True to their word to Suffolk County Judge Stephen Braslow even before the judge handed down his denial of their previous motions, Marty's lawyers have presented yet more evidence of his innocence and others' guilt in a 440 motion for a new trial filed in Suffolk County today. This latest evidence will be appended to Marty's appeal of Judge Braslow's rulings, soon to be filed in the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department, in Brooklyn.
Today's motion is the result of an affidavit given to Marty's defense team by Danny Raymond, whom Peter Kent named in his December 2004 testimony as his whereabouts alibi for the night of the Tankleff murders. In the affidavit, Raymond not only denies Kent's claim that he was with him at the time of the Tankleff murders, but bolsters defense contentions of serious prosecutorial misconduct by the Suffolk County DA in connection with Kent's testimony.
In 2004, Kent testified that he couldn't have committed the Tankleff murders because at the time he was busy buying drugs with Danny Raymond. But in the affidavit Raymond states, "That testimony is false. Peter Kent was not with me on September 7, 1988 between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m."
Raymond describes a visit from Kent in July of 2004, the month Marty's new evidentiary hearing began in Suffolk County, and Raymond describes Kent as "nervous," "sweaty" and "rambling" as he told Raymond that Glenn Harris had named him as one of the murderers of Seymour and Arlene Tankleff. Kent "told me that he needed me to 'be his alibi," ranting, “I can’t do 50 to life. I can’t do 50 years," said Raymond.
Raymond said the visit from Kent lasted around four hours, and almost all the conversation involved the murders and the alibi. Raymond says Kent told him it was Joey "Guns" Creedon who actually committed the murders and talked a lot about how dangerous Creedon is. Raymond said Kent added that Jerry Steuerman and Joey Creedon "are watching your family. They know that you have three kids....”
Raymond's description of Kent's emotional state at the time is consistent with Kent's emotional state when he first learned that he was named in the Tankleff murders. When Suffolk County prosecutors informed Kent that Harris had named him, the tough, swaggering, violent career criminal--he once beat up the guy in the next cell for disturbing his sleep--broke down and cried. Yet, rather than press Kent for the truth or offer him a deal, the prosecutors immediately assured him he wasn't a suspect, telling him, “we don’t believe you did this.” Kent later told reporters he suspected the prosecutors were "trying to play tricknology games with me."
Despite the confidence they expressed to Kent about his innocence, the prosecutors appeared to be almost as concerned with Kent's alibi as was Kent. Here Raymond describes his encounter with Assistant District Attorney Leonard Lato and Suffolk police investigator Walter Warkenthien just weeks after his visit from Kent and shortly before Kent testified at the evidentiary hearing:
"I was released from prison in September of 2004. By that time I had decided that I was not going to lie for Kent. Shortly after that Leonard Lato, Walter Warkenthien and another man who was with them, met with me at a diner in Lindenhurst, NY. They asked me numerous questions about Kent and his alibi. They asked me if I would testify and back up his alibi. I explained to them that I could not be an alibi witness for Peter Kent. I told them of Kent’s visit to Mohawk Correctional, but did not tell them about Kent’s implied threats to my family. They then asked several questions about the week of the Tankleff killings and showed me police statements from that week involving the robberies. I continued to insist that I could not help them. At this point, Lato asked about my parole. I took this as a subtle threat. I knew that as a parolee I could be violated for not cooperating with the police. I did not want to annoy or aggravate them. Nor did I want to lie to the court for Peter Kent. I was also worried about family, but I did [sic] trust them enough to tell them about Kent’s comments about my family. I just kept telling them that I could not help them. Lato then suggested that if I did not recall the week because it was so long ago and/or because of my drug use, I would not be called as a witness. I quickly agreed with his suggestion and said I did not recall. Lato then asked if I was going to testify for the defense and I told them that I would not. They left by saying that they would be in touch with me if they needed me."
Kent was swaggeringly confident, glaring at the defense table and swearing under questioning by ADA Lato in Judge Braslow's courtroom on December 9th, 2004. Kent admitted to committing as many as 50 crimes with Harris, and “very few,” that is, “five to ten” crimes with Billy Ram, but denied involvement in the Tankleff murders. Getting to the alibi, Lato asked Kent to refresh his memory by perusing the records of 10 robberies he had committed in a one-week crime spree around the time of the Tankleff murders. The one previous to the Tankleff murders took place on August 31, 1988. The one closest in time following the Tankleff murders took place at 9:00 p.m. on September 7, some 15-18 hours after the murders.
Under cross-examination by Tankleff attorney Bruce Barket, Kent admitted that on the night of the Tankleff murders he might have been in Seldon, where Ram lived and where Harris said he met Kent and Creedon hours before the Tankleff murders. Ram's testimony corroborated Harris's account, Ram saying that Creedon told him he was working for “somebody in the bagel business,”
and they would be going to “straighten out” his partner, “a Jew in the
bagel business.”
After the hearing adjourned that day, Barket described Kent's new confidence: “He acts like he’s got the keys to the kingdom, because he got them from the DA. We saw a man prone to extreme violence at the drop of a hat. He doesn’t have an alibi because you can’t have one if you committed the crime. When the tears came to his eyes, that told you he knew the jig was up. Think about Peter Kent crying. [The prosecutors] said, 'Don’t worry, Peter, we’re not going to prosecute you.' Think of what would have happened if Lato and Warkenthien told him, ‘We know you were there, Peter, but you didn’t commit murder. Tell us who did.’”
Marty is innocent. The system is corrupt. What else can I say?
Marty..please know so many believe in you!
Larry Schloss
Posted by: Larry Schloss | October 17, 2006 at 05:36 PM
I just hope that the people who REALLY commited these murders will be brought to justice. We believe in you, Marty!
Posted by: Laurie | October 18, 2006 at 08:28 PM
If the police had followed leads they got 18 years ago, I know Marty would not be in prison today. The evidence against Marty proved nothing, plus Marty never wrote or signed a confession. So why was he convicted, if the system isn't corrupt?
Marty is innocent! His family has always believed in him.
Eighteen years is a long time to wait for the REAL murderers of Arlene and Seymour Tankleff to be captured and brought to justice, I hope the time is now!
Marty, We are here for you and your mom and dad..we love you!
Joy Piccirillo
Posted by: Joy Piccirillo | October 22, 2006 at 12:50 AM