLE."
…
The Court:"I THINK THE 45-DEGREE ANGLE IS FAIRLY ACCURATE."
Mr. Rabichow:"THERE IS ALSO A BEND IN THE ARM AT THE ELBOW PORTION."
The Court:"YES."
And then, just before the trial began -- two and a half years after the interrogation, "I SAT DOWN WITH YOU, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND WE LISTENED TO THE TAPE AND HAD THE TRANSCRIPT IN FRONT OF US. WE WENT THROUGH, AND AS I RECALLED DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS AS THE CONVERSATION OCCURRED, YOU NOTED ON YOUR COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT THOSE OBSERVATIONS OR REMEMBRANCES OF MINE. YOU HAD ASKED ME TO ALSO NOTE THOSE SAME NOTES.";
The day which was over two and a half years in the past at the time of both his examination of the transcript with DDA Rabichow and his trial testimony.
↩[Footnote 227 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
[Footnote 229 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
Oblique Light Photography (using high contrast light and/or filters on all types of surfaces); Cross-Polarized Light Photography (employing tr (improves the contrast and allows the gathering of latent footwear impressions in the same manner as fingerprint lifting); Gel and Adhesive Lifting (transfers footwear impressions to surfaces of greater contrast, using gelatin as the transfer medium);
8-Hydroxyquinoline (reacts with calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum and other metals, and causes the footweards in fingerprints and blood, turning a color called "Ruhemann's Purple"
A number of methods existed in 1983 which could have revealed details in the footprint(s) lost forever because of the coarse perspective photography police used. These methods include:
HIGH-CONTRAST PHOTOGRAPHIC METHODS: Oblique Light Photography (using high contrast light and/or filters on all types of surfaces); Crosning red); the ever-popular Luminol (reacts to hemoglobin in blood); and Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) (reacts with blood, turning bluish-green).
CHEMICAL ENHANCEMENT METHODS:8-Hydroxyquinoline (reacts with calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum and other metals, and causes the footwear impression to fluoresce when exposed to a UV light source); Iodine and 7,8-Benzoflavone (reacts to fatty, oily and other organic materials in footwear impressions, turning yellow-brown); Potassium and Ammonium Thiocyanates (reacts to iron present in footwear impressions, turning reddish brown); Physical Developer (reacts to oily, waxy, or fatty materials in footwear impressions); Small Particle Reagent (SPR) (adheres to fatty materials in latent fingerprints and some footwear impressions); Ninhydrin (reacts with amino acids in fingerprints and blood, turning a color called "Ruhemann's Purple."
↩[Footnote 234 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
(Sean in LAPD.Arrest Report, dated 3-10-83)
and LAPD Preliminary Investigation, dated 3-10-83
(Personal Oddities) "AFRO hair"
The premise that violence most often comes from within the victim's own circle is not folk wisdom but a settled finding of federal crime data. As Gavin de Becker put it in The Gift of Fear, "we are most often hurt by those we know."a The Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms the pattern at scale: in 2023, the single largest share of U.S. homicides — 39 percent — was committed by someone outside the family but known to the victim, while strangers accounted for a far smaller share.b The intimate violence figures are more striking still. In 2021, roughly 76 percent of female murder victims and 56 percent of male murder victims were killed by someone they knew; 34 percent of female victims were killed by an intimate partner and another 16 percent by a non-intimate family member — a parent, sibling, or other relative.c Put plainly, when a person is killed in America, the perpetrator is statistically far more likely to be a relative, partner, or acquaintance than a stranger.
a Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence (New York: Little, Brown, 1997).
b Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Victimization in the United States, 2023 (NCJ 309610, U.S. Dep't of Justice, 2025), https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/homicide-victimization-united-states-2023.
c Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Murder Victims and Victim-Offender Relationship, 2021 (U.S. Dep't of Justice, 2023), https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/fmvvor21.pdf.
↩Monsue:"YES."
And contrary to Monsue's apparent implication, neither did anyone else. My dad was the one who told me my mom had died when he came to Van Nuys police station.
But recall that Monsue had earlier testified that I'd "ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT THROUGHOUT THE. ENTIRE INTERVIEW". (Nov 6 1984, -above).
↩Strikingly little compassion for a youngster whom Monsue steadfastly maintained had been no worse off than being considered a possible witness to the attack on his mother. During the interrogation, Monsue used the prospect and promise of my finally being able to wash my mother's gore from my hands as a tool of influence as we discussed my waiving my Miranda rights. He dangled the hand-washing, further linked to my actual release from custody, like a Constitutionally tainted carrot. Consider:
Monsue told me I could wash my hands after we talked, but in order to talk I first had to waive my rights. That's called coercion. Against an adult, able to fend for himself, it would nevertheless have been illegal. But against me — a teenager, ill-equipped to deal with such intense pressure from an adult authority figure, having minutes earlier been completely blasted emotionally by the discovery of my brutalized, bloody, and dying mother — it is reprehensible.
↩The Court, however, was content to label the error "harmless" and move on:
"Overwhelming evidence" — meaning the tainted, paid-for testimony of the lying jailhouse snitch Robert Donald Hughes [Cf. § V], which the State manufactured by illegally placing me in the 7000 Module snitch tank [Cf. § VI]. Or the State's own blood expert, who testified that every bloodstain detective Monsue claimed implicated me [Cf. § III (1)] could just as easily have come from the innocent first aid I told Monsue I had rendered [Cf. § III (2) (a)]. Or the 'footprints in the dirt' [Cf. § VIII] and 'visibility through the rear windows' [Cf. § IX] questions, which implicated me in nothing — more sparks Monsue threw into the tinder in his effort to start a fire of suspicion he could not start with facts. This is what the Court was willing to call "overwhelming" in denying me a new and fair trial.
↩That answer doesn't survive the rest of the record. By the time the paramedics arrived I was in the driveway in front of our house, screaming at them — independently confirmed by both law enforcement and fire department personnel on scene. The neighbors directly east apparently heard none of it.
↩⚠ Warning — explicit content.
The claim never made it into court. It surfaces only in the Follow-Up report — and my father's sworn testimony contradicts it outright. The Bullworker exercise bar wasn't mine. It was a Christmas gift my mother and I had given him a few years prior, and I do not believe it had ever, even once, left the house. There was no conceivable reason it would have. It lived where he used it: in their bedroom, directly beneath its exercise-routine wall chart, still taped above the spot where police found it — visible together in LAPD crime-scene photograph #112‑075 taken that tragic day.
Exactly where it was found by police.
LAPD Death Investigation
↩Three months before Hughes ran his jailhouse-Christian-conversion con on me in a County Jail cell, I weighed 97 pounds. Hughes was a former combat Marine and a career criminal whose entire adult life had been spent cycling through jails and prisons. He told a jury he had been afraid of me. Afraid of a 97-pound teenager. The fear was theater. The conversion was a fiction. Both were sold to a credulous prosecution in exchange for a discount on the sentence his record had earned many times over. He wasn't afraid. He was working a con. The State bought it.
With the exception of the defensive slash wounds on the left hand, which the Coroner similarly indicated could have been caused by sharp instruments of any type or size.
It is illogical that if I were the attacker, I would have incorporated the search knives into the attack [Cf. § IV (10); § V (3) (a) through (d), (4)]. Why would I have said I'd used them to search the house, if I'd just attacked my mom with them and thereby gotten her blood on them? And why would I have attacked her with knives I'd retrieved, according to the police theory only to create an alibi? And if I were the attacker, why would I have selected "knives from our kitchen" as an alibi, if I'd just attacked my mom with other "knives from our kitchen"? Finally, the width of the two deep stab wounds precluded with of the search knives' having caused them; the knives were wider across than the wounds' entry points.
↩In reporting only that the wound "WAS CHANGED AT THE HOSPITAL. THEY SUTURED THIS WOUND."
Dr. Golden does not accurately reflect the degree of "CHANGE" which the wound was subjected to. In fact, doctors likely enlarged it surgically, cutting it open with a scalpel before packing it tightly, down to the bone with gauze material and sewing it closed. [Note #283] Any observation of the wound's texture, shape, or size was thus rendered completely unreliable for purposes of forensic comparison, such as connecting its apparent "SQUARED OFF OR FLATTENED EDGE" to any weapon, this edge, and the overall size, having likely been altered prior to Dr. Golden's examination.
↩That is, he did not approach me, Johnson or the police vehicle;
Contrast that once the Miranda issue arose, and Monsue had an interest in claiming I wasn't a suspect until well after my transport to Van Nuys station and the commencement of my interrogation, he flip-flopped. He then claimed that he hadn't even seen me in the car upon arrival. That way he could deny awareness of blood on my hands and my supposedly 'ripped' shirt, things he later claimed made me a suspect in his eyes.
and "1230 DETS PIDA &pLANDGREN ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE"
↩Complete absence in LAPD Follow-Up Investigation;
LAPD Officer's Statement (Prado)
"... VICT WAS APPROX. 10' FROM N/FRT DOOR ON THE HALLWAY FLOOR."
My mom was on the entry hall floor, inside the house, approximately ten feet from the front door separating the indoors entry hall from the outdoors porch and driveway
↩In fact officer Prado revealed I'd never made it up onto the porch:
Only after officers approached and physically grabbed me as I paced, frantic but totally unaggressive, did I instinctively try to wriggle free of their grasp. It was at that point that they overpowered and handcuffed me:
[Footnote 544 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
The doctor later expanded -- tripled, actually -- this estimate to a full forty-five minutes or longer. And if the first aid I delivered is factored in, that estimate expands considerably. Nevertheless, the timeline remains tight enough to render highly unlikely my supposedly setting up an elaborate cover-up scant minutes after they claimed I'd executed an insanely violent, five-weapon brutalization of my own mother. r 1
↩[Footnote 564 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
[Footnote 565 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
"MORE THAN ONCE, HE LOOKED OVER AT ME WITH THE SAME BITTER LOOK HE'D GIVEN ME BEFORE. IT BEGAN TO DISTRACT ME FROM MY OTHER CONCERNS, AS SERIOUS AS THEY WERE, LONG ENOUGH TO BEGIN TO WORRY ABOUT MY OWN WELFARE."
↩Lisker/Monsue Interrogation, March 10, 1983, page 39
↩[Footnote 663 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]
Second Declaration of Robert Lisker
↩Lisker/Monsue Interrogation, March 10, 1983, page 43
↩[Footnote 671 is not present in the source Footnotes - 1-719.docx. Bruce — please add the citation here.]