The state says they did not make any deal with Jack Moretti.
1. He was never charged with the "bad checks" that he was brought
in for, the possession of illegal firearms & ammunition without a
firearms owner card, possession of explosives & other bomb making
supplies. The passport for Donna Marie Forster in Moretti's
possession, was never even investigated.
2. In his video taped statement he mentions, multiple times, that they
told him he would walk.
3. He was charged with concealment, possession of cocaine,
possession of marijuana & intent to sell cocaine. Shortly before
Gallano's first Trial the possession of marijuana & intent to sell
cocaine charges were dropped when Moretti plead guilty to the
others. He the plead the 5th. in Gallano's Trial.
4. During Gallano's 2nd Trial the prosecution stated that
Moretti was prosecuted & convicted with the maximum sentences.
When the defense produced court papers that told of the state
dropping some of the charges against Moretti they were forced by
the judge to read a stipulation to the jury noting the exact
charges that were brought against Moretti & dropped.
About Gallano's videotaped statement
1. Asst. State's Attorney Terrance Riley was questioning Gallano
& Doug Hoglund (current Blue Island Chief of Police) was present
in the tape. In the tape Gallano said that Bravo came at him with a
gun & there was a struggle and it went off. Yet Hoglund testified
that "Gallano related nothing during his interview about a
struggle" (quoted from the Daily Southtown). Isn't that perjury?
Hoglund is seen on the videotape sitting next to Gallano as he says
"there was a struggle"
2. Riley asks all kinds of erroneous questions in the video such as
"what kind of chair were you sitting in?", but when Gallano tells
of a struggle Riley asks no questions about the details of the
struggle or the shooting. He says something along the lines of 'ok
so Stacey is shot..then what?' Is that investigation? Or is it
setting someone up with the story Riley wanted the videotape to
portray?
About Moretti's videotaped statement (taken from the transcripts
of that statement)
1. There ARE transcripts of his statement
2. Hoglund was present at the statement. Hoglund testified that he
had no idea what kind of gun it was that killed Stacey. He also
stated that he didn't know who's gun it was. In the statement Jack
Moretti said that he had a 380 & that he recognized the gun that
killed Stacey as his gun.
3. The state made a point of Gallano taking the concealed body
out to the farm alone, but Moretti stated that he was with him.
4. Moretti states that at first he confessed to shooting Stacey
but the police said they knew it wasn't him.
5. Riley : "did we promise you anything to tell us what happened?"
Moretti answers : There were some promises made, yes.
Riley : .okay.,
Moretti : I was told that if everything I said was true & that, that
everything would disappear.,
Riley : okay,
Moretti : And that I--nothing would happen to me because..
Riley then goes on to ask Moretti if he had a conversation with him
where Riley told him that that would not be the case. Then they go
on arguing about what Moretti was promised for the information &
how the promise wasn't going to happen.
Did someone promise him that he would walk if he gave the
information? Is that ethical to make a promise in exchange for
information then not fulfill that promise. Is that bribery? Or
something similar?
Forensics
1. Gallano is left handed. Is it possible for a left handed man to
shoot someone from behind, in the right side of her head? Not with
his left hand it's not. The bullet trajectory is from back to front
angled slightly upward.
2. There is a keyhole shaped wound. It was testified to by an expert
that a keyhole shaped wound indicates 2 bullets..possibly more. But
5? Well the state contends that the ONLY way 5 bullets could
go into the same keyhole shaped wound is if Gallano held Bravo's
head & kept it from moving AT ALL. How can you hold someone's
head & fire a gun into it 5 times & have the head stay almost
perfectly still. Let's go back to him being left handed. How could
he be behind her, shooting her with his weak hand while holding her
perfectly still & getting all 5 bullets in a wound that indicates 2?
Isn't there recoil? Ok so the states next scenario is he held her
down. Well would that work? Would the angle of the bullet
trajectory be the same? Military men that were asked about this
situation said it's not possible.
3. Would there be any way that not 1 of 5 bullets exited her skull?
There is no exit wound. The military men's opinion is that there
would not even be a head if 5 bullets were shot into it with contact.
There was some fracturing & no exit wound.
4. The expert said that Bravo was COMPLETELY decomposed &
that's why it would have been impossible to do a gunshot residue
test to see if she had shot the gun like the defendant claims. But
prosecutor Lagerwall said that the body was preserved so well in
the concealment that she was easily identified & evidence was
preserved. So was she completely decomposed or very well
preserved. Do they get to have double standards when trying a
first degree murder charge?
5. The X-ray does not show 7 projectiles.
6. A sample of brain matter & her liver were sent out for
toxicology tests. The report on the liver came back positive for
cocaine. The report for the brain didn't come back at all. Why is
that?
The Bullets
1. In the original autopsy report Dr. Mitchell reports that he took
out 3 projectiles. His testimony is that the report is transcribed
from the audiotape that he dictated into during the autopsy. That
report was used in the coroners inquest.
2. Shortly before the first Trial the defense was notified by Dr.
Mitchell that he was changing his findings but not his report. The
Trial was over a year after the autopsy. How can one change his
findings without changing the report?
3. In Gallano's first Trial Dr. Mitchell testified that he took out
5 projectiles, 2 of them were lead cores & 3 of them were bullet
jacket pieces. Then he later separated them, because they were
fused together, into 7 pieces.
4. In Gallano's second Trial Dr. Mitchell testified again that he
took out 5 projectiles & then he handed them over to Chris
Campbell in CSI who must have separated them into 7 because we
have a picture of 7. 2 lead cores & 5 jackets. How can his
testimony differ from his written report? How can his testimony
change from hearing to 1 Trial to the next? Isn't that perjury?
5. Sherk, the ballistics expert testified that the 5 jackets were
each from a separate bullet because the round bases are intact.
There is only frontal impact damage on those bullet jackets.
6. Mitchell testified that the bullets fragmented to create a lead
shower in her brain. He pointed out little white spots on the X-ray
to prove his point.
7. The defense had literature from Winchester, the manufacturer of
the bullets identified by Sherk as 38 class Silvertips. The
literature said that these particular bullets are made for virtually
no weight loss or fragmentation. Sherk said "Oh that's just
advertising".
So we have bullets that aren't supposed to fragment. 3 cores out
of the alleged 5 bullets virtually disappeared. Asst. States
attorney Sabatini's answer to this is something along the lines that
any bullet being hit by others in succession will break up into pieces.
Ok let's go with that. There a 3 fragmented cores & 2 full
undamaged cores, other then oxidation, & 5 jackets with their bases
intact & undamaged. If 3 cores were hit hard enough to almost
disappear then why is there NO DAMAGE to the jackets? Not one
of them was hit by another bullet? And why are the jackets so nice
& shiny if they were in a decomposed body for 2 1/2 years? Did
anyone weigh the brain at autopsy to find out if the weight of the
brain plus all the lead equals the proper weight for 5 bullets? And
where is the toxicology report on the brain? Wouldn't t that show
lead in the brain if the bullets were virtually disintegrated? That
report never came back as far as we know.
8. Where is the audiotape that will coincide with one of Dr.
Mitchell reports? That tape is the sound for the autopsy videotape
where it was unclear how many projectiles were removed. The
defense asked Dr. Mitchell about the audiotape in the first Trial.
He replied that he didn't have it with him. Before the 2nd Trial the
defense demanded that evidence be introduced, The state kept saying
they couldn't find it. Then finally at a hearing they admitted that it
had been destroyed, taped over & that that was the regular
practice of the medical examiner. That raise this question. If the
medical examiner, Dr. Mitchell knew that his regular practice is to
erase the tapes as soon as they are transcribed, then why would he
testify at Trial, a year after the autopsy that he didn't have it with
him? If it was regular practice wouldn't he have know it had
already been taped over? And finally, if the Dr. Mitchell's
testimony & written reports matched, would the defense even need to
hear that audiotape?
The investigation- did the authorities do their job correctly?
1. Hoglund & Wetherald (IL state police) admitted under oath
that they never investigated the claim of self defense. They also
admitted that they never found the gun because they never looked
for the gun.
2. Hoglund wrote in one of his reports that Gallano took the gun
from Bravo & shot her. That was never said by Gallano. Is that
Hoglund's opinion? Aren't investigation reports supposed to be
fact?
3. No one did any residue tests on Stacey or her clothing to find
out if could have pulled the trigger herself.
4. They testified that they never looked for the other girl who had
been at Moretti's house with Stacey to see if she knew anything.
Witness Coaching - Is that ethical?
1. When asked by the defense all of the state's witnesses admitted
having met with Sabatini more than once & very recently. One even
admitted meeting him during the lunch break of that day of Trial.
2. The first time a Gunshot residue test was brought up was in the
morning on a day during the 2nd Trial. By that afternoon the next
state's witness brought up the gunshot residue test himself, trying
to dispute the possibility that it would work. How did he know the
defense was about to cross examine him about gunshot residue
tests? That witness admitted to meeting with Sabatini during lunch
break.
3. When Wetherald was being questioned by Sabatini he was asked
if Moretti had gone with Gallano to drop off the concealed body
at the farm. Wetherald answered "yes". Mr. Sabatini asked him
"Are you sure?" because he didn't get the answer he wanted.
Is this Ethical?
1. The assistant states attorney, Lagerwall, went to get a public
defender for a defense witness.
2. Lagerwall in open court, before a jury was selected, was
arguing if Moretti had the right to plead the 5th. His statements
insinuated that Moretti would be charged with murder if he
testified. I know if I was Moretti I would have been afraid to
testify after I heard what the state had to say. The exact wording
will be in the transcripts.
3. The state showed a minimum of a dozen pictures of Bravo's
decomposed body for "identification purposes". Every tattoo had
to be shown to the jury. Isn't that shock factor?
4. Lagerwall, pretending he was Gallano, sang his version of the
little kids teasing song "Na NANA NA NA NA...I got away with
murder"
to the jury as if Gallano would be laughing at them if they didn't
convict him. All the while he was jumping up & down, waving his
arms & shaking his rear end. If not unethical isn't this
unprofessional?
5. Sabatini objected during the defense's closing arguments. He
objected stating that what the defense referred to as testimony
was not the testimony. But it was the testimony. Did Sabatini not
want the jury to remember that bit of testimony? Or was he just
trying to throw the defense off? Because then he wanted a sidebar.
6. Sabatini called a sidebar every time his case was confronted by
the defense.
7. Sabatini got close enough to the defendant during cross
examination to spit in his face while he yelled at him.
8. The state did not let the Bravo family know that there was
anything like a deal with Moretti. They told the family & everyone
else that Moretti was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Moretti's early release from prison prompted the Bravo's to get
Stacey's Law passed. So the lie they were told was passed to
representative Rita, Devine, Blagovich, Obama & all the people it
needed to go through to get the law passed. Do any of these people
know that if Moretti was actually prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law that he most likely would have died in prison? Would
there have been any need for all the trouble the Bravo's & the
lawmakers went through to pass that law?
9. Sabatini used a term consciousness of guilt, that he explained by
saying that because Gallano concealed the body he was admitting
to guilt. Why else would he conceal the body? He couldn't be
scared? He couldn't be loyal to a friend who would have gotten in
a lot of trouble if the police showed up at his house? He couldn't
have been distrusting of the police? Concealment is not murder &
people can look guilty for things they didn't do. I believe that these
comments by Sabatini swayed the jury. How can he tell the jury to
convict him of first degree murder because of the concealment?
10. Sabatini told the jury that Gallano is hiding behind the flag.
His military service was years ago & doesn't matter. Does Sabatini
have the right to negate someone's service to this country?
Questions
1. It was noted by Hoglund that Stacey had the gun. It was
testified to by Gallano that Stacey had the gun pointed at him. No
one really disputed the fact that Stacey HAD THE GUN. So how
can it be anything other than self defense? Do people have time to
think about what they are going to do when they have a gun pointed
at their head? They might be dead if they don't react immediately.
How could anyone be held accountable for what they do when they
are in survival mode? Once a gun is pointed at your head anything
that happens immediately afterwards should be considered self
defense. How could it not? Is there a question of reasonable force
when a gun is at your temple? Wouldn't any amount of force seem
reasonable to the person that the gun is pointed at?
2. In a self defense claim doesn't the state have to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the person did not act in self defense? Did
they prove that Stacey never had the gun? Isn't that the only way
it wouldn't be self defense?
3. Do 5 bullets negate any possibility of it being self defense? I
don't believe there were 5 shots fired but let's say there were. If I
had a gun to my head & managed to get the gun away from my
attacker, I would react just like they do in the movies. They keep
shooting until all the bullets are fired and they still keep shooting.
Wouldn't that be instinctual? Chemical? Adrenaline? Self
preservation?
4. Aren't all of us guaranteed a fair Trial? In letting Moretti
invoke his 5th. Amendment rights, pertinent evidence is inadmissible.
How will Gallano ever get a fair Trial when all of the evidence
corroborating his story cannot be admitted?
Fuzzy's Blog News God's Word Photos Message Board Guestbook Letter to the Warden Links
