Guestbook

Extended Guestbook Entry

17 February 2005

If the circumstances surrounding this case were as clear cut as the previous postings would indicate, why would Jack have lost not one, but two cases?

Noticeably absent from the previous postings are details surrounding his felony conviction for tax evasion (which certainly couldn't have helped his credibility) and certain details about Jack's questionable meetings with Mary Carroll during the trial during which we can only theorize that he and Mary were getting their stories straight.

Why has Jack not waived the confidentiality agreement between himself and prior counsel? If he has nothing to hide, I don't see why he hasn't allowed the attorney to speak freely. No one questions this in their postings...

Why was it reported that Jack's own mother asked him to stop touching his victim on at least one occasion during their "martial arts" practice? Has no one else written in to provide this information? Or do you find it in the interest of justice to keep this hidden?

Why was Jack spending so much time alone with this young girl (who was not his daughter), especially given the nature of his relationship with his ex-wife?

The 440 motion takes aim at a technicality where it was stated that the victim was under the age of 11, but it is argued that she may or may not have been 12 at the time of the incidents. Would it have been OK to molest a 12 year old? NO! I fail to see the relevance. Talk about grasping at straws... If we have learned nothing else from this ordeal, we have learned to teach our daughters to keep a journal documenting the dates and times that they were molested. The 440 motion also notes that the victim could not supply this vital information, thus the encompassing of multiple acts under one charge is inappropriate. Rational people might deem it inappropriate to request so much from the 11 year old victim of molestation.

It can be argued that some of the comments made by DeAngelis were inappropriate, but I don't think the effects of the questionable comments are the issue here. The issue would have to be the opinions of two dozen members of two juries (who I assume were interviewed prior to their appointment to the jury by the Defense's attorney) who found Jack guilty. Reasonable people would not be affected by DeAngelis' interjection of her opinions, and would rule on the merits of the cases at hand. Jury verdicts are a cornerstone of the judicial system, and in this instance two juries have spoken - luckily one was heard. Our system of justice isn't perfect, but it's all we have. To account for this imperfection, the means to appeal a decision exists. It appears that Jack's attorneys have made use of this safety net - and the verdict still stands.

I think we're seeing "justice now", and if the program and the website live up to their names, we will see this and other letters posted right alongside the pro-Jack opinions already shown in the guest book.
-anonymous

---

Reply

We thank this writer for providing us an opportunity to address these issues. We extend, via this reply, an offer to meet with the writer at any time to discuss this case and invite him/her to appear on the Justice Now television show. The Rensselaer County District Attorney refuses to come out openly and discuss the issues in this case. She hides behind the doors of her office. She is apparently afraid of the truth, which is understandable considering she has had 3 cases overturned for prosecutorial misconduct in the past 8 months. In a way this writer is doing the same, hiding behind a bogus email address and a signature of “anonymous.” It would seem this writer, like the DA, is afraid of the truth, preferring to offer theories as opposed to fact. Baseless theory and innuendo is exactly what landed Jack Carroll in jail to begin with.

The writer suggests reasonable people would not be affected by Ms. DeAngelis’ interjections of her opinion or inappropriate comments. Yet, the 12 members of jury number one—all reasonable people—convicted Jack on three counts of first-degree rape; a crime that Ms. DeAngelis herself conceded during the second trial had never occurred. When attempting to explain why, during a police prompted telephone call that was intended to get Jack to incriminate himself, he repeatedly told the girl to go to the doctors to verify that nothing had happened, Ms. DeAngelis stated, “Members of the jury, he never believed there would be any evidence because he never put his penis inside of her.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals dismissed the rape charges stating, “There is no evidence or testimony of penetration of any instrumentality.”

Considering the fact that Ms. DeAngelis admittedly was able to convince 12 reasonable people that Jack was guilty of a crime that did not occur, is it really that difficult to think she could also convince a second jury he was guilty of a non-existent crime? And considering her concession that she had, in fact, convicted Jack for rapes that never occurred, one must wonder why Ms. DeAngelis continues to offer as her proof of Jack’s guilt the fact that he was “convicted by two separate juries.”

In response to the writer’s suggestion that innocent people cannot be convicted by two separate juries, research shows there are countless cases of innocent people convicted by more than one jury being released from prison. For example, in 1999 Illinois released Anthony Porter from death row just 2 days before his scheduled execution. He had been convicted by 2 different juries and spent 15 years on death row. Porter was only exonerated after a journalism class from Northwestern University uncovered evidence to clear him. Justice Now also suggests readers visit the following site that details the case of another man, this one having spent 22 years on death row, convicted by three different juries, before he was finally exonerated by DNA evidence. Incredibly, despite being unequivocally cleared by DNA evidence, the prosecution in that case continues to insist on this man’s guilt. Why? Because he was convicted by 3 different juries! http://www.kerrymaxcook.com/kmc/

Jack Carroll pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion in 1998. Information on that case is readily available by reading the 440-motion posted on the Home Page of this site. With regard to the writer’s theory of a plot involving Jack and Mary Carroll; they, along with their children, were together all of the time outside of the courtroom as they are a family and lived together. Is this what the writer somehow considers “questionable meetings?” If not, we have no idea what is meant by “questionable meetings.”

The “encompassing of multiple acts under one count” that the reader questions is far from a technicality; it is a violation of a basic tenet of the judicial system. How can a defendant offer a defense when he or she has no way of identifying what the circumstances of a charge are?

Once his 440 motion was filed in November 2004, Jack Carroll did in fact waive lawyer/client privileges for current and prior counsel: James Gross, his current attorney, Mike Koenig who represented Jack in both trials and in the first appeal, and Robert Rosenthal, who represented Jack in the second appeal. Again, the writer’s suggestion that Jack is hiding something is simply inaccurate and seems to be part of some sort of baseless theory.

The writer refers to the charge from February of 1997, when Jack’s mother arrived at the girl’s apartment as Jack was dropping her off from a shopping trip. Jack’s mother was angry that the girl had not called her as she was supposed to do every day when she got home from school. In trial one, the girl testified that she did not hear any of what her step-grandmother said to Jack that day. Three years later in trial two her story had changed dramatically and despite having testified at trial one that she didn’t hear a word of what Mrs. Carroll said that day, she now claimed Jack’s mother said, “Get away from that girl.” Mrs. Carroll has specifically and repeatedly stated that she never said any such thing and there is simply no support for the writer’s statement. Though she knew the accuser completely changed her story regarding this incident, Ms. DeAngelis chose to tell the jury it was Mrs. Carroll who was not telling the truth stating, “Even Grandma lied!”

Jack spent a lot of time with all of his children. He raised his former stepdaughter and she was a part of his family. She was the sister of his other children and was involved in all family functions. Testimony from all parties on both sides of the case report that the girl contacted Jack repeatedly every day, right up until the last day she saw him, because she wanted to spend time with him.

A review of the trial transcript reveals that the accuser could supply almost no information to support the charges, let alone any vital information. She could not recall if her clothes were on or off, or if Jack’s clothes were on or off. She could not recall if she ever saw his body parts. She could provide no information outside of her scripted testimony. In fact, trial testimony shows that Ms. DeAngelis was meeting regularly with Jack’s accuser for an entire month prior to the second trial so that the accuser would be prepared. Perhaps this is a better example of “getting their stories straight” than what the writer offers above.

Finally, it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone condones the sexual abuse of a person of any age. What Justice Now is opposed to is the unscrupulous behavior of a District Attorney who presents cases such as Jack’s in which there has admittedly been no investigation, in which police witnesses admittedly lied, in which medical “evidence” was admittedly wrong, and in which the DA prosecuted charges that she herself admitted were untrue.

The writer’s comment that our justice system isn’t perfect is correct. However, naivety seems to lead the writer to believe that a District Attorney, or at least this District Attorney, is objective and is only interested in seeing that justice is served. We can only pray that the writer never ends up on the wrong end of an allegation handled by this DA. For only then will he/she understand just how imperfect our justice system is.