1
0
If the original case was not so extremely flawed, Then prosecutor Jaqui Spradling and her accomplice defective Richard Volle would not have had to deliberately and repeatedly lie to the jury, mislead with fabricated evidence and testimony in Dana Chandler’s first trial. A conviction in that trial was over-turned in 2018, and prosecutor Jaqui Spradling was eventually brought up on ethics complaints before the Kansas Supreme Court, who then unanimously and loudly suggested that she be disbarred and never allowed to practice law again.
This is one of the many lines of debate and argument that goes on between the two camps who either believe that Chandler is Guilty, or have actually looked at the facts and evidence and believe that she is innocent.
Some claim that Chandler’s original convictions where “Overturned due to a mere technicality” “That had everything to do with the prosecutor, not the case”. This argument is simply flawed factually and logically. The fact is that the prosecution’s case was so weak, and devoid of actual evidence and credible witnesses’ testimony that Jaqui Spradling HAD to conspire with Defective Richard Volle, the lead defective in the case to mislead and lie to the jury and make claims about a “Restraining order” supposedly against Chandler that never actually existed, among other things. These were not “Mere technicalities” The Supreme court made their ruling calling it an “intolerable pattern of deception.” (Spradling had acted similarly in another case that was brought up during this hearing.)
So the argument that it was a “mere technicality” that overturned Chandler’s earlier convictions just does not fly. It is factually untrue, and misleading.
Yet despite this, the DA’s office decided to try Chandler a second time, even though they just did not have a case: There is no physical or DNA evidence that puts Chandler at the crime scene, or even in Kansas at the time of the murder, in fact, what evidence there IS actually excludes Dana Chandler. And there are no eye witnesses that can reliably place Dana Chandler at the scene or in Kansas.
That trial ended recently with a hung jury, 7 to convict, 5 that said she is innocent. The 7 to convict where convinced by things like shiny objects, the prosecutor rattling his keys in front of them, the water-works and emotional manipulation by certain witnesses, and the belief that Chandler was guilty because they had HEARD that she was guilty. They paid no attention to any actual evidence (Or lack there of) or any of the professional testimony that showed that Chandler could not have made the trip to Kansas, pulled off this murder and then made it back to her home in Colorado.
The jury deliberately for several days before announcing that they could not reach a unanimous decision.
In a meeting with the prosecution and the defense after the trial was over, every single one of the 12 jurors told DA mike Kagay not to try the case again, that at best he would end up with another hung jury. In Spite of this, and in spite of the apparent budget crises in the DA’s office where KaGay is begging the city and county for more money, Kagay has decided that he wants to lose this case a THIRD time. And filed a motion to retry tthe case, which Judge Rios granted. The Judge rejected a motion for acquittal by the defense. But she has tentatively approved a defense motion asking for a change of venue, presumably to Johnson County. Charles Kitt, the lead prosecutor from DA Kagays office whined and complained loudly in court objecting to a change of venue, claiming at one point “We have proven that we can raise and impartial jury in Topeka KS.” A claim that is clearly disputed by remarks made by some jurors after the fact that they had preconceived ideas about Chandlers guilt before the trial. Obviously, the prosecution does not want to let this case outside of their ballpark. They would lose the poisoned potential jury pool that the victims families have spent the last 20 years poisoning through their media contacts convincing many in the community of Chandler’s guilt despite their being no evidence.
Even with the DA’s Office wanting to retry the case, Chandlers legal team of Bath Bath and Whatshisface. is sticking to Dana and this case with absolute certainty in its winnability and Chandler’s innocence. And the Miracle Of Innocence Foundation is still behind Chandler 100%. ” Its a pretty bold move for Kagay’s office to double-down when they are bluffing” was what I heard in the hallway outside the courtroom this afternoon.
The defense asked for a reduction in bond from $1 Million dollars down to $350,000, which surprisingly Judge Rios approved, against prosecutor Charles Kitts whining and moaning. The judge added the standard stipulations to any bond agreement: Ankle bracelet tracking devices and regular check-ins, but at one point tried to bar Chandler from talking to anyone, including her own relatives. That part of the order was soon modified, over the prosecution’s whimpers and moans, to allow Dana to speak to most of her relatives, except for ones that might be witnesses.
And the ramifications for losing this case could be monumental. The DA’s office and the Courts have lost considerable credibility due to this case, and so has the Topeka Police Dept who has now been proven to have bungled this case from the beginning, leaving them to have to resort to lying and fabricating evidence and testimony in BOTH trials. And then having to throw the dice on a “Brand new surprise witness” who suddenly popped up in the middle of the trial, and was allowed to testify even though the prosecution and the judge had not properly vetted her or her story. This “witness” Terry Anderson gleefully got up on the stand grinning like a prom queen in her moment of glory and sworn in, under oath, proceeded to tell one lie after another and change her story midsentence. She made claims that she had seen Dana Chandler staling around the housing complex that night, wearing all black and a ski mask, and that she heard A gunshot at 11:20 pm, and then 8 or 10 minutes later, heard “4-10 more gunshots” and claimed she saw “Dana” run between houses and get into her car, which her description of did not match any car that Dana could have driven, much less the one that the prosecution claimed Chandler drive to Topeka from Colorado that night. Anderson said under oath that she had called 911 and reported this and had spoken to a police officer. She testified that this all happened before 12:30-1:00am. And then she went to bed. The biggest problem with her story was that there IS eyewitness testimony AND video surveillance evidence from both the Sac and Fox Casino and the Kickapoo truckstop that show the victims on camera at the casino, leaving the casino, stopping at the TruckStop for coffee and being very much alive and no at home AFTER 1:30am. Much of THAT evidence, including a used coffeecup from the truckstop, had been provided earlier by the defense themselves. They apparently where so happy to at LAST have a witness that would place Chandler in Topeka that they forgot to check her story against their OWN legal theory and evidence. Ooops! In other words: The only evidence relevant to terry Anderson’s testimony actually proves that she was lying her ass off. What an embarrassment for Charles Kitt and Kagay!. And that whole stunt nearly caused a mistrial. The defense easily blew through Andersons bullshit. The main salient point was that according to her own time-line she “saw Dana” and “Heard the Shot, then more shots” several hours BEFORE the murders could have possibly been commited, and the victims where very much alive and well at the Casino at the time. Queen for a Day terry Anderson proudly left the stand strutting with her head held arrogantly high after she finished testilying (Thats testifying + Lying = testilying) and marched out of the court room with a big satisfied smile on her face like she had just saved the planet from the horrific cat-burglaring Dana Chandler she swore she saw creeping around the subdivision, even though several fences and bushes would have blocked her view from 300 feet away.
Anderson proudly walked out of the courtroom totally unaware of what a giant FOOL and LIAR she had just made of herself, and how if anything, she had harmed the states case by adding yet another layer of provable lies and perjury to the case. (Talking to jury members later, I was told that not one single one of them believed her story, even in the “Shes guilty” club, she was not taken seriously. )
Yet after that humiliating debacle, prosecutors Charles Witt and DA Mike Kagay still want a 3rd chance to try and convict Dana Chandler. Even though they have no new evidence, no new witnesses and no new legal theory that we have seen yet, they still think they can win this case. And at what cost? They have obviously lost sight of the fact that an innocent womans life is being destroyed by their professional hubris and drive to save damaged careers of serial liar-cops and desperately try to save face in the public’s eye., and to claw-back some semblance of credibility for their office that Jaqui Spradling destroyed for them.
There are more motions, hearings and legal maneuvering to be done, but how much will the public take? And what of when they see the bill for all of this?
