And the truth is...

But the video was not the only false evidence presented to the jury.  In order to establish a motive for Mr. Zumot to kill the victim and burn her house down, the state presented powerful testimony from Officer Moore and two other witnesses that on August 24, 2009, Jennifer Schipsi received a death threat call from Mr. Zumot and that seven weeks before the murder he threatened to kill the victim and burn her house down.

This was another huge and an important part of the state’s case involved proving to the jury that Mr. Zumot had previously and explicitly threatened to kill Ms. Schipsi and burn her house down only seven weeks before the killing.

At trial, the state presented evidence from office Moore that on August 24, 2009, only seven weeks before Ms. Schipsi was killed.

  [8] Ms Schipsi told police that Zumot called her and that day and threatened to kill her and burn down her house. The state also called another witness, Leslie Mills to confirm that while police were still at Ms. Schipsi house responding to the call, Ms Schipsi repeated what she told Officer Moore that Zumot threatened to kill and burn her house down. The state also called Heather Winters to testify about death threat. The prosecutor relied on this threat 16 times during his closing argument in urging the jury to convict of murder.

The prosecutor’s words , ” There is only one person who had the motive, the opportunity, the desire and in fact told her seven weeks before he killed her that he was going to kill her…”

Post conviction investigation shows again that the DA and PAPD lied to the jury and falsified reports, the state presented evidence and arguments to the jury knowingly that were false. In fact, telephone records subpoenaed by the state would have proved not only that Mr. Zumot didn’t make the August 24, 2009 death threat to kill the victim and burn her house down only seven weeks before death, but someone else did.
A examination of telephone records in the prosecutors possession prior to trial but never presented to the jury shows that the prosecutor Chuck Gillingham knowingly presented false evidence an false arguments. According to the prosecutor, the August 24, 2009 call death threat from Mr. Zumot was evidence the jury could rely on to convict.

The telephone records which the state itself obtained show unequivocally not only that Mr. Zumot never made that any August 24, 2009 death threat at all, but the specific call about which the victim complained to police and argued by the prosecutor to the jury was made by her long friend Roy Endemann.

Roy Endemann admits making the death threat call. The state suppressed the October 2013 Endemann interview until after the appellate court ruled. 

Again, all the games of prosecutor Chuck Gillingham and Detective Sunseri played well to lie and hide evidence that would have freed Mr. Zumot.

It’s necessary to know who decided information about the interview should not be provided to the defense. Chuck Gillingham? Aaron Sunseri? Or both? And DA office and PAPD?


But more important, after it interviewed Endemann the DA and the PAPD learned it was Endemann who placed the blocked call to Ms. Shipsi.  The state nevertheless went ahead and filed with the Applet Court “Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” which formally proposed a platently false theory suggesting Zumot had actually borrowed Endemann’s telephone to make the August 24, 2009 blocked call.

The state’s decision to interview Roy Endemann, its decision not to disclose that interview, and its decision to put forward a false theory of the case to the appellate court should be exposed.

Such an inquiry would, of course, be directly relevant to evaluating the credibility of both Detective Sunseri and trial prosecutor Chuck Gillingham. Equally important, it bears noting that the central claim in this case is that the state knowingly and intentionally presented false evidence and argument.

Zumot is still in prison fighting from behind the walls to prove his innocence. He is innocent. Before and during trial and post conviction on appeal, the state presented false evidence and in court of appeal; this would certainly be relevant to the state’s general level of candor in fighting this case.

Facts about the Roy Endemann interview:
Interview took place with PAPD     Aaron Sunseri.

No police report about the interview has ever been disclosed to the defense.

Until May 2014, seven months after the Endamenn’s interview, neither Aaron Sunseri, the trial prosecutor nor any of the state’s post conviction lawyers disclosed to the defense that it had interviewed Mr. Endemann and provided recording of that interview.

In May of 2014, the state finally disclosed to the defense that it had interviewed Mr. Endemann and provided recording of that interview.

The state’s November 2013 filing to court of appeal, the state defended defense counsel’s failure to introduce evidence showing that Roy Endemann made the August 24,2009 death threat call. Instead, the state argued that the defense counsel may have elected not to persue the area because he could have known “Zumot had borrowed Roy’s phone and used it to make the call.

This DA and his office are liars and should not be trusted.

TheAugust 24, 2009 death threat call was made by phone number (831) 207-3669. It turned out to be that the state subpoenaed the telephone records for this number, learning that it is belonged to someone named by Roy Endemann. 

Mr. Endemann’s cell phone records confirmed that it was him who made the threat call to the victim at 12:50 pm on August 24,2009 which Mr. Endemann threatened to kill Ms. Schipsi and burn down her house.

Add to the Lorex footages
, the defense discovered post-conviction been played been played, the jury would not only have been able to assess Zumot’s alibi testimony and credibility, but it would have known that the state had tried to present a demonstrably false theory of the case.

The jury would also have learned that this was not simply an inadvertent error at trial, instead as the state has now [on appeal] concealed. Agent Sunseri’s police report of Feb 10, 2010 and April 7, 2010, both disclosed to the defense during discovery prior to trial show that the state’s false presentation began well before trial.