amada
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by amada on Nov 8, 2018 13:32:39 GMT -6
That is pretty odd right? Isn't a therapist supposed to document all things a patient discusses with them? I could easily be wrong about that. You would think that a "murder confession" would definitely be a time a therapist would at least jot some stuff down. Does make me wonder if the therapist was just embellishing a story to his therapist friend because Marty was from Keddie. Like, "my patient is from Keddie and confessed to me that he killed the mom and daughter. Crazy huh?" And the therapist was into "police work" so he should have known that the DOJ would not make an arrest based on hearsay? Just like everything else with this case it is just a little fishy.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Nov 8, 2018 15:15:59 GMT -6
So true! And yes, I'm pretty sure a murder confession should have gone into the file of a guy who claimed, according to this same therapist, to be a mental case for 7/8 weeks before confessing to murder. And if it didn't it's certainly not because Bradley and Crim falsified a report.
|
|
amada
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by amada on Nov 9, 2018 8:21:21 GMT -6
Agreed. I think the corruption aspect is pretty far fetched. Especially with the DOJ. I mean, who really had anything to gain from all this in LE? I do think Marty had major issues, but again it does not make him the killer. It doesn't mean he's innocent either. It really seems that there are too many people that could be the killer. So many acting strange and guilty. So many stories that just don't add up.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Dec 29, 2018 19:42:25 GMT -6
I would like to get all the "therapist" info in one place and will eventually add the therapist outtakes from the documentary.
This is the report the PCSO took with Dr. Cheeseman in 1981. It's taken from the PT.II documentary and the name of the Reno psychiatrist has been whited out along with phone numbers and addresses. You can view this on the pt.II documentary frame 1:14:27. What we can't see on the documentary, but was told by Josh Hancock, is that Doug Thomas's name was at the bottom of the report. What is very interesting to me is that it is clear the PCSO called Dr. Cheeseman on 5-11-81 and the very next day called a hospital (most likely the Reno Hospital). So not only did they contact Dr. Cheeseman but, from what we can see, they continued trying to contact someone the next day. Would that be the Reno therapist they were trying to contact? They had already talked to Dr. Cheeseman so who else would it be? By the way, from reading the FRB Dr. Cheeseman was no idiot and was used to listening to people talk. It's really hard for me to believe he got this story wrong.
Here is the Reno therapist interview on the part II documentary as transcribed by MK for her forum:
Here is the 30th anniversary article on the murders which goes over the Part 2 documentary almost frame by frame. The last 3 paragraphs (along with other news articles) make me seriously question the story the therapist told to Josh and Sheila 29 years after the murders. che.stparchive.com/Archive/CHE/CHE04132011p01.php
che.stparchive.com/Archive/CHE/CHE04132011p04.php
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on Dec 30, 2018 14:49:35 GMT -6
Tina's autopsy does not suggest any blunt force trauma to her skull. Why would Marty claim he murdered Tina with a hammer?
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Jan 3, 2019 20:04:59 GMT -6
We really can't be sure of what Marty said in 1981 because we don't even know if this "confession" was ever recorded by the therapist. Kind of crazy that we all know Dr. Cheeseman's name but we don't know the name of the man who claimed to have had Marty Smartt confess to him. Maybe since Sheila was present for the interview he wanted to give her some kind of closure with his story - I don't know - it's just hard for me to trust his 29 year old recollection. If Marty's confession was important enough for him to remember all these years then the case should have been important enough for him to have followed (which he didn't or he would have known Marty was never arrested).
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Jan 6, 2019 20:54:50 GMT -6
Josh supplied a PON list with many names right down to children so it's funny that the Reno therapist name didn't make the list - Dr. Cheeseman and many others did but not the Reno therapist. I guess that's because he asked to remain anonymous. Wonder how many other would have appreciated the same anonymity.
From the PON list: CHEESMAN, DR. (LASSEN MENTAL HEALTH) Psych. In Reno (Name Redacted) had Martin Smartt confess to him <THOMAS>
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on Jan 7, 2019 14:56:19 GMT -6
Dr. Chessman and the Reno therapist would have documented every detail of this event. They would have also documented every thought process and decision that led up to contacting law enforcement. They would have documented every detail of their communication with law enforcement. In my opinion, it would be professional suicide not to do so.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Jan 7, 2019 19:54:45 GMT -6
Reno therapist interview from the PtII documentary :
Josh Hancock nor the therapist would have had access to the notes but LE should have had no trouble getting notes that contain the confession, of a man now deceased, to solve a 37 year old murder case. If the therapist had notes in 1981 containing Marty's confession, I'd like to think he would have mentioned that to the DOJ when they showed up at his office. He certainly never mentioned even attempting to show or give Marty's notes to the DOJ - and he certainly didn't mention the DOJ taking Marty's notes with them (so we can't say the Vet Center no longer has them because the dirty DOJ took them). That leads me to believe he took no notes of the confession. Why not? Was this "confession" made to the therapist over the phone as Cheeseman said? Or did Marty walk in off the street and tell the story, as has been said?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, and if that's what I'm doing I'll continue to do it because to me the therapist story is very much alive and one of the main reasons people believe Marty is guilty. So to me it is VERY important to know the answer to these questions and what we've gotten so far is not clear at all. Either he took notes of this confession or he did not.
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on Jan 8, 2019 15:54:42 GMT -6
I've re read this thread several times and I'm starting to wonder if there is some confusion as to what the definition of heresay is. Anything and everything Dr. Chessman reported about a confession to LE is heresay. If Marty confessed murder to the Reno therapist in person or over the phone that is not heresay - whether the therapist documented the event or not. If someone else told the therapist Marty killed 2 people that would be heresay. I know the above sounds confident and please, if I am mistaken about the legal definition of heresay I will gladly take a correction.
IMO, access to notes would clarify whether Marty confessed directly to RT or an anonymous tip was called in or some one else suggest or confessed Marty was responsible for the murders. IMO, the Reno therapist seeking counsel from Chessman either because of a direct confession or a tip was appropriate. IMO, therapist (s) who are going to contact LE regarding a client will keep detailed professional and personal notes in order to cover their asses. So, the only possible conclusions I can come to is the confession did not come directly from Marty. Or the DOJ falsified the report.
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on Jan 8, 2019 16:34:56 GMT -6
.... but why would the RT have 2 completely different versions of the event? What does he have to gain?
|
|
|
Post by snoho17 on Jan 8, 2019 23:56:50 GMT -6
I was just going to post the same hearsay message lol. A murder confession kinda burns into your brain, I can believe a therapist would remember decades later especially if he was taking notes at the time. However the validity of this (undocumented ish) confession is in question. Good call on Tinas skull
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on Jan 9, 2019 6:15:30 GMT -6
Here is another issue that nags me - was Dr Chessman employed at the VA as well or merely a neighbor and friend? Point is... there would be protocol to follow in a situation like this. A therapist employed by an agency is not in private practice... my thoughts are that this kind of issue with a client would have/ should have been discussed with a supervisor within the agency. Was it? Did the RT break professional protocol that might have landed him in hot water. Kmik, agree. Supposed confession is not as straightforward as it is made out to be.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Jan 9, 2019 22:27:13 GMT -6
The therapist said in an outtake that he immediately took the information to his supervisor and it went up the chain. If this info was so shocking to the therapist that he remembered what he says he remembered 28 years later (without any notes) then I would think he would have been shaken enough 28 years earlier (with Tina Sharp missing) that he stayed on top of the news articles enough to know that Marty Smart was never arrested (this was in the Reno newspaper). The RT said in an outtake after receiving a letter from the DOJ (that he no longer had) that was the last he ever heard of the "Martin Smartt situation" prior to talking to Josh a few days before the interview.
From reading the report and the FRB, Dr. Cheeseman lived in Susanville and was a therapist for the Plumas County and Lassen County Mental Health Centers (diving his time among the two). No mention in anything I've read of him being at the Vet Center. It would appear they were neighbors in Susanville. Either way it doesn't appear the RT would go to a stranger with the story so they must have known each other fairly well. Dr. Cheeseman should have known of the murders with him working in Plumas County.
As for the hearsay I'm no lawyer - but it appears that somewhere along the way the DOJ felt that whatever was being told was hearsay - so what story did they hear?
As for why the therapist might possibly tell a different story 28 years later? Just my thoughts: Josh Hancock, an English teacher (not Paula Zahn), was doing a little old documentary on the Keddie murders. Sheila Sharp, (the victims sister, daughter who desperately needed closure) would be coming along for the interview. I don't believe for a minute the therapist ever thought this "documentary" would become what it has. Why is it we didn't hear from him on the ID show, or even in those series of Plumas news articles written about the murders? Who is going to dispute what the therapist says now? Marty, Cheeseman, Crim and Bradley are all dead and, with the exception of Crim (who was 81 at the time), were all dead when Josh interviewed the therapist.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Jan 24, 2019 8:30:10 GMT -6
raemen:
In my "job," I am primarily concerned (but not exclusively) with the "probative" (that is, would it "hold up" in court as "evidence" in a pretrial hearing, etc?) value of evidence, testimony, etc. ANY "confession" by any "suspect" to anyone NOT an officer of the court would be subject to an objection on the grounds that it was little or nothing more than what TV shows summarize as "hearsay." In this example, any testimony in court even by Martin's counselor himself that Martin "confessed" to him would be considered, in broad terms, of little probative value--unless that counselor's testimony included corroborated information that could ONLY have come from someone directly involved in the commission of the crime. That is, the same standards of evidence that would be applied to MARTIN'S "confession" to police would still be applied to the counselor's story. Without corroborating facts in the confession itself, a confession even made in court is pretty much worthless. Just saying, "Yes, I did it" is not considered a evidence of guilt. So, even if we could find some proof that MARTIN'S counselor ever made such a statement to police or other officer of the court, any vague "confession" would very likely NOT even be considered to be used by a prosecutor.
But, in this case, we (as far as I know, and I've not been keeping up lately) have NO statement from MARTIN'S counselor to ANY alleged "confession." This ginned-up "interview" in Josh's "documentary" is the opposite of "evidence." Not to mention that it is flat out wrong on every detail. We've only seen the report of the counselor's NEIGHBOR'S claim--and that's pretty fundamental "hearsay" with no probative value at all. If you want a more specifically legal objection, "hearsay" falls into the general category of "not best evidence." The "best" evidence would be testimony by Martin's actual counselor--or better yet, tapes of sessions, etc. If, let's say, Martin's counselor happened to die before police could interview him, and they were unable to find any tapes or other documentation of such a "confession," then a judge would have to be persuaded to allow the NEIGHBOR'S statement/testimony to be used, and the version we can see would very very likely NOT be allowed by a judge. And keep one more thing in mind--this neighbor ONLY contacted police in reaction to MEDIA COVERAGE of the Keddie case--another weakness open to attack by defense counsel.
This "confession" story--told 30 years later, even if it IS by the actual counselor--is 99 percent of the "case" against Marty. (It doesn't even MENTION Bo.) Like all anonymous accusations, it's worth less than the toilet paper it's videotaped on.
|
|