Justice Process TEST: Coroner's Proof -v- Crony Prosecution Control of GrandJury

Here in Western Appalachian Ohio, and more specifically in Brown County Ohio, there is a murder to be 'processed' by the so-called U.S./Ohio Justice system.

Hopefully, you will have heard about Zachary Goldson, a young fellow who had been in minor trouble as a juvenile and was under restrictions over firearms. That young fellow rashly did use a sawed off shotgun near Georgetown, presumably during a time while on a visit to see his mother there. No one was harmed, NOT EVEN THREATENED, yet the forces of law, SUPPOSEDLY TO PROTECT AND SERVE, saw fit to jail that young fellow and convict him of such a pile of charges as to make him likely to face 5 years in prison.

Unreal as a service to the public's wellbeing. Unreal as a demonstration of judicial purpose. Presumably we have Judge Scott T Gusweiler to thank for that miscarriage, as well as the Brown County Prosecutor, Jessica Little. Their conscience burns.

But worse, during Zachary's confinement, under unmet-monstrous bail requirement, his restless behavior got a deputy or two angry. The story of his altercation at the hospital -- where they had just discharged him for later surgery to remove inappropriate debris from an inordinate swallowing stunt -- provided some dashcam and other testimony of observers of the threat made to 'break his (expletive deleted) neck when they got back to the jail'.

That threat was made by one of the Sheriff's deputies, named RYAN WEDMORE. And within a blink of an eye after returning Zachary to a jail cell, the 911 operator was notified to send an ambulance to the jail because an inmate was hanging in the cell, reported in 911 recordings with a very strange phrasing by female corrections officer named SARAH MCKENZIE.

Now enter the Corooner Dr Judith Varnau, and she decides based on her rather well thought out figuring, that Zachary was a homicide victim. In the flurry of activity, some crucial videotape -- covering the hall outside Zachhary's cell -- was TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE BY THE CHIEF DEPUTY JOHN SCHADLE. Schadle, for your entertaining of motives, has a son also on duty that night in the Jail. Not that it matters, right? That tape was written over, and there were conflicting stories (unconfirmed as yet) that NO COPY WAS MADE FOR PRESERVATION OF RELATED EVIDENCE... That's serious OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE CHIEF DEPUTY. By any unbiased standard. Any objections?

That same Chief Deputy John Schadle ALSO HAD THE SPRINKLER HEAD REPLACED THAT SUPPOSEDLY WAS USED TO TIE THE SHEET FOR THE HANGING.. MULTIPLE OFFENSES OF MAJOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE JUSTICE PRACTICE.

But we're not done. Nope, no one other than jail personnel had seen Zachary hanging, as described. Add to that the fact that jail cells as well as many other such institutions have specially designed sprinkler systems where the heads break off at a minimal weight (namely 40 pounds) specifically to prevent suicidal episodes. By the time any outsider arrived Zachary was on the floor, in handcuffs, no less. Oh yeah, they claimed they put those on him BEFORE they attempted CPR, rotflac. In fact they were so intelligent in administering CPR that they didn't for some reason remove the noose (a sheet) around his throat. rotflasac. Is there any way to describe such crime and motive to visually prove to investigative eyes that indeed the sheet is what killed him?

Is there anything but murder written all over this list of facts? And so in steps the Coroner, judiciously, and begins the process of documenting every detail. My, did she thoroughly analyze it. Wouldn't you? Considering the reality of what the real events were?

So what would a GENUINE sheriff do, under those circumstances, especially and precisely after the Coroner issues her opinion that this was a homicide? Any other jurisdiction would have taken those officers involved OFF DUTY TO PUBLIC WORK, balancing public safety against the rights of an accused. Wenninger announced that he trusted "HIS MEN" and they were unaffected. Would you agree that was favoring everybody equitably?

After all, (sarcasm intended) wouldn't you want your 8 year old in the custody of such an accused murder suspect for a charity christmas shopping trip, as a publicity stunt to make parents relieved that their children would feel safer doing their private gift shopping with photo ops for county law enforcement publicity, because christmas shopping is a dangerous affair for young people. Hmmmmmmm..?

This county has a questionable sheriff in the first place, since he clearly filed false credentials in his runs for office and a grand jury made him stand trial for that in 2003. If those credentials hadn't been counterfeit, the grand jury would/should have No-Billed the charges made, once the grand jury had been shown the credentials and the law on what was legitimate. Clearly there was a sheriff who violated the law with unworthy credentials, BUT DID HE PASS THOSE COUNTERFEIT CREDENTIALS **KNOWINGLY**???

That was what the jury was told to determine. And they did decide that the Sheriff wasn't smart enough to be doing such fraud *knowingly*.

THEN CAME THE COLLABORATION OF THE MEDIA AND THE JUDGES. The media blared the headline SHERIFF INNOCENT and the Judge -- Ringland, now promoted to Appeal Court judge with hopes of higher for each special case he handles -- SEALED THE COURT RECORDS... So the public didn't catch on AND WHEN A CANDIDATE LATER CHALLENGED THAT UNQUALIFIED SHERIFF AT ELECTION TIME, every one was convinced that the sheriff should win, and when that candidate took the battle to the courts, everyone was LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE SHERIFF WAS A VICTIM OF A POOR LOSER.. imagine that??

Oh but it gets even better. The upper level courts either refused to hear the case, one saying that he'd made his complaint prematurely, and the next court, that his complaint should have been filed earlier. Go figure, but know (in your figuring) that the courts in Ohio are mainly populated by the same party as the sheriff's. All the way to the US Supreme Court, which in a demonstration of total incompetence as an institution, REFUSES TO LISTEN TO 99% OF THE CASES BROUGHT THERE AT GREAT EXPENSE AND EXTREME GRIEVANCE. Ohio's own Supreme Court nearly matches that dignity (or indignity if you're among the aggrieved) with a refusal rate of 93% when last tallied. JUSTICE DOES NOT PREVAIL in Ohio nor in the SCOTUS.

And we're not done yet with appalachian glory. That challenger to the Sheriff's right to be considered qualified was none other than Dr Varnau's husband, whose own qualifications would shame most nearly every candidate for sheriff ever imagined, since Dennis Varnau was not only a trained police office with appropriate experience but had a law degree acquired from the military after a career as a nuclear submarine engineer during the Vietnam war, and after. So now we hear nothing from the brain-dead, gossip-greedy media in this battle but the idea that this is nothing but politics on the Coroner's side. Clearly all the corrupt politics was in other hands whose fingerprints are all over this history of wrongdoing. No wrongdoing has ever been shown on the Varnau side, all the complaints are about his lawful challenges as being (gasp) bothersome, annoying, and incessant.

Determination and defiance are not virtues in appalachia any more, under the current influences -- like schools -- on that society.


So now we have this test of this society and its law enforcement characters. Agreed, this will be a real test.

For your edification, we have acquired from those surrounding Zachary's parents, the text of the Coroner's analysis to be presented to the Grand Jury this month, per the newspaper's announcement. Yet we will see just how corrupted the Ohio Justice system can possibly be. After seeing the Bureau of Criminal Investigation under the Ohio Attorney General DeWine's control, all Republican, like the Sheriff, take a YEAR (not a couple of months, like the Coroner) to prepare their own assessment, yet BCI's results are hidden from public view, keeping the observant public in the dark over whether the BCI will unlikely support the Coroner (rotfl) or the Sheriff's men/women (aka a GANG of murderers and complicit obstructive coverup perpetrators) with enough cleverness to FOOL THE MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY..

Don't think this is not possible, as we have seen other Grand Jury's engage in stunning displays of both genius and criminal prejudice, stupidity and worse (See the report at Bergerac.tv under the title 'The Unjustice System')

Spread what your own decision would have been if you had been on the GJ, with the understanding that you have the advantage of having seen the actual Coroner's analysis (next), since one tactic to deceive the actual Grand Jury would be to hide or obscure or eviscerate the evidence and overwhelm the GJ with so much opinion and credentials, as to deflect justice. It's your assignment, should you choose to accept it, to complete this test, as you are now really the ones also being tested.. As we all are here also making it our own joyous chore to insist that justice shall prevail. TTYL Sherlock Holmes hat, at the ready!

****** THE CORONER'S REPORT ******* ****** THE CORONER'S REPORT ******




















And for your use in disseminating this Coroner's careful analysis, we are hereby linking a downloadable copy. Go for it


Speculation, from here on:
Possible murder weapon standard Police Hobble Strap

Instead of being used to quickly tie ankles to prevent escape, it appears to be possible that several 'law officers' dragged our young fellow, struggling naturally, but still in hinged handcuffs, around the floor by his neck, as their idea of the 'party' at the jail, threatened by Wedmore at the hospital, minutes before leaving the hospital scuffle and arrival at the jail, and done in the 9 minutes while supposedly just removing restraints but having no other requirement to accomplish in that otherwise empty-of-purpose 9 minute interval, which they reported as used for 'leaving him in the cell', which we do conclude was in his jail clothing so they could replace the floor-wiping evidence by switching to suicide watch paper clothing when they were done). Concealing their 'party'.

All four then left to establish alibis, but Zane Shadle, Chief Deputy Shadle's son, aborted his claimed 'smoke break' normally 15 minutes allowable, to handle the suicide appearance, including the need to acquire ladder, sheet, paper clothing, and a scissors. Hence the need to destroy the video camera tape of the activity in the hall outside the cell.

Considering the young fellow's easy ability to relay the incident afterwards, if alive, those four could not let him live to tell. Premeditated murder by a gang of thugs in uniforms and badges. How much the female corrections officer McKenzie is involved easily is seeable as at least awareness of and completely supporting Zane Shadle, as maybe are the other staff, especially Deputy Chief John Shadle, Zane's 'old man'.

The Sheriff's men.

Pure speculating, but fitting the evidence. Make your own assessment of the WHO-DUNN-IT part, using the solid data assembled and analyzed by the Coroner to achieve her lawful responsibility to determine 'cause and manner' only. Not the who-dunn-it part, from which she has refrained. As has the Sheriff made no effort (purportedly waiting on BCI) except for support for Shadle and attacks on the Coroner (see previous posts) in which criminally motivated attacks the Prosecutor assisted with eagerness, which assessment is based on her newspaper quotes.

.Spread it around so it can't be hidden and swept under some rug.

BrownCounty Coroner Varnau vs the Sheriff & his engineered ouster of the Coroner -- TrialDay 1

Day 1 -- May 14, 2014...
Grey clouds would sweep across the sky, dropping torrents onto parts of Brown County during the mid-afternoon. Before that, it was bright and sunny, letting those involved with the Varnau case enter the Courthouse without any concern about being drenched. Bradley Braun, one of the prosecting attorneys, came smugly swaggering into the courtroom and that attitude was, likewise, reflected when he questioned the first witnesses (Judith Varnau and Officer Huff). After a few questions in which Dr Varnau exhibited good control of information, he became exceedingly defensive when Judith Varnau was answering his questions and insisted she stick with 'yes or no' answers, even though previous answers had shown the needed answers were more complex than simply 'yes or no.' In fact, that he waited til seeing the pattern of competence of his target victim, and then suddenly changing and hostilely insisting she just answer 'yes or no' would indicate to the observant observer that he must've not liked her previous answers... Now what about her detailed explanations would've triggered that? Maybe he is too impatient to let someone other than himself have their say...except he asked for details from the following witness rather than keep them hidden.

Which leads some observers to believe that maybe Varnau's details would've destroyed his case and he needed to keep them hidden. Either way his arrogant, huffy attitude was clear despite him repeatedly mixing up names and seeming rather unprepared for the trial. You could see that it seemed like the judge was getting frustrated with Mr Braun's questions. In contrast Defendant Varnau's family atterney, Tom Eagle, came across as 'ready'... as though he'd actually prepared for the trial. Even in the one instance where he couldn't remember a street name, he did remember the people's name's involved in the 'events' being testified to and even graciously admitted it was his fault...something Mr Braun *never* did.

Instead Braun's attitude would make one wonder about his attitude and commitment to 'fact-finding' and 'truth-seeking', much less wonder about his hostility in which he incessantly descended into horrible slanderous preludes to the actual question (which 'question' would be all the witness was to speak to) when he was evidently more interested in lambasting his victim.

Even when someone didn't give the answer Mr. Eagle was looking for Mr Eagle admitted that he must've not phrased the question correctly and proceeded to rephrase the question so it basically meant the same thing with added touches for the witness' viewpoint, which got a more specific answer. Fact-finding exonerated.

Because there are four different brain types, because there are more personalities than just follow-the-leader-wanting-prosecution, different people will have different responses to each and very question. Mr. Eagle made it clear that he could properly communicate with any of those people, unlike Mr Braun's rigid inflexibility toward the witnesses.

Now, the testimony itself had some gems of information despite Mr Braun's seeming attempts to prevent it. For example Judith Varnau was the first witness Mr Braun called and he started out having her state her qualifications (strictly as coroner, no history) and established that her duties as coroner, under the law, involved only determining the manner, cause and mode of death. They didn't include preserving the crime scene, nor crossing crime scene tape without authorization, nor taking fingerprints, nor removing anything from the scene that's outside the body and the near vicinity. The prosecution went on from there to have her identify pieces of evidence...one such was an email wherein she withdrew from the 1st agreement between her office and the Sheriff. He'd tried getting her to 'admit' to withdrawing from all 3 agreements they'd had, but he failed. He even failed at keeping it hidden why she'd withdrawn from the agreement. SHE HAD WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE SHERIFF'S RULES HAD FAILED and someone died, possibly because of his rule.

So one must wonder why would she, why would anyone, remain in an agreement that wasn't servicing public need while being honored and was a danger to citizens...but that isn't something the Prosecution would want people to think about. It would ruin their case!

Later on Mr Braun would bring up that Varnau had a car towed with a body in the backseat before an examination could be done, 'hinting' that it smacked of 'disrespect' for the dead. In response Varnau would reveal that it was BCI (Bureau of Crime Investigation) that ordered the car towed so they could examine evidence in the car without the January pouring rain all around. At the obvious realization of the courtroom observers' likely reaction to freezing rain, deep mud requiring tractors and middle of the night timing, this brought about, Mr Braun then hastily switched to asking whether it wasn't true that in a later instance Varnau was the one who suggested another car be towed for her own comfort. To which Varnau responded that no she hadn't, that she'd "asked whether it should be towed." Asked, not suggested. Keep in mind this was after BCI ordered the first car towed before any investigation was done...thereby setting an example that anyone would ask about the second time around. Varnau did what anyone else would in her situation because, remember, she's not in charge of crime scene preservation as the prosecution kept implying as damaging for citizen safety and sense of anger.

The attempt to establish that Varnau hadn't been delivering guns to the sheriff's office backfired quite thoroughly too, first while Mr Braun questioned Varnau and she established that she had asked the Sheriff officers to take weapons that they had moved in their safety examination for spent shells and hazard, and that was confirmed when Mr Eagle cross-examined Officer Huff. (Mr Eagle had occasional objections to the 'inept' Braun questions but in this Plaintiff-selected witness-calling strategy, Varnau was not 'cross-examined' or in any way questioned/interviewed by her own lawyer, but instead would be expecting to be planning on Eagle calling her later). The second witness was, as mentioned, Officer Huff. The one, actually notable question from prosecution was whether an investigation was ongoing when Varnau stepped in a 'pool' of blood by the victim's dead. Officer Huff said "Yes," paused, "I believe so." It was then established in cross-examination that the pause meant that Officer Huff wasn't certain about what was 'ongoing'. Likewise it was earlier established that Varnau's duty WASN'T CRIME SCENE PRESERVATION, and Officer Huff testified he hadn't pointed out where she shouldn't step. According to testimony it would've been a rather terribly bloody scene, with bits of body tissue splattered ceiling to floor. In richer county's that mess would have triggered a summons to crime scene crew that specialize in disaster cleanup/sanitation. Obviously not in BC. Officer Huff also testified that a physician like Varnau wouldn't be the appropriate person, nor have the appropriate training for reliably handling unfamiliar firearms. He would also be willing to take firearms from Varnau, it had been testified that Varnau had asked the officer present to take firearms before. It was the SHERIFF that put policy in place preventing that from happening, that she must 'deliver' them, and they were not to simply 'take' them. Imagine that! Which the officer did imagine and acknowledged that it was 'absurd' policy, which leads to the conclusion that the Coroner is not the one making absurd policies.

Even more absurd was the later 'explanation' by Chief Schadle that he had instructed his deputies such because he feared that Dr Varnau would unreliably bring charges against them for bogus reasons of her own creation. So far, they produced no sign of Dr Varnau suing anyone. In fact her reputed letter to the Attorney General (for clarification of her responsibility) was her fear in the beginning of her term of office that giving firearms and/or evidence to Schadle's deputies would involve her in a later lawsuit by a slicker lawyer, who (to protect a client-suspect) would uncover the Supreme Court's error in calculating timing (known as 'laches') and promote the claim that the deputies had no validly issued authority to operate and then the coroner would have tampered with proper handling of evidence to thus release a suspect on invalid prosecution defenses.

None of the Courts (all the way to the Supreme Court) where her husband had pursued Wenninger's credentials lawful validity claims, had ever dealt with the merits of the credentials issues and only dismissed the cases on technicalities of timing (first too soon in some tangle of quo warranto etc, then too late by an error in OSC's calculation of 'laches'). So there was no reason, out of fear of a humanly sensibly cautious woman doctor, for any sane manager of police operations to decently make such an insane rule as was seen in court. Not just in firearms, but most absurdly in firearms, making the pretense of it being a public safety issue in the press's opinion.

Further, it is ridiculous to think that a doctor, one not 'qualified' to handle firearms, could dictate Sheriff Office policy on investigation work outside the medical body-related areas. So why do the prosecution lawyers have the nerve to circulate petitions (other than hearse-chasing for income) to citizens with no decent chance to gather such a wide scope of data, from esoteric law content to memos to myriad event circumstances. And how do these hearse-chasing lawyers get the nerve to openly and boldly mouth their badly researched charges in open court before a judge who would hopefully have some familiarity with the reality of law content and law enforcement.

More to come, maybe when the Sheriff gets on the stand for TrialDay2.

Brown County Party Monopoly seeks to oust Indy Coroner

Just a party-engineered Coverup for Sheriff's Office role in Murder at the Jail


The 1st PreTrial Hearing to Suspend Varnau, the Indy Coroner who actually commits to arriving at each and every death scene -- in contrast to the prior Sheriff-loved coroner who only came when the Sheriff summoned him -- was today (22nd April 2014).

Among the many revelations -- should anyone be common sense knowledgeable in assembling the pieces of testimony -- was the amazingly conflicted testimony of the sheriff's men. Three of them. The most senior -- and hence most responsible for the Sheriff's role -- was Johnnie Shadle, Chief Deputy who constantly was on the attack, regardless of what he was being asked. Clearly his intensity reveals the fact that his own son is a prime suspect in the recent (last November is recent in murder investigations by the Bureau of Crime Investigations) jail death, astutely and thoroughly analyzed by this coroner.

1) Combining the information stated by the Sheriff's (Wenninger) men at the trial we have the following: -- A) it is so crucial to have a rapidly but thoroughly investigated DEATH scene, since it could be murder.

-- B) but maybe not so crucial to the Sheriff -- the poor helpless deputies were so intimidated by the Coroner's legal-opinion-seeking that the SHERIFF"S CHIEF INSTRUCTED THEIR DEPUTIES TO ABANDON ANY DEATH SCENE AS SOON AS THE CORONER ARRIVED. Their explanation was that there was a potential misunderstanding over their respective areas of investigation and they refused to be blamed if the lawyers later chose to agree with the coroner.

Among the comments heard from a young observer at the Pretrial, was the most knockout idea: it would seem quite natural and pleasantly solvable to simply provide each deputy with a sheet of paper on which they would ask the Coroner on her arrival, to designate the perimeter of HER DEATH SCENE RESPONSIBILITY. To which she would be able to sign for official purposes. Then the deputies would continue their REQUIRED UNDER LAW PROMPT INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING PHOTOS, THE SECURING OF WEAPONS AND VALUABLES AS WELL AS DEMARCATING THE PERIMETER THAT THE PUBLIC MAY NOT ENTER WITH CRIME TAPE.

Since the Coroner has the responsibility UNDER THE LAW for ONLY determining the MANNER AND CAUSE OF DEATH, not the investigation of the suspects, and potential witnesses, weapons, etc., then the Coroner's area of interest is THE BODY.

The coroner has consistently extended her arms as her designated body-scene area of investigation.

Instead of following ORC (Ohio Revised Code, aka the Law's) requirements, instead of honoring their CLAIMED OPINION of the crucial need for immediate collection of evidence, instead of concern for the CITIZENS OF BROWN COUNTY'S NEED FOR SUCH SECURING OF WEAPONS, VALUABLES AND ESTABLISHING OF LIMITS TO CRIME SCENES.

Instead the Sheriff and his ADMINISTRATOR Chief SHADLE, have resorted to EXTORTION OF TAX FUNDS by REFUSING TO WORK WITH THE CORONER ON ANY DEATH SCENE, especially suicide scenes, and instead charging the county for summoning investigators from Columbus. Sheriff Wenninger and Chief Deputy Shadle chose to EXPEND DESPERATELY NEEDED PUBLIC BUDGET FUNDS TO DEMAND THAT BCI BE CALLED DOWN FROM COLUMBUS FOR EACH INVESTIGATION. What exactly are the allocated 'sheriff office' payrolls being useful for??

And even more ridiculous was one of the Sheriff Office's other schemes. They, after refusing to co-operate in returning to the scene after the Coroner had left, did demand that she, the coroner, SEND A LETTER TO THE PROSECUTOR (as their intermediary) to REQUIRE THE RETURN of the deputies. Otherwise they wouldn't show up. Asinine.

But we should recall that -- 3 years ago, when budgets were a bit more generous but dwindling -- this is the same sheriff's office that extorted limited budget funds from the public coffers (while EVERY OTHER COUNTY OFFICE REDUCED THEIR FUNDING) by refusing to keep jail inmates at the jail and instead CHARGING THE COUNTY FOR WAREHOUSING INMATES AT NEIGHBORING BUTLER COUNTY'S JAIL. And the budget authorities acceded to the sheriff's threats because they had no viable choice. Wenninger and Shadle claimed that the Columbus rules would view the manpower shifts required by their choices to be risky and the BCSO did not wish to be frowned on any more in law enforcement.

That last remark recognized that the Sheriff did NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED CREDENTIALS WHEN HE FILED FOR OFFICE back in 2000.

If he had, then the Grand Jury reviewing the charges (from citizens in the county, including later Varnau's husband) would not have authorized a trial. Had the sheriff been able to provide the credential proofs to the grand jury as he would have had to provide them to the Elections Board (who failed as well), then the GRAND JURY WOULD HAVE NO-BILLED THE CASE. But the GRAND JURY DID NOT. so the case went to trial.

The Judge at the trial (crooked Ringland now rewarded with many advantageous opportunities in climbing the ranks of the judiciary, largely same party as the Sheriff) INSTRUCTED THE TRIAL JURY TO LIMIT THEIR ADJUDICATION TO WHETHER THE SHERIFF DID IT ON PURPOSE, since the law for falsification of election credentials (a felony) says 'knowingly'. So limited, the trial jury decided the Sheriff was just ignorant. Wonderful recommendation for a law enforcement official, but the reality was not so reported in the press. SHERIFF LEGAL were the headlines.

And the case went to appeal, each time denied on some claimed technicality, including some knowably false demands of violations of 'laches' -- a technicality that limits pursuing charges later than was available, which would in the 'Varnau' cases, the Coroner's husband now carrying the ball alone after he had challenged Wenninger at the ballot box himself, have required that Varnau's husband file his complaint before he was even in BC. An obvious 'mistake' that couldn't be made by all the justices on the supreme court by accident with a million to one odds.

2) If it wasn't so criminal of the lawyers, it would have been hilariously aggravating. This bunch of fool lawyers was clearly AMBULANCE/HEARSE CHASER QUALITY. PREYING ON THE GRIEVING.

Lawyers are expected to KNOW THE LAWs, especially the FOUNDATION OF THEIR CASE. Yet these criminals were making claims against the coroner that had nothing to do with the coroner's LAW REQUIRED DUTIES. They wanted the medical officer to do the LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES and ignored the real jerks who're not innocent of failing to do their duties. Security, providing safety were made into gossipy (puddles of blood, skull pieces, personal shock, guns and butcher knives, missing items) detail of scene hazard.

They made false claims about what the Coroner had said about the jail murders, claiming that she'd accused the staff, which is not what this law-careful coroner did. It was established that IT WAS THE NEWSPAPER THAT CONCLUDED THAT THE STAFF HAD DONE IT AS IF THE CORONER HAD SAID IT... and that newspaper RETRACTED THEIR INCORRECT REPORTING...... yet the Judge went ahead indicating that he expected the false claims to be normal???? but what about demanding the perpetrator retract it themselves, or be facing something comparable to perjury..? As filers of an 'oath-bound' affidavit, surely that's perjury if it's not retracted as error, publicly on the record.

3) The last of the county's officials to consider is the current Prosecutor, Jessica Little, WHO HAD HER OWN LAWYER TO DEFEND HER RIGHTS. YET THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS RUSHED CASE DIDN'T ALLOW THE CORONER TIME TO ACQUIRE HER OWN LAWYER. Her family lawyer was not available for the RUSHED HEARING..

As for Little's claims that her fiduciary and statutatory responsibilities prevented her from doing any testifying on HER ROLE IN STIRRING UP THE ANIMOSITY AND AIDING THE SHERIFF IN THE STUPID IDEAS LIKE LETTER WRITING TO FAX (clearly after leaving the death scene) TO LITTLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF INVESTIGATIONS... that elected official showed an amazing stupidity in deciding that a letter from the Attorney General sent to the Coroner (in answer to a question) that CCd Prosecutor Little did not rank as attorney-client covered in her conflicted role as defender of both Sheriff and Coroner, SO THE FOOL PROSECUTOR CIRCULATED THE LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPER (the Brown County Press) AND THE SHERIFFS OFFICE. BIG HEADLINES. Yet she showed no remorse.

On top of that obvious violation, there was an anonymous letter sent that ended up in the Varnau's custody, that said that Little had urged one grieving family to go to Little's chosen lawyer friend to file suit against the Coroner. Little's response on being shown the letter (when it arrived, not in court) was 'coward'.

So, the timing of the trial becomes even more suspect, in that BCI is expected to present their assessment very soon, on the jail house murder. Murder? Yep, the sprinkler head that the jail staff claims was used for attaching the bedsheet (tied around the kid's neck) is engineered to NOT HOLD MORE THAN 40 POUNDS before breaking away. Anti-suicide safety. Piece two, the marks on the kid's neck were not consistent with a sheet hanging, where the marks would have had a gap where the sheet was stretched upward, not against the neck parallel to the rest of the mark. Strangulations have no such gap. Piece three, the mark itself was not of a bunched sheet, but of a straight edge strap of uniform width. The careful coroner has the photos to back up her death certificate signature and she's not backing down. So the Sheriff, after destroying evidence (though later denying it), now says that BCI's investigation should rule, and that ruling could seriously damage the remaining credibility of the BCSO as well as implicate Shadle's son. Meanwhile the Sheriff and Shadle have not suspended any of the jail staff while the investigation goes on, trying to keep up the appearance of 'nothing' wrong here. Unlike what would have happened in any decent law enforcement department. Wouldn't any citizen be less certain of calling on the sheriff's men while knowing that one of them could be a murderer? Hence the obvious attack motive against the independent coroner who goes to EVERY death scene.

She's one strong, caring lady who served in a medical capacity in the military with appropriately accumulated responsibilities. She set out to do some public service by running for medical officer in her adopted community when the previous coroner declined to run again and no one stepped up to the plate, at all. Her offices (ObGyn) were in the process of being moved out of their hospital location when the hospital was sold and the new hospital owner decided that cancer patients brought in more money for that space, so it looked like her new local practice would be slow enough for her to do public service.... but she's not an insider in the local politics and the 'two party' choices are clearly wanting to stamp out any disgraces in their skeleton closets. The Ohio Legislators took time out of their fiduciary responsibilities and dealt the third parties in Ohio a serious blow to their ability to get on the ballot at all. The Libertarians had managed to get on this year's ballot by beating the law's deadline and challenging the law in court.

The no-choice two-headed duopoly (wherein the officials won't follow the letter of the law when it benefits regular citizens, and hide behind false immunity claims when their officials are found to do wrong) persists in Ohio.