Evidence Summarized

Now we have a new Harris County District Attorney, Pat Lykos.  Three letters have now been sent to her.  There was not a response sent to the first two, so now, we are wondering if we will receive a response from the third. 

There has been additional information received from the Harris County District Attorney's Legal Counsel, Scott Durfee.  In the last letter, he states that this is all the records.  I can tell you, after reviewing the records, considering I've been told that there are no further records, that they did not conduct a formal investigation, but merely convicted Robert strictly on perjured testimony.  It is not unusual for Christine Trent to lie, as she continues to do so, right up to this day.  She lied in Cristina's Court, further exaggerating the story (a now different version, now claiming she was drug down the hall by the hair of the head) and she made another statement in the court, which proves she lied in Judge Kent Adams court.    Now, why would Christine Trent think she can lie and get away with it, oh, that's right, because she did in the police report, protective order, violation of the protective order, trial, lied to Precinct 4 to get the weapons, Judge Adams court, Judge Yeoman's court and Cristina's Court.  How many is that?  And she has gotten away with every single lie she has told, so far.

After the typical "rubber stamp" response from Hans Nielson, I sent to emails to Kenneth Magidson, Harris County District Attorney, on July 8th and 9th, 2008.  Of course, I have yet to receive a response.  I sent a letter to Mr. Magidson by courier service on 14th.  Either way, he can't just say that he did not receive any correspondence.  I asked for a meeting with him to present our evidence and have the case reviewed.  The facts to be laid out as follows:

1)  PAGES of discrepancies between the Protective Order and trial. (over 100 if you take out the "minor" discrepancies") 

2)  The "stories" are even different between the police report filed on September 15, 2005 and the trial testimony. 

3)  Violation of the Protective Order (dismissed because Christine lied) - (not reviewed by the Harris County D.A.'s office because the lady that handles this was out of the office and Robert couldn't even get the transcripts because no one else handles, so we know they didn't get those)   Why did the Harris County District Attorney's office not bring this evidence into court?  Maybe because it would question the credibility of their witnesses?

4)  Emma's letter talking about setting up Robert.  Neither Emma or any one of these witnesses were ever contacted. 

5)  The recordings of conversations about the set up with Jose and Emma that Roger took to the District Attorney's office, they took copies, gave him back the originals and never contacted Roger again.  (Yes, we have the original copies, they are just too long to put on the website.  Any public or law enforcement official who wants to hear them, please send us an email and we will get them to you.)

6)  Christine lying to Precinct 4 to acquire Robert's weapons, without the authorized signature of a judge. (Roger took her to small claims court and won, with Christine having to pay for the weapons.) 

7)  Jose fleeing to Honduras because he was threatened by Paula. (verified by the letter that Emma sent and witnesses were not contacted)    and recordings. (Yes, we have the original copies, they are just too long to put on the website.  Any public or law enforcement official who wants to hear them, please send us an email and we will get them to you.)

8)  Was told it was "thoroughly" reviewed and we know for a fact that the D.A.'s office has not seen Robert's case file since August 2, 2007.  We also know that they did not review the Violation of the Protective Order (it was separated, not in the case file), because the lady that handles those files was out on vacation and the Harris County District Clerk's office told me that they were her files and anyone would have to wait until she returned.  But, you can check out the dismissal of the Violation of the Protective Order, because, oh, that's right, Christine and her mother got caught lying. 

We would like to know how Hans Nielson came to this conclusion: "Received your email and your attachments.  I read them and talked to the prosecutors who tried the case.  I am sorry but there is no evidence to support your conclusions.  The case has been thoroughly reviewed, tried to a jury and has taken its course in the judicial system.  Thank you."? 

Home       Contact Us     Disclaimer     Feedback