top of page
Some of Their LIES
In March of 2009, Statisticians at Iowa State University (ISU) were asked to Statistically Analyze my (Dr Fleming) Data from a Soy Chip Study.
Dr. Mark S. Kaiser examined the data and set out to prove it was fabricated.
To do this he developed a New Statistical Package using his Computers. What he discovered was the opposite of what he expected. The Fleming Data was valid.
Along with the Fleming (mis-spelled Flemming in the report) data was another set of data put together by the Public Defender, Mr. Michael Hansen. Mr. Hansen claimed the data was fabricated (fake/made up), when in fact he knew this was a lie.
The Hansen data was actually patterned (plagiarized) after the Fleming data, and because the Fleming data was real, the plagiarized (patterned after) Hansen data also appeared to be real.
This lie by Hansen would cause Hansen to tell both Professor Kaiser and his superior, Professor Alicia L. Carriquiry, that they needed to change the report and submit a different one, removing Hansen's name and anything that could be traced back to him from the report.
The prosecutors obtained a copy of the original report with the Hansen data and rather than use it to support my (Dr Fleming's) actual innocence, they used it to manipulate the case and violate the Brady Rule.
The Brady Rule followed the SCOTUS case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense; i.e. evidence that proves the defendant is actually innocent.
What follows is a video where I briefly explain this, along with actual audio recordings from the side-bar discussion that occurred between Judge Richard G. Kopf, public defender Michael Hansen, and the two prosecutors (they actually had two) that occurred during this part of the trial. I heard the recording for the first time many months after my sentencing.
Also for the first time I have included the two reports along with a few components of what was deleted from the second report, reducing the report from 47 to 41 pages. Noticed they are each dated March 2009. The Kaiser report was the first. The significantly changed report is the Kaiser - Carriquiry re
Hansen Lied about His Data Set
It was NOT fabricated or fake.
Instead he patterned (plagiarized) after the Fleming Data; Data Statistically Proven to be Valid/Real.
Dr. Kaiser "... require a relatively high level of statistical knowledge, including the time and ability to write computer functions for tasks that are not readily available in pre-packaged routines."
Dr. Kaiser "... I surmise at this point that the Hansen data were not fabricated from scratch, but, rather, took the Flemming data as a template...."
MISSING from the 2nd Report:
Dr. Kaiser's Determination that Hansen had NOT provided fake/fabricated data; but, instead had plagiarized Dr. Fleming's data. Evidence that Hansen told Kaiser & Carriquiry to Remove from the Final Report.
This MISSING Evidence was Removed and in its place, was a perniciously anemic statement, which would suggest the statistical method used by Kaiser and Carriquiry was unable to differentiate real data from fake data. Hansen's lie, Kopf's decision that the Jury would not know the whole Truth and the Prosecutions violation of the Brady Rule, would Castrate Justice; coercing Dr. Fleming to take a Plea Deal to avoid Prison and Protect his Children.
The Following is the email exchange between Professor Gordon Harrington (University of Northern Iowa) & Professor Alicia L. Carriquiry (Iowa State University) asking Dr. Carriquiry to Statistically Analyze whether my (Dr. Fleming) data was Real or Fabricated.
Note Hansen was not interested in proving my (Dr Fleming) innocence.
Dr. Harrington's Testimony, which the Public Defender Prevented him from Presenting at Trial.
An Email from Professor Gordon Harrington, my (Dr. Fleming's) Masters and Bachelors Psychology Advisor, Explaining the Hansen Lie. Coupled with the Correspondence between Harrington and Professor Alicia L. Carriquiry at Iowa State University (above), where Harrington asked Carriquiry to Analyze the soy chip data, Provides a Motive for Public Defender Hansen to refuse to call Dr. Harrington to the Witness Stand, as Dr. Harrington would have exposed the Hansen Lie, along with the coverup of that lie by Judge Richard G. Kopf and the Prosecutors.
bottom of page