A Search for the Truth (part 17)

We spent the last two weeks going over a few facts about the autopsy
report on Mr. Vaughan. This week were going to take a look into what
the people investigating the murders had to say. Our footnotes on
each statement will be in prentices blow the statement.

Mr. Vaughans property where his body was found


Sheriff Jay jones


Photos from WSFA12News www.wsfa.com

From WSFA12 News (March 27, 2004)

"At this time we don't have any definite ideas whether it was one or
several individuals at this point," says Sheriff Jones.

(Note on March 27, Jones statement clearly shows that there could
have been more then one murderer)

It was a relative of one of the victims who actually discovered the
bodies. Sheriff Jones says that relative is not a suspect.

(Jones is publicly acknowledging that Russell is the one who found
the boys and therefore it makes him the only whiteness, yet when
Russell tried to give a statement he was told he was wrong according
to a whiteness)

--------------------------
From WSFA12 News (March 28, 2004 the next day)

"Responding deputies discovered the body of a man identified as
Bernard Vaughan. He suffered what appeared to be a self-inflicted
gunshot wound to the head," says Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones.

(The responding Deputies that Mr. Jones is referring to is Ralph
Hall, note that the statement says Responding deputies discovered
the body)

It was Mrs. Vaughan who found her husband's body around 4:30 Sunday
morning in their backyard.

(In this (the next statement of the same interview) Jones states
Mrs. Vaughan found the body)

Lee County investigators aren't ready to say for sure that Bernard
Vaughan did in fact kill those 3 men. One reason? No clear motive
yet. "I'm just not ready to say what those issues are at this time,"
says Jones.

(From the same article (Note that Jones says “No clear motive”)
What is certain is that the people who live in the area are ready to
put this sad story behind them and move on. "Finalize it, we've
never had anything like this happen before," Gardner says.
(From the same article (this statement indicates that they are
looking to finalize this case FAST)

--------------------------
From Anniston Star (dated 12-26-04)

District Attorney Nick Abbett said he couldn’t comment on any
specific witnesses who testified during the grand jury hearing, but
said that Vaughan had made complaints in the past about trespassers
on his property and that the circumstantial evidence in the hearing
pointed to Vaughan.

Abbett said DNA evidence collected from Vaughan’s property did not
produce a direct link to the victims and said that there was a
witness to the crime, but not one who could say for certain that
Vaughan was the shooter.

“All the evidence points to Vaughan,” Abbett said. “I think the
grand jury was satisfied with that conclusion and the work done by
the Lee County Sheriff’s Department. Since there is no one to
prosecute, this closes the case from our end.”

(Note in this statement the following:” couldn’t comment on any
specific witnesses who testified during the grand jury” the only
whiteness was not permitted to testify, “DNA evidence collected from
Vaughan’s property did not produce a direct link to the victims” so
far the circumstantial evidence says no direct link, “there was a
witness to the crime, but not one who could say for certain that
Vaughan was the shooter” the description from the whiteness did not
fit Vaughan and Abbett stated that NO ONE COULD SAY THAT FOR CERTAIN
THAT VAUGHAN WAS THE SHOTTER, “All the evidence points to Vaughan,”
Abbett said Everything in this interview stated by Abbett states
that nothing pointed to Vaughan, yet Abbett claims at the end of the
interview that all evidence pointed to Vaughn. Reread this
interview, you will find it to be very contradicting)
From Oprelika-Auburne News (dated December 15, 2004)

The note made reference to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a
condition that Vaughan had suffered from following his military
service.

Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones released Vaughan's letter after
receiving an opinion from Attorney General Troy King's office in
response to an open records request by the Opelika-Auburn News.
Below are excerpts from the 11-sentence letter that are relevant to
the case. Portions of the letter that were personal in nature will
not be published.

"... What with all the commotion, I am so depressed that I don't
want to go on. I believe my health is failing and my PTSD ruins
every moment of my life. My poor brain feels like an out-of-control
speed freak. ... I'm sorry. I was born a fool, and I shall die the
same way."

The letter, which was addressed to his wife, was handwritten and
signed, "Bernie."

"In the note, Mr. Vaughan made reference to the turmoil of the last
24 hours," Jones said. "While he doesn't say specifically that he
was involved, we consider that strong circumstantial evidence that
he was connected to the homicides.

(Note it was acknowledged in this statement that the suicide
note “doesn't say specifically that he was involved” and is followed
with “we consider that strong circumstantial evidence that he was
connected to the homicides”, I guess using this logic, if I do not
tell you I was home last night at 10pm, you should assume that I was
home last night at 10Pm. This statement is insulting the inelegance
of anyone who heard it or reads it)

Abbett said DNA evidence collected from Vaughan's property did not
produce a direct link to the victims and said that there was a
witness to the crime, but not one who could say for certain that
Vaughan was the shooter.

(Again Abbett is stating that DNA did not produce a link to the
victims, there was a witness and no one could say for certain that
Vaughan was the shooter (I don’t know about you, but I a starting to
see a pattern that says they DO Not have a link to connect Vaughan
to the murders)

From the next paragraph:

"All the evidence points to Vaughan," Abbett said.

(Didn’t he just say that DNA didn’t link Vaughan to the murders and
no one could say for certain that Vaughan was the shooter? Abbett
must be a miracle worker to have such a change between the previous
paragraph and this one. Wouldn’t you want a man like this on your
side?)

--------------------------
Other clippings:

The details of what Russell McCullars saw when he rode back to the
pond may never be fully known. Police say he came upon the scene and
from a distance saw the shooter, whom he described as a male in his
30s, standing over the bodies of his brother and friends.

(Note: Vaughan was a man in his 60’s who the boys would have known
on sight, note a man in his 30’s)

“The Friday contact with Mr. Vaughan was very superficial,” said
Jones, who had known Vaughan for years and called him “a decent guy.”

(Note the connection between Vaughan and Jones as the merely knew
each other, Vaughan assisted in running Jones campaign to be elected
as sheriff a few years prior, that is not mentioned)

Police have pieced together a rough timeline of Vaughan’s actions on
Saturday. He went to Columbus, Ga., police say, where he had a
storage unit registered in a fictitious name. There, he traded
vehicles, police say. The truck he left in Columbus, which had drops
of Vaughan’s own blood on the seat, had been reported stolen from a
business that is now an insurance company, Jackson said. Vaughan
returned home in a different truck, police say, that was registered
in his own name.

(Reading the statement above and knowing that Vaughan and Sheriff
Jones knew each other well, Jones had to know that Vaughan was
driving around in a stolen truck. He might have known about the
storage unit in Ga. as well. What else did Jones know about Vaughan
that was not made public? If Jones did nothing about Vaughan having
a stolen truck prior to the murder, why, was he protecting Vaughan
or himself?)

Sunday marked another surreal turn in the investigation. Bernard
Vaughan had been found dead in his backyard from what police
determined to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

(Note that it states that Vaughan was found n his back yard. We will
get further into this at a later date)

--------------------------
There was also numerous statements made publicly from officials
stating “Vaughan had made complaints in the past about trespassers
on his property”

(If in the past Vaughan was making official complaints about
trespassers, why would he decide to shoot 3 of them this time? Note
that I have copies of other articles stating by officials that it
appeared that the boys were doing nothing wrong besides if they were
trespassing)

--------------------------
Theses are only a few of the conflicting statements made by
officials. We will be bringing more into view as we continue. We
will also be reading statements made by family members during the
time of the investigation.

My main goal this week was to show the readers a sample of the
contradicting statements made publicly by the officials. If this is
how they were talking to the public, just imagine what stories they
were telling the families behind closed doors.

--------------------------
Here are 3 reasons why we all need to get involved and put a end to
what these officials have allowed to go unsolved!


Written and Researched by A. Wallace

Visit The Weekly News at http://TheWeeklyNews.info
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates
at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

Bush sought to cut $6M in screening technology

Amid U.K. terror plot, administration targeted anti-terror
technology funds

WASHINGTON - As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush
administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was
supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection
technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the diversion of funds, the latest in
a series of Homeland Security Department steps that have left
lawmakers and some of the department’s own experts questioning the
commitment to create better antiterror technologies.

Homeland Security’s research arm, the Sciences & Technology
Directorate, is a “rudderless ship without a clear way to get back
on course,” Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations
Committee declared recently.

“The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which
S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security,”
the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the
agency’s 2007 budget.

Representative Martin Sabo, Democrat of Minnesota, who joined
Republicans to block the administration’s recent diversion of
explosives detection money, said research and development are
crucial to thwarting future attacks, and there is bipartisan
agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

“They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven’t
been using,” Sabo said.

‘Tremendous intensity’

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new
leader, former Navy research chief Rear Admiral Jay Cohen, and there
is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the
future.

“I don’t have any criticisms of anyone,” said Kip Hawley, assistant
secretary for transportation security. “I have great hope for the
future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior
management of this department to make this area a strength.”

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they
are concerned the department’s research and development effort is
bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning, and failure
to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and
development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the
money this summer.

U.S. slow to test new technology

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid
explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the
United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans
Atlantic flights would have involved liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security is now going to test the detector in
six American airports. “It is very promising technology, and we are
extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next
several years,” he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita
International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to US
officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in
Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending $732 million this year on various
explosives deterrents. It has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but has not deployed
them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual
containers aren’t suitable for wide deployment, because they would
slow security check lines to a crawl.

‘Immediate deployment’ urged

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also
have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors —
already in most American airports — to foreign airports to help stop
any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto US-destined
flights.

A 2002 Homeland Security report recommended “immediate deployment”
of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low
cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report
said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives
residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid
was foiled in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors
be used more aggressively and strongly warned that the continuing
failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports “may be an
invitation to terrorists to ply their trade, using techniques that
they have already used on a number of occasions.”

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security’s explosive
and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he
strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

“It is not that expensive,” said Fainberg, who recently
retired. “There was no resistance from any country that I was aware
of, and yet we didn’t deploy it.”

By Associated Press

Visit The Weekly News at http://TheWeeklyNews.info
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates
at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

Bush blames Hezbollah for Lebanon fighting

President dismisses Nasrallah’s victory claims;
Olmert: ‘deficiencies’ in war

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hours after a cease-fire between Hezbollah and
Israel took hold, leaders both directly and indirectly involved in
the Mideast conflict traded views over the final outcome.

The fragility of the truce, and the potential for its violation was
clear when Hezbollah guerrillas fired at least 10 Katyusha rockets
into southern Lebanon early Tuesday. None of them reached Israel,
and no injuries were reported, the Israeli army said.

As Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claimed that his
guerrillas achieved a “strategic, historic victory” against Israel,
President Bush said the militant group was defeated, and put the
blame for the violence — which left more than 900 dead and massive
destruction in southern Lebanon — squarely on the guerrillas.

As Israeli politicians called the war a “failure,” Israel Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert noted there were “deficiencies” in the way the
war was conducted.

“We will have to review ourselves in all the battles,” Olmert said,
speaking before parliament where three members were ejected for
heckling. Other Knesset members called for a commission of inquiry
into the offensive.

Fighting broke out 34 days ago after Hezbollah guerrillas kidnapped
two Israeli soldiers and Israel targeted the guerrillas group. In a
U.N.-brokered cease-fire, both sides stopped fighting at 1 a.m. EDT
on Monday.

‘Without exaggeration’
Nasrallah’s declaration of victory prompted celebratory gunfire
across the Lebanese capital.

“We came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were
defeated (before),” the black-turbaned cleric said in a taped
address on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television.

“We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without
exaggeration,” Nasrallah said.

He also said now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his
guerrilla fighters. “Who will defend Lebanon in case of a new
Israeli offensive?” he asked. “The Lebanese army and international
troops are incapable of protecting Lebanon,” he said, flanked by
Lebanese and Hezbollah flags.

But Nasrallah said he was open to dialogue about Hezbollah’s weapons
at the appropriate time. And he credited his group’s weapons with
proving to Israel that “war with Lebanon will not be a picnic. It
will be very costly.”

“The main goal of Israel in this war has been to remove Hezbollah’s
weapons. This will not happen through destroying homes. ... It will
come through discussion,” Nasrallah said.

The Shiite leader suggested some Lebanese politicians were rushing
to disarm Hezbollah.

“People sit in air conditioning and speak about the resistance’s
weapons in a rough way,” he said of his critics. “Lebanon’s
infrastructure has been destroyed in all places, but most intensely
among the people of the south and southern Beirut. This is the
sector of society that is most in support of the resistance, most
proud of the resistance, and has given the most sacrifices.”
‘Failure and impotency’

Nasrallah said the “massive devastation and destruction” inflicted
upon Lebanon during the monthlong war reflected Israel’s “failure
and impotency.”

He promised his organization would help Lebanese rebuild, and
pledged to give refugees money to pay rent and buy furniture.
He estimated some 15,000 housing units had been destroyed.

Olmert promises to ‘do better’
Olmert said Israel will learn the lessons of this war and “do
better.”

He said the fighting brought a change in the strategic balance in
the region, to Hezbollah’s disadvantage. The militia’s vast
storehouse of weapons was mostly destroyed, Olmert said, and its
self-confidence undermined.

“We will continue to pursue them everywhere and at all times,” he
said. “We have no intention of asking anyone’s permission.”
Olmert advised patience for his critics who believe that the war
fell short of Israel’s original goal of dismantling Hezbollah. “We
don’t plan to apologize,” he said.

The prime minister also promised to do everything he could to win
the return of two captive Israeli soldiers.

After Olmert’s speech, Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the opposition
Likud Party, said there were serious problems with the war.
“It must be said honestly, there were many failures, failures in
identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat,
failures in the management of the war, failures in the management of
the home front,” Netanyahu said. “Without doubt we shall need later
on to learn the lessons and fix the mistakes.”

‘A state within a state’
After spending the day meeting with military officials, Bush said
the conflict was part of a broader struggle between freedom and
terror. “We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict
would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks,” he said.

The president spoke at the State Department after conferring with
his national security team, first at the Pentagon and then at the
State Department. He was flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bush said the U.N. cease-fire resolution adopted Friday was “an
important step forward that will help bring an end to the violence.”

“Lebanon can’t be a strong democracy when there is a state within a
state, and that’s Hezbollah,” Bush said.

Bush also blamed Iran and Syria, saying they were the primary
sponsors of the guerrillas.

“Hezbollah attacked Israel without any knowledge of the (Lebanese)
government. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis,
and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis,” the president said.

By Associated Press

Visit The Weekly News at http://TheWeeklyNews.info
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates
at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

A Search for the Truth (part 16)

We said last week that we were going to post photos of the boys.
There are a few throughout this article. Please take the time to
look at their face, their smiles and know what their parents will
never get to see agian. This is the reason we need to work together!
Post your comments and do your part.




Last week we presented the sketch that was part of the autopsy
report on Mr. Vaughn. It clearly showed the bullet entering the head
on the right side and exiting on left. We also brought up questions
as to the side of entrance and the face that Vaughn was left handed.

This week we will take a look at the written report, which conflicts
the sketch.

The written report (scanned copy may be viewed below) states that
the bullet entered the left side of the head and exited the right.
This alone should have been enough to make any court question the
report and have the body reexamined.

The report continues to state that the bullets “projectile was left
to right, slightly back to front and upward”. This indicates that
the gun was fired while slightly behind Vaughn and in an upward
angle.

The written report shows that for the angle of projection to be what
it was, there would have been someone standing behind Vaughan
holding the gun to his head. This also in itself should have been
enough for any court to conclude that further investigation needed
to be done and that Vaughan did not in fact commit suicide.

The angle of the gun, conflict within a single autopsy report, nor
bullet projection was considered in this case.

Given the information above, the Alabama Dept. of Forensic Sciences,
Montgomery Regional Laboratory Director Mr. A Craig Bailey had no
problem signing off that the cause of death was a suicide.

This report was sent directly to the District Attorney 37th.
Judicial Circuit Mr. Nick Abbett in Opelika, Alabama with a C.C. to
Lieutenant Van Jackson of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office. These two
men were supposed to be in charge of seeing that the investigation
was conducted properly, yet neither found the above information to
be of concern.

In a letter dated November. 23, 2004 (a copy of this letter is in my
possession and will be made public at a later date), Attorney
General Troy King stated he would be “asking Mr. Jack Brennan, Chief
of his Investigations Division, to contact both Sheriff Jay Jones
and officials with the Alabama Bureau of Investigations to determine
the status of their investigation”.

Mr. Brennan followed up with a letter dated July 22, 2005 (a copy of
this letter is in my possession and will be made public at a later
date). In this letter Mr. Brennan stated, “It is my belief that all
the correct avenues of investigation were followed in this
situation. The facts that were developed support the conclusion that
Vaughan is responsible for the murders and that Vaughan acted alone.”

It is clear that not one of these men took the time to read the
autopsy report on Mr. Vaughan, or have no knowledge what so ever as
to what they were reading. There is none other possibility; maybe
they did not want the TRUE facts to be known.

Regardless of the reason, the fact remains that the reports are not
accurate and do show that it is more then likely that Mr. Vaughan
was murdered and did not commit suicide.

Why did these officials permit these facts to be hidden? What did
they have to hide or who did they have to protect?

Abbett was one of the people that our first set of letters went out
to. Though we received a signature that our letter was received, he
never took the time to respond.

Well Mr. Abbett, your time as well as the time for others who did
not bother to listen is up. We tried to do this nicely; none of you
was willing to work with us. Now as you see everything will be going
public. We will also be starting to contact network medias in an
attempt to have this aired on national TV and we will get the
answers that we asked nicely for in the past. However this time, we
are not asking!

Written and Researched by A. Wallace

Visit The Weekly News at http://TheWeeklyNews.info
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates
at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

What’s a mother to do?

Some of you may have read the original e-mail I posted from a mother
in Maryland about how she had a warrant out for her arrest due to
the fact that she could not afford to pay court ordered child
support for her children that were grown and on their own. At the
same time, this woman was spending all her funds to care for her
disabled daughter.

I had some time to look into her story and found it to be a much
larger problem then this one woman. It is a national problem!

To update you on Denise (the mother mentioned above), on August 7th
I received an e-mail that she was in Indiana and visiting her
children (the ones that are on their own). After the visit she was
off to the local police station to turn her self in. Her husband
Ross remained home and is taking care of her disabled daughter
Casey. Though Casey is not his daughter through birth, Ross is and
has been helping with her as if she was. This sounds to me like a
family that shouldn’t have a warrant out on the mother, but should
have both Denise and Ross’ photos on the ten most wanted in the post
office. That is most wanted as a proper example of what people
should be like.

But the courts in Indiana don’t seam to agree with me. Neither do
the courts throughout the country.

There are many true dead beats out there, and they to consist of
both men and women. But not all that are behind in support are dead
beats. The courts DO NOT take into effect that some parents are
doing all they can do to survive, care for the children at home or
tend to medical needs. And with the higher cost of living today it
is getting even harder.

There is another case where a farther (name withheld by fathers
request) was working 40 hours a week (against medical advice) and
would come home with a pay check for $0.00 and a receipt showing
that the courts took all his pay. Not even leaving him with money to
get to work the following week. Yet the following week, the courts
started adding interest on the money he did not have cause he had no
way to go to work.

Where does it end? Should we arrest every parent that doesn’t have
it to give his or her children? Should we put the parents that are
doing all they can on the streets or in jail?

If an absentee parent has the money, they have a legal and moral
responsibility to care for their children. But not all have the
means. The law should prosecute a parent that is doing everything to
avoid paying. Yet both the courts and society need to take a look at
the facts and understand that sometimes the funds just are not there.

I will be following up on this story and trying to bring you more on
detailed cases throughout the country as well as trying to get
comments from courts/lawyers. I will also be trying to contact Ross
and get updates on how Denise is doing and any progress on her case.

Written by A. Wallace

Visit The Weekly News at http://TheWeeklyNews.info
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates
at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm