I have great news & some scientific facts of my innocence to reveal to you today.
Well my brother, Roderick Benson, has recently joined my campaign. We had communication problems in recent years but have since put the bumpy road behind us.
Roderick isn’t wealthy, he has a family of 4 to take care of, & his work schedule keeps him from being as committed to my case as he would like. However, he promised to do what he can to assist me within his means. I respect that.
Well he hired Geoffrey R. Loftus, an eye witness identification expert, whom still teaches at the university of Washington in Seattle, WA. In 2004, Lofts & Erin M. Harley created a scientific study, “why is it easier to identify someone close than far away?” in which, they discovered that a person with 20/20 vision ability to recognize a face drops to zero at 110ft away in day light.
I sent Loftus an “overview” of the identification factors of my case. The “overview” package consisted of actual court documents, statements, & diagrams of the crime scene.
After Loftus gave a through examination of the facts of identification factors in my case, specifically concerning state’s witnesses Schmitt & Brooks, he submitted his notes to my brother.
I received Loftus examination notes May 4th, via Roderick’s J-letter email. What I saw amazed me. and these were just his notes & not the full case report. Here I want you to see portions of Loftus notes concerning my case:
#1- Pg.1 of Loftus notes, it depicts a recent photo of the crime scene from overhead & on the street level courtesy of Google- Imagery-maps.
# 2- Pg.5 of Loftus notes, here he used the actual photo lineup used in my case & applied his Vision &distance analysis of what Brooks would’ve been able to see from 100 ft away at night or day.
Remember: Brooks never claimed to see the actual shooting, but claimed to see me & others on the crime scene after he heard shots, while he looked from an apt. window (see pg.1, of Loftus notes, Brooks claimed to be in the apt. building on W. 14th St. & Pennsylvania St; the building in the street level photo)
Factors to consider: (a) due to street light, though they were obscured by the trees underneath it on the W. 14th & Pen. Corner (see pg.1, the street level photo), the lighting is some where between day & night. Thus Brook couldn’t recognize no ones face from his position. (b) when you look at Pg.5 of Loftus Distance representation, you must realize that it depicts what an observer with 20/20 vision could see from that distance. Brooks vision is very poor without eye glasses, he testified that he was not wearing eye glasses the night of the crime because he lost them.
(C) Conclusion: Brooks lied about who he saw on the crime scene.
#3 - pg.6 of Loftus notes, again using the actual photo lineup used in my case & applied his vision & distance analysis to it of what Schmitt would’ve been able to see from 147ft away at night or day.
(see pg.1 Of Loftus notes, Schmitt position was exactly on the West side of Penn. St, it’s just out of view on the street level photo, but on the overhead view you’ll see reddish tree leaves’ that’s where Schmitt was viewing the crime)