Enough hypothetical bull$hit!

I've been ranting and raving about prosecutorial misconduct on the part of ASA Bill Kostrzewski for months now in regards to his handling of the Bernardo Barrera mortgage fraud case, enough with the hypothetical situations, let's get down to business.  The state built it's case against the defendants on the testimony of two people, the state's victim, Bernardo Barrera and an employee from the attorneys office who closed the transaction in question.  Some of you may remember this witness as the one that Detective Jorge Baluja scared shitless during her interview with the police, so much so that she was literally going to do anything she had to in order to avoid getting arrested.  Great.  Let's take a look at an excerpt from the arrest affidavit and see what this witness had to say...

Interesting statement, I've underlined the important parts in red.  For those of you who aren't familiar with this particular case, this third party cashiers check was the crux of the states case against defendant Martinez and Estefano.  The witness specifically states:

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Some statement, huh?  That statement as it appears in the context of the affidavit almost looks to me like it's supposed to be a quote or her exact testimony.  This statement from the law firm employee that actually closed the transaction seems highly manufactured, too precise, to the point, almost as if it was written by a cop or maybe a prosecutor.  The statement, at least in my opinion is worthless when you consider it was taken from a witness who through their own admission was willing to do or say anything to avoid getting arrested.  According to this statement, this woman who conducted the closing had no idea about the existence of this check, no clue who it belonged to and she goes on to tell us that if indeed she suspected any impropriety she would go ahead and notify the lender.  I for one say that's a crock of shit and further evidence that the statement was created by someone other than the witness.


So what about this check?  Let's take a look at the check as it was provided by the state with the arrest affidavit...

Take your time and take a good look at the check, click on it if you'd like to blow it up for a better look.  As I mentioned, this is the copy that the state provided as part of their discovery obligations and what they included as part of their arrest affidavit.  For some reason or another, someone took the time to redact part of the banks name in the top left hand corner but they decided to leave the banks logo as well as the sensitive account information, nice work guys.  Ostensibly this is the copy of the check the state received as a part of their subpoena to Bank of America who issued the cashier check.  We're told early on that the state subpoenaed Citi Mortgage, Bank of America and the law firm that conducted the closing for copies of their files pertaining to this transaction, all of which had a copy of said cashier check.  Regardless, this is the check that the state used to build this case and most probably the one they showed the employee at the law firm who closed the transaction during her interview.  There's a little problem though.  When I was rummaging through the states case file, I found another copy of this very check, only with a minor difference, a copy that the state didn't use, perhaps a copy that no one was supposed to find...

 
Once again, take a good look and if you need to click on the check to enlarge it.  Aside from the fact that the watermark doesn't show up as prominently on the second copy of the check, does anyone see anything different?  In case you missed it, let me illustrate the difference for you, first a close up from the copy of the check provided in the arrest affidavit...

Now a closeup from the copy of the check that I found in the file...

Aside from the name of the bank being redacted, it's blatantly obvious that the second copy of the check has someones handwriting on it, jump back to that highly injurious statement that was supposedly given by the law firm employee that conducted the closing...

She had no knowledge that an unrelated third party named Michael Martinez had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money.  If she had been made aware of Michael Martinez' role in the transaction and that he had provided the cashier's check for $123,530.56 as earnest money, she would have not completed the closing and would have notified the lender.  She was never made aware that the cashier's check for $123,530.56 used as earnest money was not obtained until February 21, 2008, 2 days after the closing.

Anyone wanna guess whose handwriting is on that check?