Unsubstantiated

Unsubstantiated Claims

 

  1. Told the Principal
  2. Told the Vice-Principal
  3. School doesn’t keep the records
  4. Vice Principal protects the boys
  5. Went to Burchell
  6. Went to Job Corps to be electrician
  7. Worked on the slope
  8. Operation on feet
  9. Year she graduated
  10. Drive by in what vehicle/ more than one reported
  11. Drivers license
  12. Bother at job corps
  13. Run Billy off road
  14. No interview of Me
  15. In the first interview with mike summit, he suggests that Dunford contact Officer Anthony with PPD. There is no evidence anywhere that he ever did that.
  16. In the first interview Mike Summitt tells Dunford that there were about 4 other girls that I raped. No evidence of that. Amanda’s is the only claim in the o3/04 time frame.
  17. Tells Dunford that he met my dad. That is a lie. My dad has never met him.
  18. Says that they had trouble with me for over 2 years. Did not follow up on her being out of school and then me being out of state.
  19. I was also out of state

To lie together

I will put Kayla and Sabrina together as that is the way they say it went down. Too many of their statements are really hard to believe. The most outstanding of them takes place at Lazy Mountain. Sabrina says that while I was trying to get her to give me head, Kayla was sitting in the window of the pickup. However Kayla says that she went for a walk for about 20 minutes. Except that in court testimony she says it was 10 minutes. So which is it? In fact in the grand jury it was asked of Kala what Sabrina looked like when she returned to the pickup. Either way someone is lying and that is PERJURY! If Sabrina was sitting in the middle then why did she let me touch Kala and undo her bra?  All Sabrina had to do is lean forward or backward to block my arm. To keep from having her bra unhooked all Kayla had to do is turn sideways or just lean back; remember I was supposedly driving, so I would not have been able to maneuver enough to do so. Kayla says that while at “Leah’s” place I tried to touch her. If that were true then why on earth would she even consider going somewhere with me, especially to a place that is pretty much out of sight. Why doesn’t Sabrina mention babysitting at “Leah’s”? Sabrina says that after the alleged rape, we went out and had consensual sex at least 3 other times. Why on earth would anyone continue to see someone after being “raped”? Sabrina says that incident took place in an RV and that after it happened I took a 45 minute nap. So if I was asleep why didn’t she leave or call the cops? Instead she lay down next to me! She does change her story at one point when she says that it was “for a little while” then I left. In court Kayla says that she had met me before but didn’t remember when, yet Sabrina claims that Kayla told her about me. I also find it interesting how the court hid from the jury that they had to put out a warrant for Kayla’s arrest because she didn’t show up, and even stated she didn’t want to be in court. Also hid that Sabrina had “allegedly” tried to commit suicide to keep from showing up, and they used a court order to get her out of API early to make her testify.

Any way you look at it there are several lies buried within the testimonies. Determining exactly what they are is most likely impossible to say. A point of law says that if any part of a testimony is shown to be a lie, then all must be considered a lie! Oh wait; there is another option, how about my testimony?

None of the things that that either one of them say about going to Lazy Mountain happened. We sat in the truck and talked. I never touched Kayla, did not force Sabrina to give me head. Kayla did not go for a walk at all. She did want to sit in the window but I told her no, I did not want her sitting in the window and maybe damage the door. I have never been to Leah’s house, I don’t even know where it is. Sabrina and I did have sex in the RV, but not the first time I was there. We both decided when we were going to have sex. By the way, Sabrina was no virgin. Interesting how I was never given an opportunity to give my testimony. Guess they didn’t want me spoiling their lies.

AJ– the lies

 

On page 56 of the Grand Jury testimonies, Amanda is testifying, under oath. She states, referring to Trooper Dunford, “He finally ended up calling my mom to get my phone number, and it took him talking to me for two to three weeks before I was—finally trusted him enough to be able to tell him everything.” Ok I was arrested on the 24th of January. His first call to Amanda was on January 28th. So to place this in light, two to three weeks would be sometime between February 11th and February 18th. There was a second interview on the 4th of February. That still doesn’t fit into the time frame, especially the 3 weeks’ time frame.  So is she lying? It would be very obvious that she is. The only other explanation is that if in fact it was 2 or 3 weeks, then Trooper Dunford either lied on his report when he dated it Jan. 28th or he in fact set this whole thing up and started calling her early in the month of January, which would fit in to some of the things that show up in the MY SPACE account information. We will cover that later. So in summary either Amanda committed perjury, Dunford committed perjury, or Dunford is guilty of CONSPIRACY!

I find it very interesting that during the second interview that the recording didn’t take because he had a switch in the wrong position. I thought he was an experienced trooper?

In Dunford’s report, see pg 547, in 2nd paragraph Amanda says that she met me through her church.  She says that we started attending the same church in 2001.  That is very strange since we did not arrive in Alaska until the summer of 2002 and did not start going to church in Palmer until the fall of 2002. My dad’s military record will verify that we did not leave Oregon until July of 2002. In fact in the spring of 2002 he was deployed on a Coast Guard ship off the Mexican/Guatemalan coasts.  She says that I told her that we came up from Oregon and spent time in California and Kentucky. In fact we went to Disneyland but none of my family has ever been to Kentucky. So did she just make up the story about Kentucky or does she have me confused with someone else. I never mentioned Kentucky since I have never been there. According to Dunford’s report Amanda was good friends with my ex-girlfriend Stacy Begley.  Well part of that is a bold faced lie.  Stacy could not stand Amanda, hated her in fact. Stacy hung out with several of us in what was called the “Magic Corner”, and everyone in the Magic Corner hated Amanda. Dunford asks if I graduated and she says she didn’t know because she had to switch schools because of me. No mention of the foot surgery that her dad claims she had. Amanda stated, in telephone interview, that she met me at a church prom and ended up having to give me a ride home. That is a complete lie. It was a Sadie Hawkins dance, where the girls ask the boys, and she asked me to the dance. Since I did not have a car or driver’s license she drove to and from the dance. My parents have pictures of us in my parents’ house when we were leaving. She then says that is the first time I tried to attack her in the car. Not only is that a lie, but it is never mentioned in any of the written reports. Then she says that a couple of weeks later there was a huge windstorm and she gave me a ride home where I invited her inside to meet my mom. Interesting, why would I want her to meet my mom when they already met when we went to the prom. We have the photograph to prove this. In the Grand Jury testimony she says that I wanted to show her around and introduce me to his family. Again I say why, when they had already met and she had been in our house the night of the prom! Now in Dunfords’ report she says that Tina Whisler was not home, but in Grand Jury she says “that no one was home except for his younger brother”, which is what is stated in the audio interview. A point conveniently left out of Dunford’s report. Also not true. If as she says she gave me a ride after school then my brother would not have been home because he rode the bus and didn’t get home until later. She says that we went into the garage. In the police report it says that I forced her into the garage. So did she go willingly or was she forced?  Too many lies to be sure. Now she says that I forced her into a chair and sat on her then took off her button down blouse. Really, can someone show me how that is possible! In the Grand Jury she doesn’t mention anyone coming into the garage. However in the police report she says that she was yelling at me. Then why didn’t someone come in. She says that my younger brother walked into the room. Wouldn’t he have been running in? According to Dunford’s written report of an interview on February 4th, one that Amanda’s side of the conversation was not recorded because of a misplaced switch, he has that she named Zeb’s brother as Joshua. In the first audio tape he asked her my brother’s name and she did not know; only that he was younger. In the February interview Dunford says “and his brother’s name is Joshua?” “Hum ok”. So were did Joshua come from? My only guess is that Dunford made it up. What did she say back to him? No possible way to be sure. Well we don’t have a Joshua in our family. But here’s the thing. If a real investigation had been done, then the trooper would have discovered that we don’t have a Joshua, which would have proved that she is a liar, if in fact she said that. I still contend that he made it up. Also had he done an investigation he would have discovered that it was in fact my sister that came into the room, not my brother, and she actually saw Amanda sitting on me and tickling me. In Grand Jury she says that when I was done she grabbed her stuff and left. In police report she says that while I was talking to my brother she was able to wiggle out from under me, got her blouse and ran out the side door of the garage. Two points here, 1)that is two different stories, 2) she gives two versions of this and in the first she ran out the door and didn’t look back, then she says that she went out the door and when she was getting into her car I was coming out  the side door. I thought she said that she didn’t look back. Which is it? Again if a real investigation had been done they would have discovered that the side door was blocked with a large dresser. Then of course in the next, February, interview it is suddenly changed to me now raping her. I am still having trouble figuring out how I was able to get her clothes off and rape her while I was sitting on her thighs.

In Dunfords’ report she says that I assaulted her in school.  She says that she reported it to the Principal and that he told her that she was making it up and that he would not do anything about it. Then she says that she told the secretary to the counselors who had her report it to the principal’s office. The principal no investigation, no one talked to the principal. My parents did later, and the principal, Wolfgang Winter, stated that no one every reported any such thing. If someone had reported such a thing, they would have been required by law to report it and the offender removed from school until an investigation was done. Maybe Dunford or my attorney should have went and talked to him.

Amanda claims that she and her mom were walking to Carrs and that I was stopped in the middle of the highway holding up traffic. Really? Three problems with this story, 1) wouldn’t someone have called the police and reported it? 2) I had no car and no driver’s license at that time. Earlier she talked about giving me rides home. If I had a car then why would I have needed rides home? 3) Her dad claims that she had surgery on her feet. So how were they walking to Carrs if she had surgery and was in a wheel chair?  On the bottom of pg. 548 she says that I once parked in the street in front of Amanda’s house watching the house for hours. However in the Grand Jury testimony she states that I sat in the street for about 3 hours. The DA asked “in his vehicle?” She says no just me. Then when asked if I just left she says that I must have because I was gone when she came home. So I guess she left and some point? Then how did she know how long I stayed? If she left then why wouldn’t I have just left too?  Again I did not have a car or a driver’s license. See attached insurance records and DMV records.

The next part gets very interesting. There are several version of the story. Pg. 549 she says she graduated from high school and went to job corps. She says that some men in the men’s dorm told her that I was looking for her. The only person that I went there to see was Billy Schumacher. She goes on to say that I ran Billy Schumacher off the road with my car. I repeat, NO CAR, NO DRIVERS LICENCE. Also Billy and I were good friends. Keep in mind that all of this was allegedly happened in the spring and summer of 2003. But notice that Dunford never interviewed Billy Schumacher.

Amanda claims that she stopped going to church because of me. She was called in to talk to the Bishop. She says that my mom was called in also. Well here we go again with lies. To start with we went to different wards, so they would not have been called into the same bishop. However my mom was not called into the bishop’s office. Of course if the cops or my attorney had talked to either my mom or the bishop, they would have discovered it was all a lie. Also saying “you better watch out, you don’t mess with Wyoming girls”, is not something that my mom would say, and in fact the only time my mom has ever talk to Amanda was the night of the prom. Strange she doesn’t mention the Bishop’s office in the Grand Jury testimony. She only says that my mom said, “That she needs to watch out and not to mess with them.”

During the first interview with Mike Summitt, done by telephone, Mike claims that, “it was basically a date rape.” Well the only actual date we went on was the church prom and nothing happened that night. Amanda’s claim of rape happened either before or after that. It is very hard to determine as her story changes from one telling to another. Next he tells Dunford that they talked to a PPD officer but had trouble remembering her name. Mike says that this PPD officer also talked to 4 other girls that claimed I had done the same thing to them. Now in point, this would have had to have happened prior to the summer of 03. We did not get here till fall of 02. So with going to school, working at McDonalds and living at home, when was there time to assault 4 other girls. Where and how was this supposed to happen, I didn’t have a vehicle to get around. Mike keeps saying that Dunford should contact Officer Anthony. However there is absolutely no indication that he ever did. No audio, no written report or any indication of any kind that Dunford make any attempt to contact her. Then he claims to have met my dad. However my dad has never met, or so far as he knows has never even seen Mike. Mike claims that Anthony interviewed them then came over and talked with my family. That never happened. In fact what really happened is that the day after the prom Amanda started rumors at school that I had raped her or tried to rape her the night of the prom. Yet in all the testimony she claims to have driven away upon dropping me off. So we reported it to our Bishop. When it continued we went to PPD and asked Officer Anthony what we could do about it. Later Officer Anthony told us that Amanda and her mom came into the PPD and wanted to file charges. So she, Anthony, told them that she would file the claim if Amanda would take a lie detector test. But that if she failed the test she would charge her with filing a false claim. Anthony stated that Sandra and Amanda almost ran out of PPD. Mike claims that, ‘we had running problems with me for almost 2 years after that, he kept stalking my daughter.” Ok, let us dissect that. Dunford and Mike have already established that the alleged incident took place in 2003. Now he says that they had trouble with stalking for almost two years. Well in the next interview Mike says that Amanda had surgery on her feet and was home schooled for a year. So she must have been at home until around summer of 2004. Upon graduation in 04 I went to California and lived with my older brother for several months. So we can take that time off the table. In 05 I came back to Alaska but then went and worked at a fishing lodge out of Kodiak. So when did I have time to stalk her. All of these are facts that Dunford could have found out it he had done an investigation. But instead he decided to “build” a case against me, facts and truth be damned. Next Mike claims to know us through the church. That is a flat out lie. My parents have never met either of them. Have no idea what they look like. In fact to the best of my knowledge Mike does not attend church, or at least not very often. Their family was in a different ward and so we had no interaction. Mike says, “I know he hangs around a lot of young girls and the young adults. “ So is he saying that he knows what I was doing in 08/09? If so then he must have been stalking me. If he meant that I hung around a bunch of girls in 03 then he is full of it. You have to be 18 and graduated to attend the young adult ward. Which I wasn’t, and he would have no idea because Amanda definitely wasn’t old enough to attend young adult ward. If he meant young men/young women activities, then we either met separately of in one big group. Either way it shows that he either has no idea what goes on and is making things up as he goes along or is flat out lying. Also interesting how he never mentions any of this in the second interview and never asks Dunford if he had talked to Officer Anthony or got a copy of the report. He was very adamant that Dunford talk to her and get the report. I can only guess that there is no report and he knows it. Dunford kept saying that he was going to talk to Anthony yet there is not a shred of evident that he ever did.

During interview number 2 with Mike Summitt, Amanda Summitt’s father, Dunford asks Mike to describe the first time that he met “Zeb”. Mike states that it was the when his daughter brought me over to his house to meet him. “I had to meet all the boys that she hung around with.” “I don’t remember the year, I believe it was summertime, I was in the garage, I believe I was cleaning my guns”. Yet in his report Dunford has that Mike told him 2003. That is not what he said. Well either way that wouldn’t have been possible since we didn’t get into Alaska until July and was in Anchorage until August and then we were living out off trunk road with friends until the first of September. In the interview Dunford asks how that went. Mike simply states, “It went just fine.” Yet in Dunford’s report he says that “Mike Summitt thought Zebulon was well spoken and polite”. That is clearly not what Mike said! He next claims that she went over to “his place a few times with her younger brothers”. The younger brothers were never taken over to the Whislers’ home. Then he says that nothing really happened until “I think it was like a prom or something”. Mike then claims that after that we broke up. Dunford puts in his report, “Mike noticed that Zebulon would still come by the house, but would not come in”. Mike does not say any such thing! Mike says, “After that I would be out working in the yard or something and I’d see Zeb, he kept cruising through the area in his pickup truck real slow by our house 10 or 15 times a day.” Note 3 things here, first he says that “he” seen me drive by. He soon changes his tune. Second DMV and Insurance records show that I had neither a vehicle nor a driver’s license at that time. Nor did we have a pickup truck. So how is it possible to drive something that we don’t have? Third, Mike never says what summer this took place. However Dunford to liberties here and put down in his written report that Mike claims it was the summer of 2003. Now to revisit the 15 times a day. In Dunford’s report he simple says that Mike noticed Zebulon drive by their house approximately15 times. Not at all what Mike said. However Dunford did not include any of the rest of Mikes flip-flop statement. “I mean I’d only see him once or twice but the kids were telling me he was doing it that often.” Then Dunford says, “ok so the kids were telling you 10 or 15 times but you only saw him maybe 2 or 3 times.” Mike says, “Yea a couple of times.” Dunford asks, “How often would you see him cruise by your house slowly?” “It was like on my days off if I’d be there, sometimes I’d see him, it might be a couple hours later I’d see him cruise by slowly I think maybe twice in a day.” Dunford asks how many times he saw me do that. Mike says, “Over the period of that summer I probably saw him at least 15 times that summer.” Of course we still don’t know what summer Mike thought that this allegedly happened; only that Dunford says it was. Still don’t know how these drive bys were made with no vehicle. But let’s check the statement. He says at the end “15 times that summer”. Ok let’s do some math. He states earlier, that he saw me and then in a couple of hours he’d see me again. Let’s say that he only had 2 days off a week, and use an 8 hour day. That’s 4 times a day, times 2 days for 8 times a week. Times 4 weeks, that’s 32 times a month, times the standard 3 month summer, that’s 96 times,(minimum) during the summer. He also says the kids told him as many as 15 times a day. Ok Kids home all day. 15 times 7 for 105 times a week, times 4 weeks equals 420 times a month times 3 gives 1260 times. Something doesn’t add up. We only had 2 vehicles. Mom drove one and Dad the other. So how is this possible? Looks like no real investigation was done. There was only BUILDING a case.

Now we will look at Mike’s statement about AJ and seminary. First off Dunford says that in 2003 Mike obtained permission from his Bishop to attend seminary class. Mike never mentioned the year, Dunford taking liberties again. In the tape Mike does not mention Bishop Pyra, he only says that he got permission from his bishop. Also one does not have to get permission for a Bishop to attend a seminary class where you have a child attending, and by the way as a member of the same church, Dunford would have known this. Mike said that I came in and sat down across from AJ with big smile. But Dunford put down that I had a smug, gloating type smile. Two different things. Next Dunford’s report says that I looked back and saw Mike sitting in the back of the room and walked out of the class room. Shortly afterward Mike heard Dean Whisler yelling at Bishop Pyra regarding Mike’s presence in the room.  However if you listen to the taped interview this is what was said. “When he saw me he fell out of his chair and ran out of the room, it was hilarious.”  About 10 minutes after that he came back in and sat back down where he had sat the first time making sure that AJ could see him. And then his dad was there but his didn’t come into seminary class, he was out with two bishops yelling at them about me being there. Again in the written report Dunford says that my dad was yelling at Bishop Pyra. The taped conversation only says “two bishops” no names. That was the knowingly time that I ever met Zeb’s dad and I didn’t speak to him. Now Dunford asks, this was back in 03 and Mike says I believe so. To clarify, my Dad was working in Anchorage at that time so could not be there because he was commuting to Anchorage. Also, and Dunford as a member of the church, would know that the Bishops are not there in the early morning either. More important, and if Dunford had done a real investigation and talked with Bishop Pyra and Bishop Willardson he would have learned that not only did my dad not have a conversation with the bishops about this, but that he in fact has never had a cross word with either bishop. A fact that could have easily been verified by a simple investigative phone call. But then that would not have fit his agenda. Also a fact that at one point AJ tried to accuse Bishop Pyra of some form of sexual harassment or assault. I don’t know the details. In the taped interview Mike claims that I next walked over to my Dad. This did not happen as my dad was not there. Next Mike claims that AJ told him that I would get behind her and shove her just as she got to the stairs and that I got caught doing it by one of the adult men there and that I tried to lie my way out of it and that the man threw me into a wall. Total lie. First of there were no adult men there at that time of day. Second someone would have told my parents or at least the Bishop, and I would have told my parents about an adult throwing me into a wall.

Next they talk about school. Dunford asks where she went to school. Mike said that,” she was going to Palmer High but then she dropped out of that and finished going thru I think it was Ideal and then there was Burchell.” He starts to say that it is a school for—but doesn’t finish that thought. Mike says. “She originally dropped out, not really dropped out, she just quit going to regular school and home schooled because she had some operations on her feet and didn’t want to have to go around in the school in a wheel chair. So she did that for a year, from there she decided not to go back to school because Zeb was there and giving her a lot of problems and so she went ahead and joined, I think it was Burchell or something like that.” Dunford asks if she made a complaint to the school. Mike says “yea”. Then Dunford asked if the school did anything. Mike says, “Not Palmer High School, they never do.” He claims to have talked to several other adults who had similar problems and nothing was done.    So now let’s look at this. To start, he didn’t finish the thought because Burchell is a school where troubled kids go. Guess he didn’t want Dunford to think maybe his daughter is not the greatest kid. Then he claims that she had operations on her feet. Interesting how neither his wife, Sandra, nor his daughter, AJ, ever mentions anything about any such operation. Next he claims that she home schooled for a year and then joined Burchell. What happened to “Ideal”? To clarify, that would have to be the 03/04 school term. So if she was home schooled for a year that would be at least to the spring of 04. Next he says that she didn’t go back to Palmer because was there and giving her a bad time. He just said that she wasn’t there for the rest of that school year. I graduated spring of 04 so I would not have been at school that fall, also I had went to California for a while, so I wasn’t around to bother her. Dunford never checked with Palmer high. There was no report of me bothering her at school.

Next is Dunford’s  interview with Amanda’s mom Sandra. She claims that I attacked Amanda but that she was “brought up right and she got away”. Well if she got away then how is it that there are “rape charges”? Mike claimed that she was “date raped”? How many versions can you have to the same story? She makes the claim that I stopped in the middle of the highway and was staring at Amanda. Again I ask how. “NO CAR, NO LICENSE”! Now Sandra claims that the harassment from me was so bad that they took her out of high school and home schooled her. Wow, her dad said she was home schooled because she had operations on her feet. Amanda has another story. Next Sandra makes claims that I was attacking Amanda in the hall at school. She claims that it was reported and that the school told her that they would have to subpoena the records. She claims that the vice principal had it in for young women. She claims that Amanda kept going to him with the incidents. However Dunford never made any attempt to contact the school. Not one single report of him trying to find out anything from the school. Next she claims that my mom is a real “piece of work”. Sandra says that my mom claims that Amanda never came to our house. That is a lie, as we have a picture of us in our house on prom night. She says that my mom claims that I had nothing to do with her daughter, that we never even dated. Total lie, my mom has never said any such thing. She says that my mom called her daughter a “little hussy”. Well again if Dunford had done a real investigation he would have discovered that Amanda has caused a lot of trouble with boys in the area. In fact Brian Johnson quit the rifle team because she made so much trouble for him. She claims that there were even young men who had restraining order against me. First off I never had a single restraining order against me from anyone, male or female. Even if I did how would she know? She claims that I asked Amanda out. Total lie. It was a Sadie Hawkins dance. That is where the girl asks the guy out. Amanda asked me out to the dance. She claims that I tried to rape her at my house and that there were no witnesses. What about Amanda’s claims. Amanda claims that Zeb’s younger brother was there and came out into the room. She even names him. Joshua. Of course we have no Joshua. In fact had Dunford done an investigation he would have learned that it was Zeb’s sister that came into the room. Then Dunford commits witness tampering. He tells Sandra that he is concerned that the defense might start an investigation. He tells her that she should only talk to state troopers and that anyone who claims to be and investigator is lying and not to talk to them. That is witness tampering or at the very least interfering with and investigation. The defense does not use the troopers to investigate. Only the prosecution does that. The defense uses private investigators. So he gave her bogus information. Then she tells Dunford that I have some “really wonderful brothers and sisters”. How would she know? She has never met any other members of my family and she shows it with that statement. At that time I only had ONE brother and ONE sister here. Again, no investigation, only building a case. Then she says that my mom lied by going to her Bishop and telling him that my husband was in prison for trying to kill me. Well that in itself is a lie. My mom has never had a meeting with Bishop Pyra. She has only said hi to him if they passed in the hall. Again something that Dunford could have check out but didn’t.

Listening to Amanda’s interview with Dunford, the first one it is appalling the amount of lies that are there. First off there is the claim that it took Dunford calling her for 2 to 3 weeks before she would tell him everything. Well where are the tapes of those calls? In the tape she doesn’t sound the slightest bit shy; she is a regular chatty Kathy. She goes over many of the lies that I’ve already stated. She doesn’t mention the foot surgeries that her dad said she had. She says that I attacked her in the school and that the principal said she was making it up. No one talked to the principal about it. Speaking of school, where did she go to school? Her dad says home school and then Burchell. Amanda says she graduated high school and went to Job Corps, but doesn’t say which school she graduated from in the first interview. At one point Valley Pathways is mentioned, then at some point she moved to Juneau then came back to go to Job Corps. She says that her dad came in and asked if that was Zeb sitting out in the street. Well her dad never said anything about me sitting in the street. Then she says that all officer Antony went and talked to my parents about it and that it didn’t go over very well. Well that never happened. Officer Anthony did not go and talk to my parents. A fact that a simple investigation could have found out. She says that while at Job Corps that I ran Billy Schumacher off the road with my car. Ok describe the car. I did not have a car at the time that Billy was in Job Corp. Then she tells Dunford that he probably won’t be able to talk to Billy because he had a bad accident and she heard that he was pretty much non-functioning. Again no investigation. Then Amanda says that at church the Bishops got involved and called us in to talk to us. Well first off we went to different wards. Second, if there was a problem they wouldn’t have us there at the same time. The wards meet at different times. My mother never said anything to Amanda, especially about not messing with Wyoming girls. Again, why didn’t Dunford confirm with the Bishops, especially since he too is a member. On page 549 of Dunford’s report he wrote that “Amanda moved several times so that Zebulon would not know where she was.” However that is not what Amanda said in the interview. She said, “a lot of people have just litterly moved out of state and moved a number of times.” Two totally different statements. Dunford is a lying SOB, he told Amanda that my dad had been intimidating people, which is total BS. He has not talked to or contacted anyone at any time about any of this.

In the second interview with Amanda, Dunford had the switch in the wrong position, by his own admission. You can also hear other troopers in the background. He should have been in an area that was private. However there is only one side to the conversation so there is no way to determine if anything that Dunford put in his report is a lie or true. It cannot be determined who he is talking to or if there is no one there and he just made up the whole thing. Dunford has proved in other statements and interviews that he has no problem lying. Therefore the entire second interview should have been, and should be thrown out as there is no possible way to verify any of it. Besides, contrary to previous statements, Amanda told much more in the first interview than in the second. If you listen to the one sided interview he has her claiming that I assaulted her at school. She allegedly claims I did something to her at school, no way to be sure as can only hear one side. Then he says, “tell me about another time where that happened, where he sexually assaulted you or touched you inappropriately.” That sounds like an invitation to make up a story. That should have been said, is there anything else that happened?

Next I would like to touch on the trial testimony. Twice in this sworn testimony Amanda says that it took 2 to 3 weeks before she trusted Dunford enough to tell him everything, something she has said before. (see first paragraph)  She says that we went on a few dates. We did not, unless you call going to her house a date. She says that she switched schools because I was bothering her in school. Yet there is never any time frame for that happening. She talks about going to Pathways, yet her dad said she had foot surgery and went to Burchell after a year of home school. So which is it? She again brings up a claim that I was sitting in the middle of the road in front of their house. Something no one else mentions. However this time she says that they told me to go away, that’s a new claim. She says she went to work. Well if I was stalking her wouldn’t I have followed her? She claims to have moved 5 times, and every time me or my family would find her and harass her. It’s not clear if she moved all these times in Alaska or Washington. However no one in my family, including me, had any idea or even cared where she was. My parents have never talked or seen her except the night of the prom. She says she graduated high school and then went to job corps. Then she says she moved to Juneau, something she did not mention in any other interview and no one else in her family ever mentioned, and then came back to job corps. Two different claims and they could have verified. She claims that at the end of 2003 she was getting ready to move out of state. The math there does not add up. She was a junior in 2003, check out the school yearbook. So she still had a year of school, of which could be home, Burchell, Pathways or any combination of. Then to job corps. She could not have both graduated and left the state in 2003. She was not in high at Palmer during the 2003/2004 year. In 2004 I moved to Los Angles, Ca. for several months. When I came back I worked at a lodge out of Kodiak and on one of the offshore rigs in the gulf. Then later went to New Mexico. So not sure when all this stuff could have taken place. It in fact couldn’t and the whole thing is made up. Now in court she indicates that my brother came into the room twice. That is a new claim. But as I have already stated, it was my sister that came into the room. So that is a double lie. Her claim that I sat on her in a chair and was somehow able to get her shirt off and pull up her “cami with a built in bra up over my boobs”, is in itself hard to figure. But she says that I gave her hickeys on her chest. How could I bend over that far? Remember my height! She claims that I took her pants down to just below her knees. How could I get my penis in her vagina with her pants still on?

 

UNSUBSTANIATED CLAIMS

  1. Ran Billy Shcumacher off the road with my car
  2. That I had a car and driver’s license at this time
  3. Banned from Job Corps
  4. Where and when Amanda went to school
  5. Operation on Amanda’s feet
  6. Officer Anthony talking to parents
  7. Reporting to high school principal
  8. Dad yelling at Bishops at the Church when Seminary was being held
  9. Who walked out into the garage
  10. Amanda moving several times
  11. Probably wouldn’t be able to talk to Billy due to his accident

 

TOTAL LIES

 

  1. Dad yelling at Bishops
  2. Brother coming out to the garage
  3. Brother named Joshua
  4. School not keeping reports, (if made they are required by law to keep)
  5. Running Billy off road
  6. Stalking her
  7. Schools attended
  8. People moved out of state to get away from me
  9. Driving by their house

 

Included is a comparison of Trooper interview and Grand Jury that we gave to my lawyer, and she never did anything with it. INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL

Trooper did not investigate

The following are things that took place or were stated by the accusers that the trooper never investigated. Had he done so he would have discovered that it was all made up.

AJ said that “Zeb” ran “Billy” off the road with his car.

Facts! Zeb did not have a car or a drivers license at that time. Facts that

Could be proven by looking at DMV and insurance records. He also

He also never talked to Billy. Had he done so he would have found

That no such thing ever happened. In fact Billy and Zeb were friends

AJ told the Trooper Dunford that she wasn’t sure if Billy could even communicate due to an accident.

Again Dunford never even attempted to talk to Billy. If he had he would

Have discovered that Billy can communicate just fine.

AJ’s dad claims that AJ did not go back to Palmer High School during senior year because she had surgery on her feet and didn’t want to be in the school in a wheel chair.

Trooper never looked into that. Neither AJ nor her mother mentioned any such surgery. Dad talks about her going to Burchell, while mom mentions Pathways and home schooling. So which is it?

AJ says that Zeb assaulted her in high school hall and that she told staff, but they told her to just forget it.

Fact is that no such claim was made to the school. If it had been the school would have had no choice but to take action. Trooper Dunford never talked to the school.

AJ’s dad claims that Zeb drove by their house many times in the summer of 2003. He said it was in a Ford pickup.

Had he investigated he would have discovered, through DMV and   insurance records that Zeb had neither a vehicle nor a license at that time. The Ford pickup that he mentions was not purchased by the family until 2006. Did he have a time machine?

Both AJ and her Mom talk about Zeb stopping in the middle of the road with his car and holding up traffic.  Again, he had no car and no license. Facts that DMV could have proved.

AJ’s dad says that there was a disturbance during morning church seminary class and that Zeb’s dad was In the hallway yelling at “the bishops”. Dunford never talked to the alleged Bishop. Also Zeb’s dad could not have been there since he was commuting to Anchorage for work.

Official complaint

The following is an official complaint that was filed with the Court and was completely ignored by the system.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
3rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT PALMER
STATE OF ALASKA, ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff )
Vs. )
Ramin Dunford )
Defendant )
-___________________________________)_______________________________________________________

I Dean R. Whisler, attest to the following and state:
This Affidavit is based upon personal observation, witness testimony, and Dunford’s own words as recorded in
Grand Jury documents. (attachment A)
On February 25, 2009 while testifying at a Grand Jury hearing, Trooper Ramin Dunford did commit perjury with his testimony. Having been duly sworn in, Trooper Dunford did give a false statement to the members of the Grand Jury. He did this of his own violation and with full knowledge that what he said was a lie.
Trooper Dunford told the Grand Jury that on the early morning (0110 hrs.), of January 24, 2009, he was having a vehicle towed from the parking lot of the North Bowl in Wasilla. During the process of this act the owners, Dean and Tina Whisler did show up to retrieve their vehicle. The vehicles were parked in approximately the positions shown on attachment D. Tina Whisler was trying to get into the vehicle and was in discussion with Trooper Dunford, whom had not shown anyone any type of identification to this point, so she was not even sure he was a Trooper. They were in approximately the positions A and B on attachment E. The tow truck driver for MTR, witness 1, was approximately in position C. Dean Whisler was approximately at position D.
Trooper Dunford then told the Grand Jury that Dean Whisler got in between himself and Tina Whisler. That Dean had his neck muscles tensed and shoulders forward and would not let him get to Tina. He testified to Dean’s hostile attitude and that he would not move until Tina told Dean that he had better move before he got attested. All of that statement is a lie and known by Dunford to be a lie. He could not have observed these actions on the part of Dean because it did not happen. Dean never even got on the same side of the vehicle as Dunford and Tina. Dean in fact remained in the position D. Dean Whisler has testified to this, see attachment B. Tina Whisler has testified to this, see attachment C. Tow truck driver witness 1, has testified to this, see attachment D. Witness 1’s testimony was recorded and observed by his boss at the MTR office in Palmer on June 10, 2011. Witness 1 was very clear and certain in his testimony and testified that Dean never came to the side of the vehicle where Tina Whisler and Trooper Dunford, and Dean in no way interfered with Trooper Dunford. As such Dunford’s Grand Jury testimony of Dean Whisler’s position, actions and appearance are a complete and conscience lie and needs to be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
________________________________
Signature of claimant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _______ day of ___________20___

_________________________________________
Notary Public for Alaska
My Commission Expires

Show me the report

One of the things that I wonder is how on earth these cops keep getting away with making claims of things that they claim to have found out, yet don’t have to show the discovery. Here is one that really gets to me. Now Trooper Dunford claims that he was investigating this case and he looked on APSIN and found that back in 2003 there was an alligation of rape listed. That would be by A1. Now this brings up a huge list of problems. First and most important is, if this is true then where is a copy of the report. No where in any of the reports, court paper work or anything is there evidence of this report. Nothing to show that this actually is there. If it was there and is important enough to be mentioned in his report then where is a copy of the APSIN report to prove it. By the way that would be called (evidence). Now first trouble is, how did it get there. We know that after a date in 2003, A1, started spreading rumors around school that she had been raped. So we made a report to PPD Officer Anthony. Now according to Officer Anthony within a day or two in came A1 to file a report. Officer Anthony later told us that she agreed to file the report if A1 could pass a lie detector test, if not she would be charged with false accusation, at which point A1 left in a big hurry. I am inclined to believe that side of story because if she had filed a charge then there would have been an investigation, and there wasn’t. Also if that had been added by Officer Anthony then she would have been lieing to us. Still I have seen no evidence of the report. Now Zeb’s attorney had her investigator look into it and she found nothing about the report. Now Zeb looked into going into the military. Two background checks were done by the military and they found nothing of the kind. By the way Dunford also claimed that he had found another such entry in 2006 or 2007. Anyhow, neither was found by his attorney or the military. Also the state did a background check so Zeb could be a caregiver for a person that is bedridden. Now when the state does check for that type of work, they dig very deep to keep special needs folks safe. The state found nothing. We had two separate background/criminal checks done and found nothing. So where is the report. Dunford must be some kind of police magician. He seems to be able to come up with things no one else can. By the way, in another entry I mentioned that Zeb didn’t have a drivers license in 2003. The background check also verifies that fact. So the bottom line is: if there was entries in APSIN as to rape alligations, then where is the “evidence”. Why couldn’t anyone else find these entries. You know Dunford and the DA seemed to think that a pair of DICE found in the pickup, which did not even belong to Zeb, was important evidence and included them in the court case and in the evidence inventory, then why wasn’t prior alligations supposedly entered into APSIN important enough to include in the inventory and court case? I really think that the DA and Troopers will have a lot of explaining to do before long.   Troopers don’t “investigate”, they “build a case against someone”.  It’s not about truth or justice, it’s about “convictions”.

Question for legal beagles

Isn’t it the law that you are to be represented by counsel when you go before a judge. Well Zeb was given the oppertunity to stand before the Judge twice before he received any assistance of counsel. In fact the first time, the next day after arrest, we didn’t even know that he was going before a judge till afterwards. In most states that is enough to get a case dismissed. Oh but not here in Alaska. They believe that they are above the law and that federal laws don’t apply to us. How interesting.
On a side note: one of the female troopers that are in the video got in a little hot water in the court room. As I hear it her testimony and the record weren’t quite matching up. So I hear that the head DA told her to take a copy home and get her story straight. That sounds way out there to me. Of course her story would be the same if she has the report to study, or tape or whatever it was. So now which is the truth. The version she told in court or the one that she went home to memorize. Inquiring minds want to know. Hey Roman isn’t that some for of coaching the witness, or tampering or something. There were coments in the Fronteirsman suggesting that Roman be retired or fired or whatever. They are valid points. Especially since Roman is the one that allowed Trooper Dunford to commit perjury in the Grand Jury in Zebs case. Now he’s giving a cop the story that she is expected to tell. NICE

More twists in the Grand Jury

In the Grand Jury on page 56, A1 said on line 20 that, referring to Trooper Dunford, “He finally ended up calling my mom to get my phone number, and it took him talking to me for two or three weeks before I was finally trusted him enough to be able to tell him everything.” OH really. In the police report on pg 278 it says that the first interview was on Jan. 28th, which is only 4 days after the arrest. Then on page 283 the second interview and final interview was on Feb. 4th, which is only 11days after his arrest and only 7 days after the first interview. Who is the one with the lie here????
Read A2’s Grand Jury testimony. I can not find her telling him no or resisting in any way, in fact she says that they went out and had sex 3 more times and with her consent. There are text messages where A2 admits to friends on the phone that she never said no!

The Trooper never has talked with Billy, or Mr. Winter or any of the others and I can tell you why. He knew that if he did he would have to turn that over and it would go to the grand jury. This stuff would show that it was all lies and there would be no indictment and that would lead to a false arrest and he would be in trouble for arresting to quickly and falsely so he tried to cover it up.

One for the Record

The following is something that I put together for his attorney. She never used one single thing that I gave her. Not from this or from anything else. The first is from the Trooper report and the second is from the Grand Jury. I had them side by side but this program won’t allow me to print it that way so it will be one after the other.
Trooper Interview
January 28, 2009
A1 told Trooper that we came up here from Oregon and spent time in Cal. and Kentucky. We spent no time in Cal. and no one in our family has ever been to Kentucky.
A1 says she was good friends with Zeb’s ex-girlfriend, Stacy Begely. We had not been here long enough to have an ex-girlfriend, and he has no idea who Stacy Begely is. He has never heard of her. So there is the second lie.
A1 says that she gave Zeb a ride home from the church prom. No mention of the fact that she gave him a ride to the dance, which was in Eagle River. Doesn’t mention that she actually dropped Zeb off and left in a hurry because she was late getting home and was going to be in a lot of trouble from her dad. Her mom told Zeb’s mom that earlier in the evening. She was not there long enough for Zeb to walk around to the driver’s side and try to get her out of the pickup. Had that happened we would have seen it as we were home. It was 2300, which was the time that she was supposed to be at her house. She does not mention that she had actually picked Zeb up for the dance and came in and met us at that time. We have a picture of her and Zeb in their dress clothes standing in our living room. Why does she not mention that little FACT?
The following Monday she started spreading the lie that Zeb had tried to rape her at our house after the dance. Again we were home.
Page 278, 8th paragraph she said she went into our house to meet “Tina Whisler”. Again, no mention that she met us the night of the dance as the picture proves!

Grand Jury
February 25, 2009
Note: all the DA’s questions are leading questions. I thought that was a no-no!
The DA calls her attention to March of 2003. Then asks “Did you give Zeb Whisler a ride on that day?”pg. 48, lines 17 thru 20! What day? Where did she give him a ride from? Sounds like from school. She never mentions the Dance at all in the Grand Jury. Why is that? That’s what she mentions first in the trooper interview. We have a photo of them dressed up.
Pg. 48 lines 7 and 8, she says she went in the house to meet his family. Again she did not mention the FACT that we had already met and the picture proves it! That was the night of the dance and she never mentions the dance at all to the Grand Jury.
A1 says that Zeb put her in a chair and sat on her while he took her shirt off. How could to people that big both sit in the same chair and he could still get her shirt off? She says she started yelling at Zeb. Then his brother walked out into the garage. But she was in shock and didn’t say anything to him. I thought she just said that she was yelling at Zeb. In that small house his brother would have heard!!!!!
She tells the Trooper that Zeb had his pants undone, but still on and she wiggled out from under him, grabbed her blouse and ran out the side door. The side door was blocked with a dresser so that the kids couldn’t just sneak in and out!
On page 278 she says that a couple of weeks later there was a big wind storm. The windstorm was before the dance so this statement is incorrect.
She says that she told the secretary and the principal at high school what happened in the school and that the principal told her not to worry about it. The principal has no knowledge of it. He would have been required by law to do something.
pg. 279 she says that Zeb accused her father of assaulting him and officers responded and that the accusation was proven false. Where is the police report on that load of crap? The fact is that her dad told Zeb that he would kill him and his whole family and I, (Dean Whisler), tried to file charges against him for Terroristic Threatening.
On page 279 midway she states that her mom pointed out that Zeb was in the middle of the highway holding up traffic and staring at them in his car. Then he followed them in his car.
Please describe the car.
pg. 48 line 11. She said that no one was home except his brother. If she had given him a ride home his brother would not have been there yet as he rode the bus and it didn’t get there for a while. His attorney and investigator know it was actually his sister that came into the room.
pg. 48 line 16 she still mentions the chair but then the story changes. pg. 49 line 1 she now says that he undid her belt and pants. Then in line 5 she says he raped her. No mention of rape in the first interview. She told the Trooper that she ran out the door. That’s a mighty big change. What happened to his brother coming into the room and her using that time to get away?
Now she says that she had given him a ride home a few times because of the storm. So which was it?
No mention of telling the principal at the grand jury. Why not? Did she realize that the grand jury would want to hear from the principle and that her lie would be uncovered?
No mention of this to the Grand Jury. I guess she couldn’t remember that part of the lie.
Pg54 line 15 – 18. He parked his car in the middle to the road. Do I need to say it again? He had no car or driver’s license.
HE DID NOT HAVE A CAR OR A DRIVERS LICENSE. IF HE HAD ONE HE WOULD NOT HAVE NEEDED THE RIDES HOME THAT SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE GIVEN HIM.
pg. 279. She tells the Trooper that Zeb parked in the street in front of her house for hours. She says that Officer Anthony of PPD was called and just told her to get a protective order. First, again, he had no car and no driver’s license. So how could he park in the street? If you check with officer Anthony I think you will find that we actually went to her about the accusations and when A1 came in a day or two later she ran out of the building when Officer Anthony suggested she take a lie detector test.
pg. 279 she says that he ran Billy Schumacher off the road with his car. Again no car and no license. He and Billy were buddies. Your investigator asked Billy the wrong question. She did not say that Billy ran her off the road. Please get the facts straight.
On the bottom of page 279 she says that she and Tina were called in to the Bishops office. Well we were in different wards so they would have seen different bishops. Why wasn’t Dean also called in? That statement about messing with Wyoming girls is pretty stupid. Why I thought that she said we came from Oregon, via Kentucky, which none of us have ever been to. Then the Trooper says that A1 gave him the names of several other girls. WHO? She moved away so whom would she know. In fact this interview was on the 28th and she supposedly says that she did not know A3 or A4, who were not interviewed until the 2nd of Feb. So if she didn’t know them then how did their names even come up? In fact her brother hung out with A4 the summer of 2008, not a long time
pg. 53 line 13 on. She says that he was just sitting in the street for about 3 hours. When asked if she was home she said for part of it. Asked if he just left she said, “he must have because he wasn’t there when I got home.” If she wasn’t home then how did she know how long he was there? She never mentioned to the Trooper that she had left the house. She tells of him stopping in the middle of the highway. Need I say it again, NO CAR NO LICENSE!!!
On page 55 he asked her if all this was done without her permission. I thought that was already insinuated.
On page 56 she talks about being afraid of us and that we might hurt her or her family. Where did she get that idea? We made no calls and had no contact with any of them. We did go to the bishops, and to PPD and let them know that she was spreading lies in church and school. But we did not contact them. In fact on page 283 of Trooper Dunford’s report he states that “neither Dean nor Tina Whisler had contacted her”.
Pg. 56 lines 20 – 23 she states that it took Dunford two to three weeks of calling her before she trusted him enough to tell him everything. Dunford’s report shows that she told him what happened on the 28th of January, which means one of two things. Either she perjured herself on the Grand Jury or Dunford started calling her somewhere between the 7th to the 14th of January, which would mean that his testimony is a lie and that he was in the middle of a conspiracy to falsely
ago. She says that Zeb bragged about us having money. Not at that time we didn’t.
Now on page 283 Dunford says that he did another interview with Amanda on the 4th of February. Interesting how the recorder didn’t work right, OK LET’S HAVE A LISTEN TO THE RECORDING!!!!!The Troopers seem to have had a lot of trouble with recordings during this case. Since as it states that we never contacted her then why would she be afraid of us? Maybe because we can prove what a lying piece of trash she is?
The stories of what happened in the school don’t match up. Then she says that at the school there was no one in the hall between periods. OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
On page 283 and 284 Dunford says that he reviewed what he had learned in the previous interview with A1. On 284 he says that A1 told him that Zeb rubbed her vagina with his hand and put his fingers inside her. Then he put his penis inside her. She never said either of those things. In fact she said she got out from under him and ran out a blocked door. He supposedly said “oh come on I know you like it” and “what’s wrong with you know you like it.” That is not in the first interview or the grand jury testimony. She’s not sure how she got from the chair to the bed, oh please!!!!! Now she names Zeb’s younger brother, or did the Trooper just make that up. Next she states that she did not want to talk to the trooper about what had happened the first time he called. She told him a whole bunch of stuff and he just reviewed it on this page. The second call was only 7 days later. What happened to the 2 or 3 weeks. .
prosecute Zeb. Those are the only 2 options. CONSPIRACY OR PERJURY
The DA says tells the Jury that the touching in the school is count X but doesn’t mention it’s also count XI.
None of this is in the Grand Jury testimony. Only that he raped her. Not a thing about his fingers.
On page 49 line 16 she says “not more than five to seven minutes”. Interesting but the same phrase is used by one of the other girls.
This second one is not a new story, just a repeat of the previous one with a couple of changes. Who’s idea was that hers or the Troopers? Anyone that had been attacked by someone would not go out with them again, especially to the same place.
HOW MANY LIES CAN A PERSON TELL WITHOUT BEING CHARGED WITH PERJURY AND GIVING FALSE STATEMENT????????