| CONTENTS:
ABSTRACT
METHODS
CASE OVERVIEW
The Eye Witness Accounts
The Forensic Evidence
The McGohan Statement
The Star Witness
The Mystery Caller
The Altered Police
Report
David Weinstein et al.
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
ADDENDUM
Letter to James Vargeson, D.A.
The Komanecky Interview
The Bertonica Interview
Monserrate's Ruling
PUBLIC OPINION
MEDIA E-MAIL
POLITICAL E-MAIL
DOWNLOAD:
This document is available
to be downloaded to your
computer for printing and
offline viewing.
Choose one of the following
file formats:
Adobe
Acrobat Format
MonsonCase.pdf
Microsoft Word 97 Format
MonsonCase.doc
Free software is available to
allow you to read these files
on your computer, if needed:
Get your free Acrobat
PDF file viewer here
Get your free Word 97
DOC file viewer here |
CASE OVERVIEW
The Eye Witness Accounts
Less than 48 hours after Julie Monson was reported missing by her
parents, Detective Carl Festa and Detective Anthony Longo (deceased) of the Auburn Police
Department, interviewed William Komanecky, his son Andrew, and a friend of his son, Frank
Busce.
According to published accounts, these three individuals were the
last people to see the young coed alive. The following summary was taken from an article
that appeared in the Auburn Citizen on February 7, 1986:
From what police can piece together, Julie drove her parent’s red
1981 Chevette along Prospect Street between 2:30 and 3:00 am. When she was stopped by the
flashing lights of a second car. Three eyewitnesses peering from the living room of their
home said they saw a man crawl under Julie’s car, indicating something was wrong. (EA-1)
"There’s a pretty one for you," the
man said to his teen-aged son and a friend, referring to the girl standing in the glare of
the headlights some 200 yards away. (EA-2)
As you continue to read this summary, please note the words
"under hypnosis" and the phrase "towered over her".
Later, the witnesses said under hypnosis that the man "towered over
her" and had a V-shaped athletic body. (EA-3)
Here, I would ask you to make note of the fact that these
eyewitnesses never saw the man’s face.
The three noticed the man’s long hair, but did not see his face.
They watched her voluntarily enter the man’s car, a green Cordoba, they said. The
pair drove away. (EA-4)
As a witness for the prosecution, this is what William Komanecky
told jurors at the defendant’s trial. These two sentences were taken from an article
that appeared in the Cayuga Seneca section of the Syracuse Post-Standard on February 22,
1986:
Komanecky testified that the man had shoulder-length hair and high
cheekbones, but he couldn’t recall if he also had facial hair. (EA-5)
. . . . . . . . .
Earlier, prosecutors entered into evidence a
photograph of Bianco that showed he had long hair and a mustache in the summer of 1981 (EA -6)
On February 21, 1992 New York State Supreme Court Justice, Patrick
D. Monserrate reversed the 1986 murder conviction of Thomas Bianco and ordered a new
trial. These three paragraphs were taken from an article that appeared on the front page
of the Syracuse Post-Standard on February 22, 1992:
Monserrate ruled that defense attorneys were not provided with all the
evidence they were entitled to on the testimony of prosecution witnesses John Bazarnik and
William and Andrew Komanecky. (EA-7)
Bazarnik testified that Bianco confessed to him that he killed Monson.
After the trial, the defense learned that police had interviewed Bazarnik seven times
before he told them about the confession. (EA-8)
William Komanecky and his son Andrew testified that they saw the victim
standing in the road outside their house with a man who had high cheekbones. Defense
attorneys learned later that the Komaneckys had told a psychic that they had never seen
the man’s face because he had his back toward them. (EA-9)
On March 2, 1992, Richard Grossman, a Syracuse attorney and frequent
contributor to the Post-Standard made these observations in his column:
William Komanecky and his son Andrew both testified that on September
27, 1981, the night Monson disappeared, they saw a woman assumed to be the victim with a
man closely fitting Bianco’s description. (EA-10)
They told the jury the man was "somewhere between 5’ 10"
and 6 feet" with "wide shoulders", "dark shoulder-length hair"
and "high cheekbones." (EA-11)
What defense counsel was not told was that within days of this sighting,
they had told police that the man they saw was "big" – 200 pounds or more,
broad-shouldered, "about a size 44 jacket" and "6 feet tall or more." (EA-12)
They said nothing to the police of high cheekbones because Komanecky
told them that "the man had his back to him" and that he had never seen his
face! (EA-13)
And this is why on February 21, State Supreme Court Justice Patrick D.
Monserrate set aside the conviction of Bianco and ordered a new trial.
(EA-14)
In the closing paragraphs of his column, Richard Grossman gives us a
very clear example of how the former district attorney used the testimony of these
eyewitnesses to bolster his case and obtain a conviction:
In his summation, the prosecutor pointedly reminded the jury of this
distinctive facial characteristic, telling them: (EA-15)
"Look at the defendant … look at him. He can cut his hair; he
can lose weight … but he can’t change the appearance of his face, can he?" (E-16)
This was Mr. Grossman’s final comment:
This murder conviction was not set aside on "technical"
grounds. The jury never heard the truth. (EA-17)
The next one may. (EA-18)
|
