Tag Archives: Green Bay Wisconsin

A New Chapter…

5 Replies

Meeting someone who’s been in prison for a crime they did not commit is very humbling. But observing within them, an attitude more positive than many of us not affected by our judicial system, is surprising…and noteworthy. Mario Victoria Vasquez is such a person. He is conscientious, thoughtful, kind, patient and grateful for his new found freedom and for the outpouring of support he has received through his terrifying ordeal. Mario is also proud. He harbors anger because of what happened to him but he does not let it dominate his overall temperament despite these past circumstances…

“On February 5, 1998, the parents of a four-year-old girl took her to the St. Vincent’s Hospital in Green bay, WI because she had been complaining for two days of pain while urinating. The girl told a nurse that “Mario” had touched her. Based on a physical examination which revealed sores and vaginal irritation, hospital staff determined the girl had been sexually assaulted. A swab was taken and tested positive for genital herpes. The girl’s mother believed she was referring to 34-year-old Mario Victoria Vasquez, the babysitter’s brother-in-law who lived at the babysitter’s house. However, the uncle had disclosed to authorities that the girl sometimes referred to him (the uncle) as “Mario”. A Green Bay Police Detective questioned the girl alone. According to him, she volunteered that she had been touched by her uncle, father and babysitter’s husband as well, but on February 6, 1998, Vasquez was the one arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault of a minor. Tests were never performed to determine where the disease originated from and the defense counsel was negligent in requesting that an expert be called in to debate; (a) the validity of the testimony of a four-year-old; (b) her obvious confusion of the facts throughout the process, (c) evidence of interviewer bias.  

Mario had served close to seventeen years of his twenty-year sentence, all the while, maintaining his innocence. He was unexpectedly released from prison on the evening of Friday, January 30, 2015 after a hearing earlier that day to request a new trial. The assault victim, now an adult, had finally come forward to disclose who her true assailants were.

Although this was reason enough for Mario to celebrate, the circumstances surrounding his actual release were not. Mario walked out of the Brown County jail in the middle of a chilly wintry night…alone. He was equipped with inadequate clothing–a light jacket, no hat or gloves, and no means to contact a family member to pick him up. He was forced to go back into the jail to ask if he could use their phone. It was sheer luck that he remembered his son James’ phone number.

P1040662

Exoneree Mario Victoria Vasquez and Joan Treppa 

Up until the present, I had only known Mario through letters. We had corresponded since August of 2013 because of a conversation I had with his ex-wife, Darcy. Both Darcy and my sister, Clare, are friends who live in Green Bay. Darcy became upset one day while the three of us chatted at my sister’s house after I brought up my recent involvement in the Monfils case. “I cannot be concerned over that case when no one cares that my ex-husband, Mario, also sits in prison for a crime he did not commit.” she said. “Tell me about him,” I said. Our conversation prompted me to start writing to Mario.

I told my sidekick, Johnny, about this case. He did an investigative evaluation of the facts. He then confirmed that Mario’s case was fraught with the same kinds of issues and inconsistencies as in the Monfils case. He found out that the same prosecutor and assistant DA worked on both cases within a few years of each other; a connection that sent up huge red flags. Mario was already under the guise of the Wisconsin Innocence Project (WIP) by then, though he felt discouraged because of how long it was taking to get his case through the courts. I encouraged him to give them time and assured him that they were doing their very best for him.

The essence of Mario’s letters embodied the utmost respect for others. He struck me as an educated and well-versed individual. I sensed he was hard working and motivated to continue on with a productive and meaningful life. He maintained integrity despite his tragic misfortune. His letters were similar to reading poetry. In them, he shared acts of kindness toward other prisoners through mentoring and friendship. The more I learned, the more I wanted to meet him. 

On the evening of Tuesday, February 10, 2015, I came face to face with my pen pal. For a moment, Mario and I stood there, staring at each other as though this was a dream. We marveled at the ability to share a handshake, a joke, laughter, tears and a hug. Still, Mario’s fate hung in the balance. A hearing was to be held the following day to determine whether or not this nightmare would be over. Although I was optimistic, Mario would not be at peace until he received word from the Judge that he was absolved of all charges. There was an edginess in his temperament and I did my best to grasp what he was feeling. I reassured him that no matter what, I would stand by him.

P1040659

A Family Reunited; Darcy, James and Mario 

My sister, Clare, hosted this informal gathering of close friends and family on Tuesday evening. Darcy, their son James, and James’ girlfriend, Sarah, were present. It was the first time this family had been together since Mario was charged in 1998. We all savored the moment…that evening…this miracle.

P1040657

Exonerees Mario and Mike “Pie” 

Also invited to this special gathering was Michael “Pie” Piaskowski, the exoneree from the Monfils case, along with his girlfriend, Teresa. Mike Pie and Mario became fast friends. They sat together, sharing individual stories with eerie similarities. Many emotions were felt that evening; anger, sadness, and disgust for a system gone awry. But we focused on new possibilities and a brighter future for Mario, Mike Pie, and for the many innocent people in prison who have yet to be vindicated.

WIP attorney's Cristina, Katie, Kyle and Curtiss

Mario (center) with WIP Attorneys; Cristina, Catie, Kyle and Curtis 

The next day, the hearing for Mario commenced at 1:30 pm in room 200 of the Brown County Courthouse. Cristina Borde, Mario’s lead attorney from the WIP, had mentioned the proceedings would be brief so we arrived early. Mike Pie, Clare, Darcy, and I waited in the hallway with approximately twenty-five of Mario’s family members. Excitement grew when the innocence project team walked in. Their presence lent a sense of comfort and excitement similar to the climax of a tense western film when the cavalry arrives on the scene to save the day! Mario was ecstatic to see all of us. This was his moment. We were his bravado!

We all entered the small courtroom. We sat and waited. In walked the former Brown County Assistant District Attorney, Larry Lasee, with a sour look on his face. He kept his gaze lowered as he sat in his designated chair. He began scribbling furiously on the notepad in front of him. We rose and settled in again after Judge Hammer entered. Cristina rose and began by defending Mario’s innocence. Mr. Lasee clarified his view in regard to Mario’s absolute guilt. He then added that the DA’s office would not be pursuing a new trial in this matter. The Judge displayed a puzzled look and defined the series of events prompting this hearing; that Mr. Lasee had, in fact, interviewed the witness, now an adult, who disclosed the true identities of two perpetrators! I could not make out the muffled response by Mr. Lasee but I had heard all I needed to. It was clear. There would be no more prison time for Mario. He would be free to rebuild his life.

The last thing we heard was what we, as supporters, had hoped for. The Judge looked at Mario and said,”Mr. Vasquez, you are free to go.” We clapped loudly as Mr. Lasee quickly found his way to the door. As he slithered through it, I thought, “Good riddance,” and dismissed him altogether before devoting any more of my energy on his misdeeds. Now was the time to focus on Mario and on the difficult road ahead. It was exhilarating to think that what had started on paper for the two of us was about to continue on with a new chapter in living…

Note: Eight months after Mario’s exoneration hearing, I was with him in front of the Brown County Courthouse one pleasant October afternoon as we prepared for an annual Walk for Truth and Justice. We happened upon Mr. Lasee as he walked up the sidewalk toward us and the building. Mario addressed him and pressed him about the lack of action taken in this case. “Mr. Lasee, are you going to arrest the two men who abused that little girl? You know who they are.” Mr. Lasee’s response was brief. “I cannot discuss that,” he said as he quickly made his way to the front door. And in a defeated tone, Mario shared his deepest suspicions and most dire concern for the then little girl. “I know for a fact that the abuse of this little angel continued for many years after I was convicted.”

Mario on The National Registry of Exonerations.

Post-Crescent article.

 

Was it Murder? The Essence of a Wrongful Conviction Case…

11 Replies

Welcome! This week I’m putting forth a new series which examines a recent 152-page motion ❶ in regard to a 1992 murder case that questions the legitimacy of the convictions of six mill workers, Keith Kutska, Rey Moore, Dale Basten, Michael Hirn, Michael Johnson and Michael Piaskowski. This motion was filed in a Brown County Courtroom in Green Bay, Wisconsin on October 31, 2013 on behalf of Keith Kutska. All six men were given life sentences in 1995 for the murder of co-worker, Tom Monfils. Despite the fact that all of them were tried jointly, only one of the six, Michael Piaskowski, has since been exonerated in 2001 while the others remain in prison for a crime that I believe never happened.

Before my involvement I knew nothing about this case. I didn’t know any of the people affected by it. In fact, I don’t have a legal background and had no knowledge about wrongful convictions prior to 2009. I simply read a book ❷ that was published in 2009, given to me by one of its authors. People ask me how I’m able to advocate so passionately about something that has never affected me personally. It’s because I can relate to these people on an emotional level because of my upbringing and I was at a juncture in my life where I could get involved. But mostly it was because of a sense of civic duty and a belief that it was the right thing to do.

I’m often asked, “Why was one of the men released and not the others?” This is the $64,000 question. But with the vast amount of time and prohibitive costs involved in the appeals process it’s no wonder. Plus, the number of men involved in this case and having to appeal separately even though they were tried together, the many years of litigation are inescapable. I strongly believe this one case is indicative of how flawed and unfair our overall judicial system is.

My aim in bringing attention to this specific case is to educate people about wrongful convictions. While pursuing legal help for these men I’ve been gifted with a rare insight into an unseen tragedy that has caused alarming devastation to countless innocent lives. This case represents an extreme example of the grim realities and lends an overview of the devastating aftermath. I cannot stress enough the importance of how we as a society must be more aware of the mistakes that plague our judicial system, and eliminate the apathy that is widespread.

Because this case is currently in litigation, details I’m able to share will be limited to only that which is disclosed in the motion, and in the book. But I will add my personal insight when applicable. Content I’ve highlighted is courtesy of the Minneapolis law firm of Fredrikson & Byron, PA. It’s the result of a twenty-one month reinvestigation. I’ve posted it verbatim and in italics.

With that said, let’s get started. This segment covers a brief introduction as written in the beginning pages of the motion.  Be advised; it contains disturbing details:

Incident at the mill…

“At approximately 7:42 a.m. on November 21, 1992, Tom Monfils – despondent, shamed and angry – left his work area at the James River Paper Mill and walked toward the entrance of a nearby airlock passageway. As he neared the airlock, he picked up a 49-lb weight and proceeded through the airlock. He then entered a storage area where his jump rope was hanging on a railing. With both the rope and weight in hand, Monfils walked to a large vat containing approximately 20,000 gallons of liquid. There, he climbed the steps to the top of the vat, tied one end of the rope around his neck and the other end to the weight, and entered the vat where he suffered traumatic injuries and died from drowning in the liquid. The next evening, workers found Monfils’ body in the vat with the rope and weight tied to him.

After a 2 1/2 year investigation, Kutska, and five other mill workers, were convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and sentenced to life in prison for Monfils’ death. The prosecution’s theory was that after Kutska had learned that Monfils had reported him to the police for stealing a piece of electrical cord from the mill, Kutska fomented “an angry mob” of his “union brothers” that viciously beat Monfils at a water bubbler at approximately 7:45 a.m. and then disposed of his body in the vat at approximately 7:50 a.m. on November 21, 1992. That theory embraced the conclusions of the medical examiner, Dr. Helen Young, who concluded that Monfils had been beaten and then placed in the vat where he died.

Dr. Young’s homicide determination was, however, erroneous and rested on a series of provably false assumptions, as well as her ignorance regarding the engineering design and operating factors impacting the movement of Monfils’ body in the vat. As forensic pathologist, Dr. Mary Ann Sens, states in her report, Dr. Young also lacked any scientific or medical basis for reliably and accurately determining that Monfils’ death was the result of a homicide and not a suicide. Indeed, there is ample and compelling evidence that Monfils had taken his own life.”

P1040653

Water fountain “Bubbler” (center) (Photo courtesy of The Monfils Conspiracy)                           

Corroborated Facts: The bubbler was a public area in a highly visible location within the mill. During the trial, it was determined that this is where the six men beat up Tom Monfils. But no blood or trace evidence was ever found in the immediate or outlying areas within the mill. In fact, no physical evidence was ever produced at trial to suggest a beating had taken place. Numerous mill workers were threatened throughout the investigation with the loss of their jobs if they did not admit to witnessing a beating at the bubbler that morning. Only one person succumbed to pressure and eventually gave a statement in support of the prosecution’s theory of a beating, though this person did not actually witness any beating. This person later recanted his statement.

During the investigation, the six men who were charged were promised partial or total immunity in return for their admission to being a bystander during a confrontation at the bubbler. All of them refused and said that they saw nothing. To this day, they maintain that there was no beating. And to this day they profess their innocence.

References:

Link to more information about the Monfils case

❶ 152 page motion 

❷  Purchase The Monfils Conspiracy

Ignorance on Both Sides of One Story…

Leave a reply

Awhile ago, I met up with David; an attorney from Green Bay, Wisconsin who is well-intentioned but also aware of the uphill battles in regard to exposing the real truths surrounding the Wisconsin Monfils case. He lived in the area when the case unfolded and told me his thoughts about our new efforts.

“I don’t think we’ll ever see the day when those other five guys get out of prison,” he said.

Despite his personal beliefs that the men are indeed innocent, he wasn’t convinced the local legal community will ever allow them to be released. He believes the authorities will circumvent actions that would be favorable to their release, and he also felt that too much time has passed to effectively go back and re-investigate. I remember thinking that he could be absolutely right. But my reply to him was something similar to being “too stupid” or “too ignorant” to understand that concept. Even in those early days, I was determined to never take no for an answer because of my belief in another concept; that the truth always sets us free.

I’m certain this lovely man saw me as a foolish dreamer and that I was setting myself up for failure and disappointment. But what he failed to recognize was my complete abandonment of logical reasoning that, to me, serves as a pathway to perseverance. He also failed to realize that I was willing to be the bridge to finding whomever was needed to actually pull this off.

I’ll admit as I look back to where our efforts have taken us during the past five years that what has happened since is an absolute miracle. I see it as a good thing that my ignorance shielded me from allowing his professional to cloud my determination. His doubts did, in fact, give me added incentive to prove him and other naysayers wrong. Over time, as developments have unfolded, renewed hope has replaced old doubt within him. He was even afforded the opportunity to eventually engage in conversations with our new attorney!

Thanks to our dedicated legal team, more recent progress has put this case back into the spotlight. Although there is still much work to be done, their efforts have initiated a somewhat successful mission that has brought us farther than we ever could have imagined. In retrospect, there have been many bumps in the road. And we anticipate many more. But the ignorance within this community about what is and what is not possible, about what is true and what is false, will have to be stifled so that the facts of this matter can come to light.

Stay tuned…