May 28, 2011 8:00 PM
A teenager convicted of murdering his mother spends 26 years in prison. Now, he's fought to prove his innocence, exposing lies and cover-ups by the LAPD. Erin Moriarty reports.
Read story
The War in Chicago 42:58 May 18, 2013
Unraveling the lies of Jodi Arias 43:25 May 17, 2013
Murder at Sea? 42:59 May 11, 2013
Over the Edge 43:11 May 4, 2013
Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 65 CommentsI have to laugh and comment on the post below regarding Stephanie Lazzaro, I love your post! Lmao :D
Sgt. Jim Gavin...VERY GOOD MAN (he had much more to lose than Paul Ingels)
LAPD...You gutless, spiteful little b*tches. (By the way, how's Stephanie Lazarus doing?)
It has transpired right here in my area that I have lived in my entire 66 years of life.
After reading some of the doubters throughout this message thread I must point out that even in the face of the fact that U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips concluded that Bruce Lisker, 44, was convicted on "false evidence" it exhibits that there is very little that can convince people who cannot, or will not investigate the facts of a matter in a non-judgmental way. People are allowed their opinions and theories, but those personal opinions and theories do not always establish the facts.
On the other hand, it's good to see that some folks here throughout this message thread have kept an open mind to rationally question what could have been easily proven to establish "reasonable doubt" had not the investigating detective Andrew Monsue been so zealous to have Bruce Lisker convicted that he [Detective Monsue], according to U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, presented "false evidence" to the prosecutor Phillip Rabichow and the court.
To continue...
A very thorough investigative article appeared four years before Lisker release from prison. It was in the Los Angeles Times, dated May 22, 2005 by Scott Glover and Matt Lait. You can find a link to it at the bottom of my comment.
The following portion from the article deals with the testimony of the ability to look through the window and see the body of Dora Lisker.
During the police investigation leading up to the conviction, Detective Monsue ... "thought that the sun's glare would have made it impossible to see through the living room window, and that furniture and an interior stone planter would have blocked the view through the dining room window." And then, "The prosecutor [Rabichow] insisted that Bruce could not have seen his mother through the windows at the back of the house, as he claimed. Police photos showed that furniture and glare from the sun would have blocked his view, he said."
"That all changed one afternoon last November [2004], when he [the prosecutor Rabichow] met with two Times reporters at a Carrows restaurant in Reseda to discuss the murder of Dorka Lisker."
With Lisker still in prison, at the urging of the two Los Angles Times reporters who... "had visited the old Lisker residence twice and had arranged with the current owner to go back again. They asked Rabichow to join them this time, and he agreed."
"Rabichow walked outside and stood in front of the dining room window through which Bruce Lisker claimed to have seen his mother. Rabichow acknowledged that he could see the reporter's head from several vantage points. The dining set and planter were not the obstacles he thought they would be. He could see over them. He sighed deeply and stood silent for a moment."
"He [the prosecutor] said he wished he had conducted such an experiment before the trial. 'I should have come out here,' Rabichow said. 'This is not what I thought it would be.' Even after visiting the house, he [the prosecutor] had resisted the idea that Lisker may have been wrongly convicted. He wrestled with doubts but still insisted that the totality of the evidence supported a guilty verdict.
"He is not insisting anymore. 'The bottom line is I now have reasonable doubt,' he said, adding that he welcomed further scrutiny of the case. 'The truth is the truth and I want the truth to come out.'"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lisker22may22,0,5660396,full.story
Even in 2005, the original prosecutor Rabichow was willing to checkout the information that was part of the basis for U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips to conclude four years later on August 7, 2009 that Bruce Lisker, 44, was convicted on "false evidence."
Why was Rabichow willing to checkout the information? Because as he said, "The truth is the truth."
As far as I know, the court case of Bruce Lisker v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, et al is scheduled to begin on September 25 2012.
May the final justice prevail...
~Red~
.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 65 Comments