16

02/09

CHAPTER 2 – SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPT., MIDDLESEX CO. NJ (Garbowski;Brennan;Sprague;Noble)

2:01 PM by . Filed under: CHAPTER 2- SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

 

LAST UPDATED:  Dec 28, 2016

Total Visits:  140,462

Total Hits: 683,033

NAVIGATION NOTES

  • The “log-in” at the top is for the site administrator only. 
  • Please click on the link to the right under the heading “Categories” to access each chapter.
  • As we prepare each chapter, a new link under the heading “Categories” will be added (any updates made will be noted below and in the chapter itself).
  • To make comments, scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom of the document and select “Comments” The page will refresh and the cursor will return to the top of the document. Scroll or page down or control/end to the bottom again and enter your comments. Although your email address is required, it will not be viewable to the public; you may use just your first name if you like. Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.
  • To view the linked (See) documents, click on the numbers or letters underlined in blue located within the chapters.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BODY NARRATIVE IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES.

Summary – Updates

May 27, 2014:  We will begin writing the book now, since law enforcement, including the FBI, refuse to investigate New Jersey public servant corruption regarding this suspicious death case.

September 5, 2013:  The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.  According to Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at the Washington, DC FBI Field Office, he sent our complaint and more than 100 pages of evidence, to the Newark FBI Field Office for action.

May 28, 2011:  In April 2011, we received a request from the Attorney General’s Office to send them correspondence relative to numerous letters sent to Gov. Christie regarding the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.  At Det. Davis’ direction (R&I), evidence in support of the criminal complaints was not/not provided at this time.

March 3, 2011: Though Judge Lawrence M. Lawson was proven to have violated Rules of the Court, among others, Judge Glenn A. Grant turned the other cheek and refused to respond to me, and refused to address the corruption under his nose.  Birds of a feather flock together.  For Judge Grant to respond in any other manner would mean a number of public officials would be investigated for corruption.  Now Judge Glenn A. Grant is part of the corruption.  Look for the new chapter on “The Courts” by the end of March.

February 7, 2011: Our response to Judge Lawson’s Opinion was mailed to Judges Lawrence M. Lawson, Glenn A. Grant, and Travis L. Francis today.  We also sent a copy of our response to Gov. Christie.  In addition to our analysis of Judge Lawson’s convoluted Opinion, we requested that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to conduct the investigation, as it is clear the Courts are unable to ensure a fair and impartial hearing wherein we are given the opportunity to present the evidence to support our charges.

January 25, 2011:  Without hearing the 60 other criminal complaints, Judge Lawson dismissed all of them.  In his opinion, received on January 22, 2011, he drew many false conclusions and defended all the defendants making a mockery of the probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson refused to use the NJ State definition, in the law, for “autopsy”, and instead used a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary that suited his intended outcome, which was to refute virtually everything presented by us at the hearing.  His actions, including his animated antics behind the bench, are probably grounds for filing a criminal complaint of official misconduct against him, not to mention violations of his code of professional conduct.  A response is being prepared.

January 13, 2011:  Judge Lawson decided to hear only one of the 61 complaints on 1-11-11 and ended what turned out to be a non-probable cause hearing.  While the Court argued with virtually every statement we made, we were denied the opportunity to present any evidence in support of our statements, with the Court claiming this was not an “evidentiary probable cause hearing”.  We could not find anything in the Rules of the Court addressing the issue.  Judge Lawson is to provide us with a written opinion shortly.  The “Court” is now saying that four complaints not previously documented with the CDR1 or CDR2 will not be heard at all and that all of the “citizen complaints” initially filed by me on June 2, 2010 had to include all the evidence in support of the charges, something no other court told us and the filing court told us not/not to do.  We are as confused as ever as to why the Courts in NJ continue to act in this harassing and frivolous manner.  More to come.

December 27, 2010:  The probable cause hearing is set for January 11, 2011.  We understand the Court intends to hear all 61 criminal complaints in one day, though the Court will not confirm that.  When we asked in what order the complaints would be heard, we were told to consult the Rules of the Court.

October 23, 2010: On October 5, 2010, Judge De Vesa concluded that because of a “conflict of interest” the probable cause hearing previously scheduled in New Brunswick would be transferred to a different county.  A County of Middlesex Attorney (Benjamin D. Leibowitz, Esq.) representing “the County of Middlesex and its officials and employees” was present, and was permitted by Judge De Vesa to sit at the table with me for my hearing.  Interesting to note that the name of the person accused of the suspicious death of Joyce had only his first name on the letter/notice received from Middlesex County Superior Court–why can’t the Court get this straight?  It was reported in a telephone conversation  that the sworn affidavits previously reported as missing, have been located.  This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment, eh?  What would a reasonable person think?  I am pending notice of the probable cause hearing date and location.

October 7, 2010:  The letter I received from the Superior Court told me to report to 90 Paterson Street, in New Brunswick, for the scheduled Change of Venue hearing held on October 5, 2010, before Judge De Vesa.  The correct address of the Court House is 56 Paterson Street.  The change of venue hearing was held before Judge De Vesa on October 5, 2010, in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  The outcome of the hearing will be published here as soon as it is received.  It was noted by Judge De Vesa that my sworn affidavits sent by the Monroe Twp. Municipal Court were missing from my 61 criminal complaints following receipt in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.  Superior Court personnel are looking for my sworn affidavits at this time.  The beat goes on in Middlesex County.

September 28, 2010: The probable cause hearing about to be scheduled before Judge DeVesa, as noted in the 9/20/10 update, has been canceled.  More tocome.

September 20, 2010: Frivolous action?  Harassment?  Fair hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. Municipal Court under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same Court Rule previously cited by Judge Boyd in transferring the 61 criminal complaints to the AOC.  The Superior Court informed me today that a new probable cause hearing will be set for Superior Court, Middlesex County, shortly, under Judge Frederick P. DeVesa, date TBD.  I just cannot seem to get out of Middlesex County and the appearance of bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest.

I recently learned that one of the persons whom I filed criminal complaints against submitted an “attorney letter” to the court regarding my complaints.  While the purpose of this probable cause hearing is to allow me to justify my allegations to the court, it seems like some of the alleged defendants are already defending their case “on my time”, thus poisoning the judicial well for a fair hearing.  Is this deliberate on the part of the Court?   How is this possible?

September 17, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis, as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review date has been set.  Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints.  They assigned that responsibility to another Judge, still in Middlesex County.  Here we go ’round in circles.  More to come.

September 9, 2010: Judges Herman and Francis will soon be conducting a probable cause review on all 61 criminal complaints.  Judge Herman, you may recall, received the 61 criminal complaints from Sayreville Municipal Court, and passed them down to Judge Boyd, who passed them up to the AOC, who passed them back to Judge Herman.  The court believes they have the 61 criminal complaints in the right place this time.  I am told I should be hearing something from the court regarding the status of the 61 criminal complaints fairly soon.  Yes, they are  still in Middlesex County.  Yes, we are wary of Middlesex County ruling on criminal complaints against public servants in Middlesex County.  Time will tell.

August 27, 2010: The probable cause hearing scheduled for August 17, 2010, was canceled by Judge George M. Boyd on Aug 16, 2010, due to jurisdictional concerns.  The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for reassignment.  Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is scheduled for August 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in the Monroe Twp. Municipal Court, Judge George M. Boyd, presiding.

July 15, 2010 Update:  On July 14, 2010, we learned that the Sayreville Municipal Court transferred the signed criminal complaints up the chain to Judge Herman in Viciniage VIII, who subsequently transferred the criminal complaints down the chain to Judge George Boyd in Monroe Twp., still in Middlesex County.

July 2, 2010 Update:  On June 2, 2010, Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against 15 personnel, including those in this site, in Sayreville Municipal Court.

On November 2, 2009, NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an ORDER telling us that for the past 3 years filing in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, Middlesex County, was a filing in the wrong court; why didn’t the Superior Court tell us that?  Guess.  Chief Justice Rabner stated that we need to file in a “trial court” and we are in the process now of completing individual criminal complaints against each of the public servants, and others, involved in this case.  We are back to square one thanks to the New Jersey “justice” system.

ON SEPT 8, 2009, A MOTION WAS FILED IN THE NJ SUPREME COURT TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ALLEGED MURDERER IS INVESTIGATED FOR THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF JOYCE B. (STROUSE) SAUTER.

The Sayreville Police Department intentionally botched a suspicious death investigation to protect one of their own.  Though reporting a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner, they failed to interview all persons of interest.  They chose not to interview or Mirandize the person alleged to have murdered Joyce, the only person who objected to independent testing of Joyce’s specimens.

Interview questions with certain family members were framed to elicit the information they were seeking to continue to protect the alleged murderer from investigation.  Other pertinent family members were not even interviewed.  Direct and relevant evidence in their possession was never developed as leads to further their investigation.  Though they knew that the Prosecutor’s office was supposed to be conducting an investigation, there was no coordination.  When learning that the Prosecutor’s Office was not conducting the mandatory suspicious death investigation, the SPD knowingly and purposely looked the other way.

Senior SPD officials (Garbowski and Brennan) were equally negligent by intentionally ignoring the deliberate inconsistencies they discovered when reviewing the development of the supsicious death case of Sprague and Nobles.  They chose not to manage and lead the investigation, as evidenced by their deliberate decision to ignore aggravating evidence pointing towards the alleged murderer in the case, and their intentional decision not to be involved in a case that touched close to home.

CHAPTER II

SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

**IMPORTANT NOTE**

To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by (See) first. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is a commentary on the direct and relevant evidence located at the various (See) locations.

BACKGROUND

The State of New Jersey, the Sayreville Police Department, and the County of Middlesex miserably failed one of its citizens. According to their website, the “mission of the Department of Law and Public Safety is centered on the advancement of the quality of life for the people of New Jersey.” That means that the Department “protects and enhances the safety and interests of every citizen of New Jersey ….” That means “protecting the rights and safety of the public.”

That mission is not embraced in the Sayreville Police Department, if the following is a standard example of its implementation. Three public offices failed an elderly and invalid citizen of New Jersey before and after her suspicious death was reported to appropriate authorities, despite the best efforts of out of state family members who unsuccessfully tried to represent her before and following her death. The three offices that failed 61 year old Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter include the Sayreville Police Department, the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office.

Complaints against the Prosecutor’s Office and the County Counsel’s Office were filed on February 12, 2008, with the New Jersey Office of Attorney General, the Hon Anne Milgram, and received on February 15, 2008 ( See 1, 2 ). A complaint against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office was first filed on March 4, 2008 ( See 146 ). All of the complaints are related to the same suspicious death case. All should be handled as criminal complaints.

The NJ Office of Attorney General was asked to conduct a criminal investigation into this case. Since complaints were filed against Mr. Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy Counsel for Middlesex County in a related case, we asked that his office not represent the Sayreville Police Department in this complaint.

Since complaints were filed against the Hon Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor for Middlesex County, in a related case, we asked that his office not investigate the case against the Sayreville Police Department. Since the New Jersey State Police refused to assist with early requests to intercede in the same related case ( See 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 ), we questioned their ability to be forthright and objective in any investigation regarding the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, regardless of who they are investigating.

While certain legal aspects surrounding the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter have been litigated through the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ( See 141, 142, 143 ), over the past two years, litigation is not yet over as far as Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley, brother and sister of the decedent, are concerned.

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE WONDERS WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT FAILED TO TAKE ACTION

In particular, please pay attention to comments of Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis, made December 14, 2006, wherein he wonders, in his opinion:

“Now, it’s interesting that Ms. Ausley’s application is also

supported by a certification from – from the decedent’s

brother, and it’s also interesting that the – that law

enforcement has consistently failed to take any action,

notwithstanding the allegation of – of the – of the plaintiff

in this matter.”


The allegation was and is that Joyce’s caregiver caused the death of our 61 year old invalid sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

Former Attorney General Stuart Rabner instituted a special process for holding public officials accountable in May 2007. Former Attorney General Stuart Rabner issued a Memorandum to County Prosecutors that should be for consideration in all of these allegations and complaints. Carolyn and Bill note that since these alleged criminal and other actions have continued to date, the Attorney General’s Memorandum dated May 31, 2007, (Guidelines Concerning Prosecutions of Public Officials) is still applicable, in addition to any other criminal codes or professional codes that may apply.

PUBLIC SERVANTS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Our allegations are directed at all of the Sayreville Police Department personnel directly or indirectly involved in the case. Specifically, Captain Garbowski, Lt. Brennan, Ptl. Jamie Sztukowski, DET SGT Jeffrey Sprague, and DET Amy Noble, among others. Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse believe that they all are complicit, in varying degrees, by their actions and inactions by knowingly and purposely protecting the alleged murderer, who is a former Police Officer. It was their joint intent that the alleged murderer not be investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce. Based on information made available to Bill and Carolyn their intent succeeded.

Punishment for those involved is paramount, as the materiality of their participation is significant, as will be seen. It is requested that the aforementioned individuals, and any pertinent associates related to activities in this case, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Carolyn and Bill also requested to be kept fully informed of the investigation and were available to meet with or discuss the case with the Office of Attorney General regarding these complaints and allegations; we were ignored. This complaint against the Sayreville Police Department is directly related to complaints submitted against Aronowitz, Kaplan ( See 101, 102, 103, 104 ), and DiCarlo. It should be noted that neither Bill Strouse nor Carolyn Ausley were officially interviewed regarding this case, by any investigatory authorities. Bill and Carolyn anticipated that the Office of Attorney General would have wanted to interview both Bill and Carolyn regarding their complaints. Neither was ever interviewed by any level of law enforcement.

Along with Bruce Kaplan, the Middlesex County Prosecutor, and Dr. DiCarlo, Assistant Medical Examiner Middlesex County, it was and is the intent of the Sayreville Police Department to protect the alleged murderer, a former police officer, from investigation and prosecution. To date, beginning with the Sayreville Police Department, all have been successful.

Based on Dep Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth’s conclusion (Hollingsworth, you may recall, was the Attorney General’s investigator in this case) there was no merit to any of the allegations against any of the public servants identified herein. Since, as you’ve seen in Chapter I, Ms. Hollingsworth ignores direct and relevant evidence, it is clear her conclusion is a fabrication intended to protect the alleged murderer and the aforementioned public servants. Her Chapter is coming.

A CASE AGAINST THE SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Sayreville Police Department did what it intended to do. Knowingly and purposely, they protected one of their own-the alleged murderer-a former police officer.  It was clearly the intent of the Sayreville Police Department to prevent the alleged murderer from being the target or suspect in a suspicious death investigation.  The Sayreville Police Department succeeded.  In the process of protecting the alleged murderer, the Sayreville Police Department violated a number of laws under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (2C) for New Jersey, for which they should be fully prosecuted.  After receiving the report of a suspicious death the Sayreville Police should have gone out to the location and established a crime scene. Establishment of a crime scene should have been followed by completing a crime scene investigation. The Sayreville Police Department did neither. Why?

SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT DELIBERATELY BREAKS PROTOCOL IN INITIAL INVESTIGATION

Though Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley alleged that the primary caregiver of Joyce caused her suspicious death on October 29, 2005, the Sayreville Police Department never investigated the alleged murderer for this suspicious death and murder.  In fact, it is clear by investigative reports provided to Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley (a complete set according to DET Sprague) that not only did the Sayreville Police Department not investigate the alleged murderer for Joyce’s suspicious death, they purposely did not followup with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office when Frederick J. DiCarlo, Assistant Medical Examiner on the case, failed to conduct an appropriate investigation (including a mandatory autopsy) of the suspicious death of Joyce.  The Sayreville Police Department also purposely did not followup with the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, in particular, Bruce Kaplan and Bill Lamb, when the Prosecutor’s Office refused to conduct the mandatory investigation of the suspicious death of Joyce, as directed by Dr. DiCarlo ( See 25, 26 ).

It was the intent of the Sayreville Police Department to discredit Bill and Carolyn as “witnesses” and portray the alleged murderer and others, as reputable family and creditable witnesses. A careful reading of the Sayreville Police Investigative Reports ( See 71, 72, 73, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 ) prepared by Sgt. Jeffrey Sprague and Det. Amy Noble clearly show a successful effort to portray Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley as disgruntled, harassing siblings of the deceased, while depicting the alleged murderer and Joyce’s daughters, as loving and caring family members who were victimized by the actions of Bill and Carolyn.  The analysis of the evidence presented in the discussion of the investigation, and the evidence presented and offered as attachments, clearly show a different story.  Both Bill and Carolyn have other information available to share at the time they are interviewed by law enforcement.

EVIDENCE IS DIRECT, RELEVANT, AND MATERIAL

The evidence presented by Bill and Carolyn is material. It shows, by commission and omission, how the Sayreville Police Department purposely and knowingly failed to even charge the alleged murderer or Mirandize him (the Sayreville Police Department took a Miranda statement from one of Joyce’s daughters as late as December 27, 2005; why not from the alleged murderer?); it shows how the Sayreville Police Department purposely and knowingly failed to conduct a crime scene investigation; it shows how the Sayreville Police Department purposely and knowingly permitted the most significant evidence in the case—the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, to be released to the person alleged to have murdered her for immediate cremation.

The evidence is aggravating. It is both direct and circumstantial. It is the truth.  The evidence lays out how the Sayreville Police Department, as the apparent lead office in the suspicious death investigation, purposely and knowingly hindered the investigation; how the Sayreville Police Department purposely and knowingly made little effort to be objective and apply investigative protocol and kept the blue wall alive; how the Sayreville Police Department, knowingly and purposely, through omission as well as commission, provided false or misleading  information to the law enforcement community, and how the Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely let an alleged murderer go “scott free.”  Evidence submitted by Bill and Carolyn shows a Superior Court Judge, (Judge Francis L. Travis) in a related case, wondering—in his judicial opinion—why law enforcement is not involved in investigating the suspicious death allegations ( See 143 ).

It is absolutely necessary that the Sayreville Police Department be investigated by the Office of the Attorney General for their knowing and purposeful decision not to investigate the allegations of a suspicious death in accordance with generally accepted principals and practices.  All individuals involved must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

BACKGROUND-OVERVIEW

 

Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was born in 1942 and at the time of her death, had been married about 25 years. Joyce’s primary caregiver was a former police officer on a local force in Middlesex County. As a result, Joyce’s primary caregiver and the alleged murderer knew many of the county law enforcement officials, including public servants in the Prosecutor’s Office, the Medical Examiner’s Office, and the Sayreville Police Department. According to Joyce, at one time he may have been represented by the County Counsel in a lawsuit by a fellow officer for brutality or unprofessional conduct. Subsequent to quitting the police force following a reported argument over not getting a promotion, the alleged murderer worked as a tow truck driver and steel worker, among others, unable to hold a steady job because of his inability to take direction and need to be in control all the time.

According to one of Joyce’s daughters, who lives out of state, her mother’s relationship with the primary caregiver was abusive ( See 109 ), and he was abusive to Joyce’s daughter as well. The abuse was so disturbing to Joyce’s father that on August 21, 2004, he moved out from the basement apartment he had been renting from Joyce, hopped into transportation provided by Carolyn Ausley, and moved to Florida. Joyce indicated to Carolyn that her own day to move out was “soon.”

With the loss of Joyce’s father to Florida, Joyce also lost $600 a month in rent. Joyce’s father also paid for food for the family, utility bills, and miscellaneous credit card payments. Since the alleged murderer was only intermittently employed since he lost his job with the police force years earlier in a fit of anger, his loss of his only source of income was devastating. Mounting bills now seemed insurmountable.

Even though Carolyn Ausley had been periodically sending Joyce and Joyce’s daughter checks to stay afloat, things became financially much worse for them. Credit cards were being used to purchase food and other necessities and were being maxed out according to Joyce. In October 2004, Joyce’s father died in Florida. Though Joyce visited him for several days prior to his death, she could not remain because of severe back pain (See 109).

In January/February 2005, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was diagnosed with cancer of the hip, colon, and lung while she was being treated for a back injury of unknown, but suspicious, origin. Joyce had no money for medical insurance prior to this date, so treatment was not initially sought. With the finding of the cancer at the time of her back surgery, Bill and Carolyn were told by one of the daughters that Joyce was given approximately eight months to live. In June 2005, Carolyn Ausley, sister of Joyce, and Bill Strouse, Joyce’s brother, visited Joyce. At that time, by all outward appearances you could not tell that Joyce had cancer. However, she was wearing a wig because of hair loss from chemotherapy treatments.

ONE OF JOYCE’S DAUGHTERS ALLEGES ABUSE

On August 2, 2005, one of Joyce’s daughters, sent her Aunt Carolyn Ausley, an email from Maine ( See 109 ), in which she stated “Both Mom and I were abused by him mentally, physically and emotionally.” All this abuse was at the hands of the alleged murderer, according to the daughter. This out of state daughter noted that her step-sister living in NJ was aware of the abuse at the time it was happening, though she would later deny this knowledge in her Miranda statement to DET Sprague ( See 216 ). The out of state daughter said that no one filed against the alleged murderer because they feared for their lives if he found out. The alleged murderer was a cop and, according to the daughters, he had many weapons in a basement weapons safe. At one time Bill also observed a number of weapons in the weapons safe in the basement.

JOYCE’S CONDITION WORSENS

Carolyn and Bill visited Joyce in September and October, 2005. Each visit showed Joyce to be severely underweight, dehydrated, disoriented, not knowing who Carolyn or Bill were, and bed-ridden, unable to care for herself and totally dependent upon her primary caregiver and daughter. It appeared she had lost about 40 pounds between June 24, 2005, and the September visit, when she probably weighed no more that about 70-75 pounds.

Carolyn and I were shocked at Joyce’s appearance and her totally confused mental status. They were also shocked to learn neither Joyce’s daughter nor her primary caregiver were feeding Joyce any food (solid or ground up), or liquids of significance, nor were they following any kind of diet prescribed by Joyce’s doctor, nutritionist, or the National Cancer Institute or American Cancer Society, or a dietitian.

THE CAREGIVER’S PLAN FOR JOYCE WAS TO DIE

Joyce received almost no liquids according to the alleged murderer and her daughter. The alleged murderer and her daughter said they occasionally gave Joyce some liquid through an eye-dropper (as reported by her daughter in her statement to the Sayreville Police Department) ( See 197 ), which they showed to Carolyn and Bill. They did not have Joyce on a special diet appropriate for cancer patients. Additionally, neither of them ever informed Bill or Carolyn that their sister was in this terrible condition. When Bill asked the alleged murderer about this, the alleged murderer responded that “The plan for Joyce is to die.” And so it was. And so it happened.

NO PAIN MEDICATION MANAGEMENT

Administration of medication was out of control. Even Hospice had no written pain medication program during their tenure in Joyce’s household. There was no pain medication program established for Joyce by the alleged murderer other than a yellow sheet of paper that he had penned, which he showed Bill and which he used to guide him as to what meds to give, and when. The list on the yellow sheet had at least 10 kinds of meds written down along with the times of day they were to be given; he commented to Bill that without that sheet he was losing track of when to medicate Joyce. Had the Sayreville Police Department conducted a crime scene investigation they would have found the yellow sheet, among other evidence that would have supported the allegations, or exonerated the alleged murderer. A damning loss either way.

There was no medication management program for Joyce. There was nothing from Joyce’s doctor regarding what to give Joyce or when to give it, as one would usually find with this kind of cancer patient. The caregiver was winging it and did not ask for medical guidance. In fact, he was giving Joyce so much pain medication that Joyce was unable to tell anyone how much pain, if any, she was feeling. Joyce was hallucinating as evidenced by pantomime actions she would occasionally perform while Bill and Carolyn sat with her, for example, answering and talking on a non-existent telephone. Joyce could not even speak, and gave no indication that she understood a single word said to her.

JOYCE GIVEN ANOTHER 6 MONTHS TO LIVE

On September 29, 2005, Joyce’s doctor certified she had six months to live if the cancer took its course ( See 24 ). She could have had more than six months, as was likely, but her doctor had to certify six months or less to qualify for the Hospice program. The alleged murderer needed this free program because he was flat broke. These six months were in addition to the eight months previously given back in February 2005. So it appears that the progress of the cancer was in some kind of remission or had slowed considerably.

Carolyn’s and Bill’s suggestion to contact a dietitian or nutritionist was again met with anger and denial by Joyce’s daughter and the negligent caregiver, while accusing Carolyn and Bill of playing doctor without a license. As noted earlier, the alleged murderer commented to Bill that “The plan for Joyce is to die.” Neither the alleged murderer nor Joyce’s daughter wanted to hear anything about a diet or the possibility that appropriate nutrition and hydration could lead to Joyce living longer. As you will read in her Miranda statement Joyce’s daughter changed her phone number because Carolyn and Bill kept pressing her about the quality of care being provided to their sister.

At another point the alleged murderer commented that this was a case like Schivo-this noted in the Sayreville Police Department investigation report ( See 197 ). During Bill’s last visit prior to Joyce’s death, the alleged murderer commented, in front of Joyce’s daughter’s (now) ex-husband and friend of the alleged murderer, that “Once this is over with, I’m selling the house and moving out of here.” Really sounds like a sensitive, concerned caregiver, eh?

ATTEMPTS TO LOCATE AN ATTORNEY FOR JOYCE

Concerned that the negligent caregiver’s plan for Joyce to die was happening before their eyes, Carolyn and Bill contacted several local attorneys in the two weeks before Joyce’s death, trying to get their assistance to have Joyce removed from her home, or at a minimum, force the alleged murderer to provide some kind of meaningful care to defeat his plan for her death. It was not until December 2005, almost two months after Joyce’s suspicious death, that Carolyn and Bill were able to locate a local attorney who would take the case. It was not until January 2006, in a discussion with DiCarlo, that Bill and Carolyn learned that Joyce had been cremated on November 1, 2005. No one would tell them their sister was cremated up until that time, not the Sayreville Police, not the Prosecutor’s Office, and not the Medical Examiner’s Office. As it turned out, their attorney, Jack Venturi, provided no services and actually seemed to be defending the Medical Examiner, Dr. DiCarlo, whom he acknowledged was his personal and professional friend ( See 648, 649 ).

ADVICE FOR JOYCE’S NUTRITION REJECTED BY CAREGIVER

In the two weeks before Joyce’s suspicious death, Joyce’s daughter stopped communicating with Carolyn and Bill. Neither she nor the alleged murderer would return calls and the daughter even changed her phone number. The daughter later complained to the Sayreville Police that Carolyn and Bill were harassing her, via the telephone, regarding the care of their sister Joyce, specifically about ensuring Joyce was receiving sufficient nutrition and hydration.

A few days before Joyce’s suspicious death on October 29, 2005, Bill was able to talk with the alleged murderer for a couple of minutes. In that brief conversation, he told Bill to mind his own business, that Joyce was not going to live much longer, that Bill was not a doctor, and stated “What is, is. What is will be. That is that. Good-bye.”, and he hung up. A few days later Bill received a call from his niece that his sister was dead. It is ironic, too, that according to his niece, 24-hour (that means that someone would be there all the time with Joyce) nursing care was to begin the very next day, on October 30, 2005. The alleged murderer had to act. This was his opportunity. The alleged murderer made good on his plan for Joyce to die.

UNEXPECTED DEATH ADVISORY

On the evening of October 29, 2005, at around 8:30 pm, Bill was called by his niece and told that his sister had died around 5:00 pm that evening. Why did she wait so long to make the call? In a conversation with the alleged murderer that evening, he informed Bill that he had given Joyce pain medication around 4:15 pm. He said that the daughter went out to the pharmacy to pick up more meds and so he was alone in the house with Joyce. He told Bill that when he went back into Joyce’s room to give her more pain medications around 5:00 pm, he found Joyce dead.

The alleged murderer said that shortly thereafter, Joyce’s daughter came home and found her mother dead. Apparently a Hospice person showed up around 6:00 pm and the alleged murderer said Joyce was officially pronounced dead at 6:13 pm by the Hospice nurse (See 188, 189, 190, 191 ), which agrees with the Sayreville Police Department Report of Investigation, and the Medical Examiner’s certification of External Examination. Joyce’s body was moved to a funeral parlor shortly thereafter for cremation the next morning.

A SUSPICIOUS DEATH IS REPORTED TO AUTHORITIES

Immediately following his niece’s notification of his sister’s death, Bill called the New Jersey State Police to report a suspicious death which Bill believed to be murder at the hands of Joyce’s caregiver. The NJ State Police referred Bill to the South Amboy Police. The South Amboy Police referred Bill to the Sayreville Police Department. Bill Strouse immediately called the Sayreville Police Department and reported the suspicious death of Joyce.

In reporting the death of his sister as suspicious and possibly murder by her caregiver, who was a former police officer, with weapons at home, Bill thought he would be received with sensitivity and concern by the Sayreville Police Department. Instead, Lt. Brennan, whom Bill first reported the suspicious death and alleged murder to, chastised Bill for waiting for Joyce to die before taking any action; Lt. Brennan’s tone changed somewhat when he gave Bill a chance to tell him of Bill’s and Carolyn’s unsuccessful efforts to hire a NJ attorney to take the case.

Later in the conversation, upon learning from Bill that Joyce had cancer, Lt. Brennan commented “She was going to die anyway.”, as if that was some kind of “pass” for what happened. Lt. Brennan asked Bill a few more questions and said that someone would be back in touch shortly.  A short while later, DET-SGT Jeffrey Sprague called Bill Strouse regarding the suspicious death and possible murder of Joyce. Bill alleged that Joyce’s death was at the hands of her caregiver, as noted in the Police report ( See 193 ).

The police report omits some information provided by Bill Strouse to Lt. Brennan and Sgt. Sprague. What is not in the police report is that Bill Strouse reported to Sprague that the alleged murderer is a former police officer who was known to have weapons in a basement gun safe.

THE SAYREVILLE POLICE BOW TO THE ALLEGED MURDERER

According to the Report of Investigation ( See 195, 196, 197, 198 ) on the 30th of October, the alleged murderer showed up unexpectedly at the Sayreville Police Department demanding to know why he could not cremate Joyce. After a brief discussion, according to the police report, the alleged murderer told DET Sprague he was going to talk with the Medical Examiner and left ( See 198 ). The alleged murderer is going to set the stage for the Medical Examiner’s help in making a potential problem go away.

On December 27, 2005, SGT Sprague Mirandized Joyce’s daughter but not the alleged murderer. When questioned by Bill Strouse about that, DET Sprague said that “The alleged murderer is not the target or suspect in the case.” Sprague knew that the alleged murderer was a former police officer and knew that Bill Strouse had alleged he murdered Joyce. How could the caregiver not be the “target or suspect” of the investigation? Was Bill’s suspicion about the “blue wall” being confirmed? Thus began the investigatory process by the Sayreville Police Department, and the involvement of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, in particular, Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner.

NO PROGRESS IN THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH INVESTIGATION

Throughout November and December 2005, Carolyn and Bill attempted to obtain help from many sources, including the Governor’s Office ( See 275, 380, 381 ), the Office of the Attorney General ( See 382, 634 ), and the New Jersey State Police, among others ( See 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 346, 347, 348). Though a number of phone calls to DET-SGT Sprague also occurred, there seemed to be little information shared regarding the investigation of the caregiver as the alleged murderer. I guess when you Mirandize the wrong person that is a good indication of your intent.

LOCAL ATTORNEY DEFENDS DR. DICARLO

Finally, in late December 2005, Carolyn and Bill were able to obtain the services of a local attorney, Mr. Jack Venturi. Little did they know, however, that though they were trying to communicate with a resistant Dr. DiCarlo, whom they considered unresponsive, the attorney they hired turned out to be both a personal and professional friend of DiCarlo, and defended DiCarlo every step of the way even as he was accepting funds from Carolyn and Bill to represent them and their sister Joyce ( See 648, 649 ).

As an example of a glowing deficiency of Venturi, he was unable to tell Carolyn and Bill the status of Joyce’s body. And this is an attorney who boasted of his personal and professional friendship with DiCarlo and reports to Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse on an extensive conversation he had with DiCarlo in early 2006. Venturi even indicated that the Sayreville Police could not provide him any information regarding Carolyn’s and Bill’s four specific taskings to Venturi. As a result, of the four things they hired their attorney to determine in connection with DiCarlo’s office, not a single one of the items was completed. This became another coincidental quirk of Middlesex County protecting its own. Why would Venturi help DiCarlo protect the alleged murderer? As reported in his January 5, 2006, letter to Bill ( See 648, 649 )

Venturi did confirm two things: 1) That Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office acknowledged receipt of a suspicious death report from the Sayreville Police Department, and 2) that Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office acknowledged they did not conduct the mandatory autopsy on Joyce’s body prior to releasing it to the alleged murderer for cremation.

Later on you will read about False Swearing on the part of the Middlesex County Counsel who falsely swore or affimed in NJ Superior Court that Dr. DiCarlo did conduct and autopsy.  Though she had the benefit of all these documents to review, you will also read a definitive statement from Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth in which she states that the allegation of False Swearing against Mr. Aronowitz had no merit.  Her pattern of official misconduct under 2C is becoming extensive.  Stay tuned for later chapters.

CHARGES AND COMPLAINT

Sayreville Police Department

October 29, 2005

ANALYSIS OF INITIAL

INCIDENT REPORT 5021782 18:22:00

( See 188, 189, 190, 191 )

To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 188, 189, 190, 191 ) first. These are the direct evidence documents produced by the public servants whose criminal actions are being analyzed here. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is about the direct evidence located at the various (See ) locations.

JOYCE IS PRONOUNCED DEAD

As noted in the Incident Report, the Sayreville Police Department responded to what initially was reported as a Hospice Death on October 29, 2005, at 1822 hours. The Hospice nurse, Dawn Malakuskie, reported she made the pronouncement at 1813 hours “but believed the woman passed away at appx 1700.” This confirms that the alleged murderer was home alone with Joyce at the time of her death, as he would confirm in a conversation with Bill Strouse later on that night, and as Joyce’s daughter would confirm in a conversation with Bill Strouse later on that night. Bill’s niece told Bill that she had gone to the pharmacy at the alleged murderer’s request to obtain more medication for Joyce, and was gone from the house between 1615 and 1700 hours. Knowing that 24-hour nursing presence would begin the very next day, this time alone gave the alleged murderer the opportunity he needed to implement his plan for Joyce to die.

When questioned at the scene by Officer Sztukowski, the caregiver “stated Joyce (sic) had been in a nursing home until 09/15/05 when he brought her back home.” In fact, Joyce had been in and out of a nursing home and hospital on several occasions since sometime after June 24, 2005. (At one point, Carolyn Ausley offered to have Joyce admitted to a nationally known cancer treatment center for treatment but the negligent caregiver refused.) At this point, according to the Sayreville Police Report, the responding officers noted nothing suspicious and left the scene ( See 188, 189, 190, 191 ).

So one has to wonder why the Sayreville Police Department did not inquire of the caregiver why he waited almost an hour before having the Hospice nurse come out to pronounce Joyce dead; at least it is not written in their report if they did. One has to wonder why the Sayreville Police Department did not ask the negligent caregiver why he waited almost one hour and twenty-six minutes to report Joyce’s death to the police. The Sayreville Police Department report shows they received the report of death at 1822 hours; the Sayreville Police Department was dispatched at 1823:55, and was on location at 1826:27-less than 3 minutes.

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

October 29, 2005

( See 71, 72, 73 )

To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 71, 72, 73 ) first. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is about the direct evidence located at the various ( See ) locations in this section.

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

DEPARTMENT:           SAYREVILLE

ORI NO:                         1219

CASE NO:                       05-21781

CRIME/INCIDENT:   HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH

This is a 3-page report, double-spaced, authored by Sgt. Jeffrey J. Sprague on 10-29-05. Note the “Crime/Incident” is stated as a hospice death/suspicious death. The allegation is that a suspicious death occurred. It is clear the SPD understands they are investigating a suspicious death.

In this report Sprague acknowledges that a “suspicious hospice death” had been reported by the brother of the deceased, alleging that the decedent’s caregiver, “had assisted in her death.” This report also acknowledges that Bill Strouse, the brother, initially spoke with Lt. Brennan about the crime.

NO CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION

Why was no crime scene investigation conducted by the Sayreville Police Department following the report of a suspicious death? There is only one chance to perform the job properly, unless you intend to hide something. Analysis of this crime scene may have resulted in recognizing what should be present at the scene but was not. Also, it was a missed opportunity to observe any objects which appear out of place and may have been arranged or staged by the alleged murderer. A crime scene investigation would have revealed the presence of special dietary foods and supplements used to feed or hydrate Joyce, or the absence thereof, in this case, based on the allegations of starvation, dehydration, and overmedication, along with suffocation. As previously noted in Chapter I, the allegations of starvation and dehydration were supported by the independent analysis of a forensic pathologist ( See 656, 657 ).

Sprague notes that he was initially advised by Sgt. Donnamaria of the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. Sprague further notes that Brennan reported that Strouse “felt that her ‘caregiver’ had something to do with her death.” So here we have three Police officers with knowledge that a suspicious death had been reported on the evening of October 29, 2005. For the record, Bill Strouse also stated, though it is not reflected in any of the Police reports, that the caregiver was a former Police Officer and was known to have a number of weapons in his gun safe in the basement. Bill provided this information for safety purposes for Police who would visit regarding the suspicious death report. One has to wonder why Sprague left this information out of his report, and out of all supplemental reports. Again, is this the blue wall?

SAYREVILLE POLICE NOTIFY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE OF A SUSPICIOUS DEATH ( See 131, 132, 133 )

Sprague’s report also notes that Brennan stated that they contacted the Medical Examiner’s Office and spoke with Giralda, stating “their concern is that the deceased’s body was taken to a crematory and was going to be cremated immediately on Sunday and they were concerned for the cause of death of his sister.” Sprague knows that the only way to determine the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt is to conduct an autopsy. So we have the Police reporting a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner’s Office, expressing concern for the destruction of the decedent. The body of the decedent was the strongest possible source of evidence known by the Sayreville Police Department, evidence which must be protected, short of the crime scene.

THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS NOTIFIED OF A SUSPICIOUS DEATH ( See 132 )

Sprague goes on to note that he spoke to the Medical Examiner’s Office, Giralda, at 2208 hours and informed them of the allegation of a suspicious death. Sprague adds that he then reported the suspicious death to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office and apparently received a return phone call at 2218 hours from Inv. Todd Gerba, and that Gerba was briefed regarding the suspicious death. Sprague knew that the Prosecutor’s Office was going to initiate their mandatory investigation, based upon the report of a suspicious death. Or, did Gerba tell Sprague that the Prosecutor’s Office would not conduct an investigation of the suspicious death? We know now that Kaplan’s office refused to conduct the mandatory investigation. ( See 129, 130 ). It is a safe presumption that Sprague knew Kaplan would not conduct an investigation, though he was required to. Sprague never mentions it again. There is no further mention in the police reports provided to Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse regarding an investigation ongoing or completed by Kaplan’s office. According to Sprague at a later date, Bill and Carolyn received all investigative reports completed by the Sayreville Police Department.

Subsequently Sprague contacted Bill Strouse and obtained more information regarding the situation, including the fact that one of Joyce’s daughters was afraid of the alleged murderer and that Joyce was not being properly cared for to the point the alleged murderer killed her. Sprague notes Bill’s efforts at trying to find an attorney in NJ to represent them, including Joyce.

Sprague concludes his report by noting that he had no idea where the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was and had to find that out; he “responded” back to Joyce’s residence sometime after 2313 hours and woke up the alleged murderer, and found out that Joyce’s body was taken to the Brunswick Memorial Funeral Parlor in East Brunswick for cremation the next morning. Ptl. Jamie Sztukowski accompanied Sprague to the residence at that time.

There is no mention in the Investigation Report from Sprague if the alleged murderer thought it strange or odd that the Police would come back out, or if he questioned Sprague about why he needed to know the location of Joyce’s body that night, that moment. Surely, the alleged murderer being a former Police officer, would have asked what was up? And in all probability, he would have volunteered his former Police officer status, presuming they did not already know each other.

Even more interesting is the fact that Sprague and Sztukowski went back out to Joyce’s residence, the scene of the alleged murder, after being notified of a suspicious death, and knowing that the caregiver may be the alleged murderer, and did not/not conduct an investigation at the crime scene. It is at this point, presuming no one from the Sayreville Police Department or the Medical Examiner’s Office gave the caregiver a courtesy warning call right after Bill Strouse filed his initial charge to Lt. Brennan that the alleged murderer has a first opportunity to learn that an allegation has been made against him. What did Sprague say to the alleged murderer? What did the alleged murderer ask of Sprague? Sprague writes up the interaction between him and the alleged murderer as simply obtaining the address of the funeral parlor and leaving. Really?

EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE OF A SUSPICIOUS DEATH

A variety of different kinds of evidence could have been obtained from the crime scene by Sprague and Sztukowski, but was not. Sometimes, a lack of evidence is indicative of a crime being committed. Since the Sayreville Police concluded there was no foul play when first called to the scene, everything seemed smooth to the alleged murderer. Is it possible that the alleged murderer, feeling confident, did not destroy any evidence that could have been obtained at the scene? Or, being a former police officer, is it possible that after everyone left, he destroyed everything at the scene that could have been used as evidence? Either way, the alleged murderer knew what anyone would be looking for in an investigation, if such occurred. And the knowing and purposeful decision of Sprague and Sztukowski to not conduct the initial crime scene investigation, contrary to all law enforcement protocol and requirements, began the downward spiral of a flawed investigation into the alleged murder of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. This breach is material.

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

October 30, 2005

( See 195, 196, 197, 198 )

To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 195, 196, 197, 198 ) first. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is about the direct evidence located at the various (See ) locations.

DEPARTMENT:                            SAYREVILLE

ORI NO.:                                          1219

CASE NUMBER:                           05-21781

CRIME/INCIDENT:                    HOSPICE DEATH

VICTIM/COMPLAINANT:      BILL STRAUSS

LOCATION:

You will note that although the crime/incident reported by Bill Strouse was SUSPICIOUS DEATH, subsequent police reports have been modified to reflect something else, as if an attempt to deny that a SUSPICIOUS DEATH was ever reported. At this point in time, this is supposed to be an investigation of a SUSPICIOUS DEATH. What is the intent of the Sayreville Police Department by altering the crime/incident nomenclature?

ALLEGED MURDERER CHECKS IN AT THE SAYREVILLE POLICE STATION THE NEXT DAY

This supplemental investigation report was completed by Sprague on October 30, 2005. On October 30th, 2005, at 1345 hours Sprague met the alleged murderer at the Sayreville Police Headquarters ( See 195 ), at the alleged murderer’s insistence, to discuss the hold on Joyce’s remains. In this report, Sprague notes that the alleged murderer is now asking why the Medical Examiner had a hold on Joyce’s remains. One would have thought that this would have come up in conversation about 12 hours earlier, on the 29th, when Sprague and Sztukowski woke up the alleged murderer to obtain the location of Joyce’s remains. Why is he waiting until some 12 hours later to ask this question? Sprague would have us believe this was not discussed the previous evening? Was this staged for the record?

Sprague notes that the caregiver acknowledges Joyce’s weak physical condition. The negligent caregiver reports to Sprague that Joyce was so weak in August 2005 that he needed to carry Joyce to the bathroom. Both Bill and Carolyn noticed this same physical weakness in their visits in September and October, 2005. The negligent caregiver omits mentioning that Joyce is confused, disoriented, and hallucinating, as well. Likewise, he does not share that Joyce is not eating or drinking and is slowly being starved and dehydrated to death, in a methodical and planned manner.

Who is conducting the investigation of an alleged suspicious death, Sprague or the alleged murderer? Sprague notes that he told the alleged murderer that he would meet with one of Joyce’s daughters at Sprague’s convenience. However, Sprague then lets the alleged murderer take over the investigation interview and made arrangements for Joyce’s daughter to come in to the police station one hour later, which she did. Again, staging?

For some reason, Sprague makes a point to report that he “overheard the conversation on the speaker phone” between the alleged murderer and Joyce’s daughter. Why on the speaker phone—was a witness needed? Sprague also notes in his report that “it did not appear that “the daughter” was waiting for this phone call,”. What is the point Sprague and the alleged murderer are making here? Why are they emphasizing that this was not a pre-planned decision? Why would anyone have thought it was a pre-planned decision? Of course, now it appears to be something very suspicious on all their parts.

JOYCE’S DAUGHTER ARRIVES AT THE SAYREVILLE POLICE STATION ( See 196 )

It is interesting that Sprague immediately confronts the daughter with a comment made by Bill Strouse that “she was afraid of the ‘alleged murderer’ .” What is Sprague setting up? First, no one in the family called the alleged murderer by his given name. No one. Only those who knew the alleged murderer outside the family referred to him in the familiar by his nickname. It is clear that Sprague knew the alleged murderer. Also, why didn’t the Sayreville Police Department address him as “Mr.”?

At this point, according to the police report, the daughter makes a point of showing support and no fear of the alleged murderer (despite her previously telling Bill and Carolyn otherwise) by moving her chair closer ( See 197 ) to the alleged murderer-how close is not mentioned— one inch closer or right up next to him? Just closer. At this point Sprague makes a point of recording such information for the record. Why? All the family knew that Joyce and her two daughters were afraid of the alleged murderer. In fact, information later provided to Sprague testifies to physical, mental and emotional abuse by the alleged murderer against both Joyce and one daughter-and that despite denials, the other daughter knew about it, as well ( See 109 ). Just check the mental health records of the one daughter and you will confirm her receipt of professional psychiatric counseling for her years of abuse as she alleges at his hands-as she states in her email. Of course, if the Sayreville Police Department reaches out that little bit extra, they might learn something they don’t want to know. The Sayreville Police Department had a copy of that email at the time of their investigation, as did the Medical Examiner and the Prosecutor.

SAYREVILLE POLICE DO NOT PURSUE LEAD REGARDING LACK OF FEEDING OR HYDRATING

Sprague documents that both the caregiver and his step-daughter acknowledge that their efforts to feed Joyce were limited to an “eyedropper to give fluids … whenever possible” ( See 197 ). Sprague has an opportunity to ask about National Cancer Institute or American Cancer Society special diets for people in Joyce’s condition but Sprague avoids the subject. Likewise, Sprague does not ask about diets recommended by Joyce’s doctors, or nutritionists, or dietitians, or by the Hospice staff that the caregiver mentioned was involved with Joyce’s care. Hospice would have had a care plan for Joyce written down. Why didn’t Sprague check it?

Sprague knows that one of the allegations against the negligent caregiver is that he failed to provide Joyce sufficient food (starvation) or liquids (hydration) such that she may have died from starvation or dehydration, yet he avoids pursuing the lead. If you don’t ask the question, you don’t get the answer you don’t want to hear. Remember that Sprague had an opportunity the previous evening to conduct a crime scene investigation in which he could have discovered this evidence and information first hand. What stopped him? Why is he covering for the caregiver? Is it the blue wall?

The caregiver becomes surprisingly defensive. When Sprague asks about the comment the alleged murderer made about Joyce being a Schivo case, Joyce’s daughter acknowledges that the alleged murderer made the comment. The alleged caregiver stood up (we wonder why?), says Sprague, and admitted he made the comment. For some reason the caregiver was caught off guard with that question and the answer given by Joyce’s daughter. What do you suppose the alleged murderer meant when he said to Sprague, “that he meant it in reference to not causing Joyce any further problems.”? The issue for Joyce is not that she would have experienced any “further problems”, rather the issue was that she wanted to live according to her living will, and this action by the negligent caregiver of starving and dehydrating Joyce (not to mention over-medication and possible suffocation) was in total opposition to Joyce’s desires and legal agreement. Remember that the alleged murderer stated to Bill: “The plan for Joyce is to die.” Joyce’s continued “living” was creating problems for the caregiver and citing the Schivo case was a reference to the caregiver’s exercising his control over Joyce.

OTHER LEADS IGNORED BY SAYREVILLE POLICE

As previously noted, the alleged murderer commented that “The plan is for Joyce to die.” Of course, at that point, Joyce had no further problems, she was dead. What is missing from this second interview? Why is Sprague not following leads and openings offered by the daughter and the alleged murderer? Why would he even interview them together, if not to intentionally allow them to show some alliance, which he has duly documented even though it is false. Why didn’t Sprague interview Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley? After all, Bill and Carolyn were the ones making the allegations and were the ones who could have, up front, provided many leads for the investigation. In fact, neither Carolyn nor Bill were ever formally interviewed during the investigation and neither was the alleged murderer, according to the Sayreville Police Department. The Sayreville Police Department’s intent in not interviewing Carolyn, Bill, or the alleged murderer, is quite clear.

In closing this report, Sprague notes that the alleged murderer “stated he would be contacting the Medical Examiner’s Office for any further information that they may need.” The alleged murderer is so cool with this investigation, wherein he is alleged to have caused a suspicious death, that he is now going to see the Medical Examiner to get his ducks in a row in that arena, a very critical arena.

THE ALLEGED MURDERER CONTROLS THE INTERVIEW

Based on this report, Sprague lets the alleged murderer control the investigation. So let’s take a closer look here, first, Sprague lets him take over the interview from Sprague by inviting himself to meet with Sprague; then the alleged murderer invites Sprague to meet with Joyce’s daughter. Now the alleged murderer is heading over to the Medical Examiner’s Office to what, tell the Medical Examiner how the story should play out? Is it really appropriate at this point in the investigation, such as it is, for the alleged murderer to be visiting the Medical Examiner in this manner, who by law, should be conducting an autopsy (it was never done) on the decedent? Of course we are not privy to the conversation between Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner, and the alleged murderer. There is never any documentation of DiCarlo’s meeting with the alleged murderer, and such meeting is never specifically mentioned by Dr. DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County. Why is Sprague letting this happen?

Remember, Joyce’s body still sits in a private funeral parlor of the alleged murder’s choosing, because the Medical Examiner-Dr. DiCarlo, failed to immediately take control of the body following a report of suspicious death the previous night, as is required by law. The alleged murderer, a former police officer, remains in the driver’s seat and Sprague is knowingly and purposely letting this happen. Didn’t Sprague or anyone on the Sayreville Police force think it strange that the body was not immediately taken under control of the Medical Examiner’s Office? What are they thinking? They deliberately left Joyce’s body at the funeral parlor even though they knew they were investigating a suspicious death. They did this knowingly and purposely.

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

December 22, 2005

( See 199, 200, 201 )


To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 199, 200, 201 ) first. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is about the direct evidence located at the various (See ) locations.

DEPARTMENT:                SAYREVILLE

ORI NO.:                             1219

CASE NO.:                         05-21781

CRIME/INCIDENT:      HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH

INVESTIGATION DRAGS ON AND GOES NOWHERE

This is a three page report completed by Det Amy Noble on December 22, 2005. SUSPICIOUS DEATH has been added back into the “CRIME/INCIDENT” line. What has been going on with the suspicious death investigation between October 30, 2005 and this date? Noble indicates she was assigned to speak to several individuals in reference to a hospice death (what happened to suspicious death?), including Bill Strauss (Strouse), Carolyn Ausley, and Joyce’s two daughters. Noble does not state why she was assigned to contact these four individuals.

In contacting Bill Strouse, Noble just asks for the telephone number of Joyce’s out of state daughter, which Bill Strouse did not have. Noble notes that Bill Strouse began asking “numerous questions about the body being released and if they did an autopsy.” ( See 199 ) Noble said she did not have that information and he could address those questions with Sprague upon his return.

What was the purpose in Noble calling Bill, to check a box and say she spoke with him? Noble did not interview Bill, or make any effort to obtain any information from Bill. Noble did not ask about Bill’s allegations, or of the alleged murderer’s motive or opportunity to commit a murder, family history, or anything that one would think an investigating officer might ask when investigating a suspicious death alleged to be murder. Why? Noble refers to Bill Strouse as Bill Strauss or Mr. Strauss (sic) throughout her report-the full name, and not just his first name. So what was Noble’s purpose in calling Bill?

Noble reports she called Carolyn Ausley in Florida at about 1830 hours ( See 199, 200 ) leaving a voice mail message on the home recorder. Carolyn reports she never received any such message on her recorder-if she had, Noble would have received a return call immediately. Noble refers to Carolyn Ausley as Carolyn Ausley throughout her report-her full name and not just her first name. Why did Noble call Carolyn Ausley? Carolyn was not home. Noble reports she left a message. Noble never followed up with Carolyn Ausley for her report. Noble’s purpose in calling Carolyn must not have been important if Noble never spoke to Carolyn. Why didn’t Noble call Carolyn back and interview Carolyn at all?

THE SAYREVILLE POLICE KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY LIMIT THEIR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH JOYCE’S NJ DAUGHTER ( See 200 )

According to her report, Noble calls Joyce’s NJ daughter at about 1845 hours. Noble refers to this daughter by her first name throughout her report and refers to the out of state daughter by her first name throughout her report. Both Sprague and Dr. DiCarlo (the county Medical Examiner) referred to the alleged murderer by his first name, as well. It seems the entire law enforcement community is on a familiar first name basis with Joyce’s caregiver and both of Joyce’s daughters. What is the possible significance of that familiarity?

Noble has an extended conversation with the NJ daughter. This is interesting. Why have an extended conversation with her, and not with Bill Strouse or Carolyn Ausley? Noble notes in her report numerous negative comments that this daughter makes about Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley. Why is Noble entertaining and encouraging her? In this telephone conversation this daughter, the NJ daughter lies again when she says Bill and Carolyn were harassing her half-sister, though there was an email dialogue mostly about her comments about the alleged murderer. The NJ daughter also lied when she stated she did everything she could to make her mother “comfortable”. For example, where was the food and water for someone in Joyce’s condition? By her own admission she was not feeding Joyce food and would only occasionally give Joyce some liquid through an “eyedropper”. Perhaps her biggest lie at this point is her comment that the alleged murderer “was wonderful to her mother.”, and her denial that he ever abused her half-sister and her mother physically, emotionally, and mentally. The out of state daughter’s email of August 2, 2005, contradicts that completely ( See 109 ). Why didn’t the Sayreville Police Department pursue that with her at this moment? An intentional action on their part. If they don’t ask, she won’t tell.

Joyce’s NJ daughter knew that Joyce’s caregiver abused both her half-sister and her mother, as stated by the out of state daughter in her email of August 2, 2005, to her Aunt Carolyn Ausley. She also knew that her grandmother and grandfather knew that the alleged murderer abused both Joyce and her half-sister. She is lying to protect the alleged murderer and Noble is eating is all up. Why doesn’t Noble politely confront her with the out of state daughter’s documented statement from the email? Why doesn’t Noble ask her if her step-sister was lying about the abuse? Why doesn’t Noble ask her how she explains her half-sister’s comment that she knew about the abuse, with her now denying that any abuse ever took place? What is Noble’s intention here? Again, if you ask the right question, you may get an answer you are not supposed to hear.

Noble had an opportunity to inquire about diet and nutrition and pain medication management but she failed to do so. Why? What was Noble’s purpose in calling the daughter to begin with?

DET NOBLE CONTACTS OUT OF STATE DAUGHTER ( See 200 )

According to her report, Noble contacted Joyce’s out of state daughter at 1900 hours and posited several questions. In this telephone conversation ( See 109 ), the daughter lies to Noble about how the alleged murderer treated her mother. (Noble uses his first name, nick-name in referring to him, while he required that all family had to call him by his formal first name) According to Joyce, all of the alleged murderers professional colleagues and law enforcement friends called him by his nick-name, as did Noble.

The daughter tells another lie in response to a question regarding how the alleged murderer treated her mother. She responded that he “treated her (mother) like gold the last year.” There was a lead that Noble missed—or did Noble choose to ignore the lead? This is of course, by the daughter’s own previous “testimony”, a lie. First of all, the daughter previously told her Aunt Carolyn Ausley that he treated her mother like crap—re-read the email of August 2, 2005. ( See 109 ) And even if it could somehow be twisted that he had some nice moments, the daughter specifically address a time period: she said “the last year.” And the lead is the use of the words “the last year.” Why doesn’t Noble ask the daughter about the years before the “last year.”? What about the times the daughter mentioned in her email to her Aunt Carolyn Ausley? What about the comment in that email from the out of state daughter: “the day Pop left I could almost guarantee you she got it from him but good ….”. ( See 109 )

We have to presume that Noble is a talented and sharp detective. We have to presume that her actions here, or inactions, are knowing, purposeful, and intentional. So Noble will go on record in these reports destroying the credibility of Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley while building up the credibility of the alleged murderer. An analysis of the content of this interview speaks for itself.

Noble does ask the out of state daughter about the alleged murderer abusing her or her mother, at which the daughter becomes upset and does not want to answer the question. The daughter then inquires of Noble, is the phone line being recorded? Now, wouldn’t that pique the interest of a reasonable person? First, a person is upset at the question, then the person asks if the conversation is being recorded before providing a response. And Noble ignores the obvious here. Wouldn’t it be prudent to inquire why she did not want to answer that question? If the answer was no, “no” would have been blurted out by the daughter. And then the daughter asks if the conversation was being recorded. A reasonable person would conclude that the daughter does not want to get caught in a lie, on tape. Why didn’t Noble inquire why that was of concern? But Noble knowingly and purposely misses another opportunity.

Immediately after Noble tells the daughter that the conversation is not being recorded, the daughter responds that the alleged murderer “was not abusive.” ( See 200 ) Of course Noble knows that that statement contradicts her email of August 2, 2005. Noble does nothing. Noble says nothing. She drops it. Noble again knowingly and purposely decides not to professionally confront the daughter regarding the contradiction. Considering this is an investigation of a SUSPICIOUS DEATH one wonders why Noble does not tactfully ask the daughter if she is lying now or was she lying when she wrote the August 2, 2005, email to Carolyn Ausley? Noble again apologizes to the daughter “for making her upset.” Of course, if Noble deals with the contradiction, and the daughter acknowledges the truth of the email, then Noble is stuck with having to pursue that lead with Joyce’s caregiver, who you will remember, is a former police officer. Now there may be an obligation to investigate one of her own.

Noble comes close to having to investigate the alleged murderer. At 1930, according to the report, the out of state daughter calls Noble back and wants to know what is the definition of “being abused.” A light came on in Noble’s head and she had to be careful what definition she gave provided. Noble fails to record in her report what definition of abuse she told the daughter. This is critical. This definition could make or break a “defining” moment. ( See 201 ) Here Noble has an opportunity with the daughter, as the daughter is opening up a little—but Noble backs off conveniently and knowingly. There is no indication in the report that Noble pursues this line of questioning any further. Noble’s actions here are purposeful. Noble knows if she finds out too much, she may have to investigate the negligent caregiver, so she lets the sleeping dog lie.

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

December 27, 2005

( See 202, 203 )

DEPARTMENT:                             SAYREVILLE

ORI NO.:                                          1219

CASE NO.:                                      05-21781

CRIME/INICIDENT:                  HOSPICE DEATH

VICTIM/COMPLAINANT:      BILL STRAUSS

LOCATION:

This is an analysis of the report of this date, ( See 202, 203 ). To better understand this analysis, it is necessary to read the actual police report prior to reading this analysis.

This is a report made by Sgt Jeffrey Sprague on 12/27/05. The purpose of this report is to obtain clarification of the abuse email the out of state daughter sent to Carolyn Ausley on August 2, 2005. According to their report, both Sgt Sprague and Det Noble are on the speaker phone with the daughter. You will note that although the crime/incident reported by Bill Strouse (Bill Strauss) was SUSPICIOUS DEATH, subsequent police reports have been modified to reflect something else, as if an attempt to deny that a SUSPICIOUS DEATH was ever reported. What is the intent of the Sayreville Police Department altering the “crime/incident” nomenclature?

True to form, Sprague refers to the alleged murderer by his familiar first nick-name throughout the report. Sprague confronts the daughter: “This officer asked her if at any time she was physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually abused by ‘the alleged murderer’. There was a pause for a couple of seconds and then she answered absolutely not.” There is a reason for the pause. First of all, what the daughter had written in her email was true. It accused the alleged murderer of abuse, and explained why it was never reported—she would be killed because the alleged murderer was a cop. ( See 202 ) Secondly, Sprague threw in the “sexual abuse”, which was not an allegation the daughter previously made. Previously, the daughter emphatically stated that the alleged murderer abused her and Joyce mentally, physically, and emotionally. So the daughter can actually answer “no” to the question because sexual abuse was not reported by her.  One has to wonder if there was no abuse, what behavior is the daughter taking responsibility for as noted by Sprague.  And why doesn’t Sprague confront the daughter tactfully with the question, are you lying now about the abuse or did you lie about the abuse to your Aunt Carolyn in your email of August 2, 2005?

 

Sprague knowingly and purposely reframes the question by changing its content.  By adding “sexual abuse” to the equation ( See 202 ), Sprague knew that the daughter could answer  “no” to the question.  Sprague knowingly and purposely phrased the question to obtain the answer he wanted.  So now Sprague does not have to deal with confronting a fellow officer regarding abusing his family.  In fact, there is no documentation anywhere, other than when the alleged murderer insisted on the initial meeting, of the Sayreville Police Department interviewing the alleged murderer at all.  This, of course, is intentional.

 

Sprague closes the loop on the abuse issue.  In closing this report Sprague makes reference to Noble’s conversation on the same subject.  Says Sprague:  ”This conversation was on speaker phone with Det. Noble and we ( See 203 ) did make that known to the out of state daughter (the familiar family name usage by the police) due to the fact that Det. Noble also had spoken to her in the past regarding these complaints.”  That is not exactly an accurate statement.  Noble never confronted the daughter regarding the daughter’s contradictory statements; no one knew what definition of abuse was provided by the Sayreville Police Department to the daughter; no one from the Sayreville Police Department ever asked the daughter why she wrote such an email to her aunt if the comments about abuse were not true.  The Sayreville Police Department remains deliberately quiet.

 

 

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

December 27, 2005

        ( See 204, 205 )

 

This is an analysis of the report of this date, ( See 204, 205 ).  To better understand this analysis, it is necessary to read the report prior to reading this analysis.

 

DEPARTMENT:                               SAYREVILLE

ORI NO.:                                           1219

CASE NO.:                                       05-21781

CRIME/INCIDENT:                           HOSPICE DEATH

VICTIM/COMPLAINANT:          BILL STRAUSS

LOCATION:                                              

 

The date of this two-page report is December 27, 2005.  You will note that although the crime/incident reported by Bill Strouse (Bill Strauss) was SUSPICIOUS DEATH, subsequent police reports have been modified to reflect something else, as if an attempt to deny that a SUSPICIOUS DEATH was ever reported. What is the intent of the Sayreville Police Department by altering the “crime/incident” nomenclature?

 

In this report Sprague notes that he and Noble met with the NJ daughter “in reference to the hospice death of her mother….”  Here we have the Sayreville Police Department investigating a “suspicious death” and they repeatedly refer to it as a “hospice death.”  What may they be setting things up for?

 

The interview of the daughter took place on 12/27/05 at Sayreville Police Department Headquarters.  Noble and Sprague conducted the interview.  The daughter showed up at 1327 hours.  Sprague makes the usual reference to the alleged murderer using his familiar nick-name.  Specifically, the daughter was asked about her step-sister’s email accusing the alleged murderer of physical, mental and emotional abuse ( See 204 ).  In the email, the out of state daughter indicated the NJ daughter was aware the abuse was ongoing.  Sprague, in this interview, asked  “if she or her sister, ‘named’, had been mentally, physically, or sexually abused by the alleged murderer and she stated not at all.” 

 

Sprague again alters the question to obtain the answer he wants.  Here again Sprague changes the text and content when he includes “sexually abused.”  The daughter never accused the alleged murderer of sexual abuse

( See 109 ).  So Sprague is making it easy for her to say “no” to the question.  Sprague conveniently does not report how the NJ daughter explains why the out of state daughter would lie in the email about her knowing about the abuse that the alleged murderer inflicted on Joyce and her step-sister, when in fact, she now denies any such knowledge.  So why doesn’t Sprague, having another opportunity, ask the NJ daughter if she is lying now, or was her sister lying in the August 2, 2005, email?  For Sprague to ask the obvious question would possibly mean he would get an answer he did not want to hear.  An answer that might force him to pursue a lead against a fellow officer, who is the alleged murderer.

 

Sprague lets the daughter run on about how she was the victim and being harassed, to the point she had to change her telephone number.  She commented ( See 205 ) that she knew the family was not happy with the care her mother was receiving.  Sprague deliberately lets another opportunity pass by when he does not pursue the opening given to him at this point.  For example, what was the family unhappy about?  When the daughter said she did everything she and the negligent caregiver could for Joyce’s care, what did that entail?  What was it that other family members wanted the caregiver and her to do, regarding Joyce’s care, that they were not doing?  Sprague then asks her if she would give a statement in reference to her mothers “hospice death.”  Here again the Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely makes reference to a hospice death, when in fact they are investigating a SUSPICIOUS DEATH.  Joyce’s daughter gave a Miranda statement to Sprague and Noble, as indicated in their report.  This Miranda Statement indicates that the daughter is the “Accused or Suspect”.  Wait just a minute.  How is that possible?  As you previously read in the Police Report Bill reported to the Sayreville Police on October 29, 2005, that the alleged murderer was the caregiver, NOT the daughter.  How come the person alleged to have killed Joyce is not the “Accused or Suspect”?  How did the Sayreville Police Department conclude that the daughter was the “accused or the suspect”?  Are they setting the stage to protect their fellow former police officer colleague?  How could Ms. Hollingsworth ignore this in her investigation?  And if they were not investigating a suspicious death, why take a Miranda statement?  And why wait two months after Joyce’s suspicious death to take the Miranda statement? ( See 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 )  And why take a Miranda statement from Joyce’s daughter who was not accused of murdering her mother?  And why didn’t the Sayreville Police take a Miranda statement from the person we alleged did murder Joyce?

 

Sprague concludes on behalf of the alleged murderer that Capt. Szkodny checked with “juvenile records and did not locate any reports regarding any type of abuse …..”  ( See 205 ) While there may not have been any police records, there are other organizations that may have knowledge of such abuse, yet the Sayreville Police Department purposely limited its inquiry to one source.  Why would they do that?

 

Sprague knowingly and purposely forgets the infamous email from the out of state daughter to Carolyn Ausley.  Regarding reporting the abuse suffered by Joyce and her daughter, at the hands of the alleged murderer, here is an excerpt from that email:

 

“I could never go to the police because I feared for the both of us

and he was a cop.  Never confided in anyone because I feared

for my life if someone told.  ‘My sister’ had her own family at the time

and didn’t get involved, I confided in her a few times but she just

to put my stereo headphones on or to go out.” ( See 109 )

 

And,

 

“But I have always blamed myself for not picking up the damn

phone and calling the police, this could have been over with years ago and mom wouldn’t have changed.  Mom would have denied

everything once the police showed up though….then I would have

gotten killed for telling.” ( See 109 )

 

Does this explain to the Sayreville Police Department why there was no report?  Of course, the Sayreville Police Department had full knowledge.  Ask too many questions, i.e., conduct a thorough investigation, and you might get answers you wish you didn’t.  What is the intent of the Sayreville Police Department in discounting the truthfulness of the content in the August 2005 email?

 

ANALYSIS OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

January 6, 2006

( See 206, 207 )

 

This is an analysis of the report of this date, ( See 206, 207 ).  To better understand this analysis, it is necessary to read the report prior to reading this analysis.

 

DEPARTMENT:                               SAYREVILLE

ORI NO.:                                           1219

CASE NO.:                             05-21781
CRIME/INCIDENT:         HOSPICE DEATH

LOCATION:                                              

 

Please note it is necessary to read the Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Report prior to reading this analysis.  The report can be read at           ( See 206, 207 ). 

 

This two-page report is dated January 6, 2006 and is completed by Sgt. Jeffrey Sprague.  You will note that the CRIME/INCIDENT is changed back to HOSPICE DEATH, even though the investigation is supposed to be about the investigation of a SUSPICIOUS DEATH ( See 206, 207 ).  As the last of the investigation reports made available to Carolyn and Bill, who were told these were the sum total of reports produced by the Sayreville Police Department, it is somewhat anti-climactical.  Again, the Sayreville Police Department uses the familiar names/nick-names for the alleged murderer and the NJ daughter.  This is an interview of Dawn Malakuskie, age 32, of the VNA, New Jersey.  There is nothing in the report regarding Malakuskie’s background or experience in handling this kind of patient, or for that matter, what her professional credentials were.

 

Sprague is calling Malakuskie regarding the “hospice death” of Joyce, not the SUSPICIOUS DEATH.  Recall that Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley reported a SUSPICIOUS DEATH only.  Recall also that Sprague reported a suspicious death to the County Medical Examiner’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office, as well.  Sprague does not identify how long Malakuskie had been treating Joyce—on what date did the care begin—nor how many times she actually visited Joyce.   Joyce had been in hospice care less than one month and the Sayreville Police Department does not ask how many times Malakuskie saw Joyce or visited the residence, or what services she performed for Joyce.  Based on this, one could develop an understanding that Joyce had hospice care for months, which is the message the Sayreville Police Department is trying to convey here.

 

Sayreville Police Department’s timing of this interview is a little suspect in itself.  Ms. Malakuskie was the first one on the scene, a non-family member, at the time after Joyce’s death.  Following the call from the alleged murderer (at what time?), Malakuskie was there to pronounce Joyce’s death officially at 1813 hours, though she acknowledged Joyce probably died around 1700, which is what the alleged murderer told her.  Why didn’t the Sayreville Police Department interview Malakuskie within a few hours of receiving the report of a suspicious death?  Why didn’t the Sayreville Police Department ask why it took ‘someone’ so long to make the call?  Here we are some 65 days after the suspicious death is reported and the Sayreville Police Department is only now getting around to interviewing the person who pronounced Joyce dead and was the first on the scene.  What happened to the crime scene investigation?  Is this proper protocol?

 

The Sayreville Police Department does not indicate what detailed explanation Sprague gives Malakuskie regarding the nature of the call.  Once again, one could assume great detail, or little detail, or depending on how things were phrased, no detail about the suspicious death report.  Further, Ms. Malakuskie has an investment in making sure everything turns out just fine, as she does not want to be implicated in a suspicious death investigation.

 

Sprague asks the leading question using the word “suspicious.” Right away, red flags go up and Malakuskie knows how to answer.  Her career is on the line.  If she says yes, there were suspicious happenings, Malakuskie is now directly involved in a suspicious death and is now involved for withholding information regarding a suspicious death and a possible murder.  Of course it is in Malakuskie’s best interest to report nothing suspicious.  But Sprague knew the answer before he asked the question.  This was intentional on Sprague’s part.  All of the Sayreville Police Department interviews to date are clearly slanted to debunk anything Bill or Carolyn reported (and remember, neither Bill nor Carolyn were specifically interviewed during this investigation by the Sayreville Police Department) and were knowingly and purposely staged to support the caregiver.

 

Sprague asks no questions of Malakuskie regarding provision of food or liquids to Joyce.  What does she know in this area about Joyce’s feeding or hydration?  The allegation against the caregiver was and remains starvation, dehydration, over-medication and suffocation.  Does Sprague ask about dietary considerations, such as guidance that might be provided by the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute?  Does Sprague ask about orders from any of Joyce’s doctors for dietary consideration? No.  Were there any?  Does Sprague ask to see Ms. Malakuskie’s pain medication management plan that she had set up for Joyce?  Did she have one? The only pain medication management program set up seemed to be a homemade yellow sheet put together by the caregiver because, he acknowledged, he was losing track of what to give Joyce and when to give it.  So why not follow the pain medication management program provided by Joyce’s doctors or the Hospice nurse?  Sprague does not ask, does he?  Does Sprague ask to see the Hospice Plan of Care for Joyce?  It is not in his report.  Since this is an investigation about starvation, dehydration, over-medication, and suffocation, why isn’t Sprague, a Det-SGT with the Sayreville Police Department, asking the obvious questions?

 

Sprague then asks the usual question regarding “any information she would be aware of or have any knowledge of any type of lack of care by ‘the caregiver’.”  Malakuskie’s answer sounds very familiar.  Too familiar.  Malakuskie responds as Sprague notes :  “She stated he was very kind, considerate, and a concerned individual and he provided all the care that ‘Joyce’ needed.”  The caregiver previously volunteered to Sprague “’The caregiver’ stated that he had conversations and discussions with family members in reference to her care, stated both he and Joyce’s daughter provided all the care they could give to Joyce Sauter….” ( See 206 ).

 

SPRAGUE ENDS HIS INTERVIEWS

 

Sprague closes the case on the caregiver being an abuser and a murderer.  Remember that Sprague never interviews Bill beyond Bill’s initial report of suspicious death and that no one in the Sayreville Police Department ever interviews Carolyn.  Remember that all the interviews conducted by the Sayreville Police Department are conducted and staged such that everyone interviewed has nothing but glowing comments about the alleged murderer.  Remember that the end result of those interviews is that everything Bill said, and everything that Bill and Carolyn wrote and provided to the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Sayreville Police Department is basically trashed, was totally and fully discounted and disregarded by the Sayreville Police Department, including the August 2, 2005, email accusing the alleged murderer of abuse.  This interview of Malakuskie is no different.  The Sayreville Police Department would have one believe that Malakuskie, interviewed on January 6, 2006, remembers the caregiver in such positive light, when her only participation with the caregiver was 65 days ago, and to her knowledge, was a routine, uneventful, hospice death.  Now, in reality, it is probably Malakuskie’s professional experience that ALL families come across as kind, considerate and concerned.

 

For consideration.  As previously noted, the alleged murderer’s stated outcome for Joyce was stated to Bill, and acknowledged by Joyce’s daughter:  “The plan for Joyce is to die.”  Ironically, Malakuskie supports that outcome when Sprague quotes her as saying:  “She stated that he was a very kind, considerate, and concerned individual and he provided all the care that ‘Joyce’ needed.”  Well, guess what, truer words were never spoken.  The alleged murderer provided just enough care, by his own admission, which put Joyce on the road to starvation and dehydration.  That was his plan and he succeeded.  Of course we will never know beyond a reasonable doubt because the Sayreville Police Department permitted the Medical Examiner’s Office to release the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter to the very person alleged to have murdered her—her caregiver.  Now why would the Sayreville Police Department permit the most significant evidence in the case to be destroyed by the person alleged to have murdered her?

 

In fact, as recently as March 4, 2008, based on independent lab analysis of four specimens released by order of the Superior Court of New Jersey to the custody of Carolyn Ausley, Dr. Michael E. Berkland, DO, a Forensic Pathologist, concluded the following:

 

“Based on the additional testing performed at my request on the very specimens that Dr. DiCarlo obtained but never tested, indicates that Joyce Sauter was dehydrated and was in a prolonged fasting and or starvation condition at the time of her death.” ( See 656 )

 

Ms. Malakuskie is on record in the Sprague interview as being some kind of medical expert (neither Noble nor Sprague indicate what her credentials are), and her testimony therein is taken as gospel by the Sayreville Police Department.  Malakuskie’s statement is used by the Sayreville Police Department as a further reason to discredit the statements and correspondence of Bill and Carolyn. What effort did the Sayreville Police Department make to validate or verify the accuracy or truthfulness of Malakuskie’s conclusions, because as you can see by laboratory analysis

( See 656, 657 ), Malakuskie is totally wrong. 

 

Malakuskie’s statement about Joyce not being starved is totally out of context with Joyce’s physical appearance, weight, and stated amounts of food and beverage being provided by the caregiver and Joyce’s daughter—as reported by them to Carolyn and Bill.  Malakuskie specifically states Joyce was not being starved and that it was normal for cancer hospice patients not to eat.  It is also true that many cancer patients do eat modified diets.  It is also true that many cancer patients are not medicated to the point they are disoriented to time, place, and person and are not hallucinating.  It is also true that many cancer patients are able to tell their caregivers how much pain they are in, which Joyce was unable to do because she was so overmedicated.  How does Malakuskie explain Joyce’s physical appearance and loss of over 40 pounds in body weight?  In fact, an independent analysis of specimens taken from Joyce’s body, completed by a forensic pathologist shows that ”Joyce Sauter was dehydrated and was in a prolonged fasting or starvation condition at the time of her death.” ( See 656, 657 )

 

The Sayreville Police Department once again conveniently drops the ball.  Yes, it may be normal for cancer patients not to have an appetite, but if provided food and hydration in the correct media or venue (liquid protein drinks such as Ensure or Boost, for example), cancer patients can eat and can drink and live positive, longer lives.  Of course, as the caregiver previously stated, “The plan for Joyce is to die.”  Again, the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute have perfected food and beverage diets for persons in exactly Joyce’s condition, and these diets are normal for persons in Joyce’s condition.  If Malakuskie is such an expert, how come she fails to even mention that these diets exist.  Further, Malakuskie never even mentions a diet prescribed by Joyce’s primary care physician.  But the Sayreville Police Department never goes there with Malakuskie and we all know why.

 

Though not a qualified expert in the legal sense of the word, the Sayreville Police Department accepts the comments of Malakuskie as final.  This is not surprising when considering the intended outcome the Sayreville Police Department seeks.  Malakuskie comments to Sprague, in response to a question:  “She stated there was nothing strange and nothing was of concern to her in reference to the care that Mrs. Sauter was receiving from her ‘caregiver and Joyce’s daughter’.”  Once again, the Sayreville Police Department fails to pick up on a lead in the conversation, and again, this is purposeful and knowing on their part.  Since the alleged murderer’s plan for Joyce was to die, the plan was going smoothly.

 

Hospice programs vary in intent and purpose, as far as the planned outcome for the patient and family is concerned.  For the most part, the patient is in the program because they are dying.  Malakuskie, likewise, has picked up on the caregiver’s plan for Joyce to die—perhaps inadvertently, as she does not see that providing food and hydration could help Joyce and prolong her life.  There is no indication that Sprague or Noble asked to see the plan of care for Joyce from Malakuskie for nutrition, hydration, or medication management.

 

Malakuskie certainly knows that failing to provide Joyce adequate food and hydration will shorten Joyce’s life, and so does the caregiver.  So does Sprague.  So for Malakuskie to comment “… there was nothing strange and nothing was of concern to her in reference to the care that Mrs. Sauter was receiving….” would be understandable because she knew the caregiver’s plan for Joyce was to die.  But when she was able, Joyce had previously informed Carolyn that she wanted to live.  Joyce’s NJ daughter can confirm that her mother told her sister Carolyn that she wanted to live.  The Sayreville Police Department misses this point because their concept, as well, as spoken by Lt. Brennan to Bill on October 29, 2005, is that Joyce would die anyway.  Now if Malakuskie thought the plan for Joyce was to live, would her comment to Sprague about diet and hydration be any different about the care being provided by the caregiver and Joyce’s daughter being “strange and nothing was of concern to her”. Of course it would.  But the Sayreville Police Department didn’t go there for obvious reasons.  They are protecting a fellow police officer.

 

Sprague closes the telephone interview with the standard comment about if she knew of anyone else who had any concerns to let him know.  Of course, Sprague never interviewed Bill beyond the first report of suspicious death and the Sayreville Police Department never interviewed Carolyn Ausley regarding the suspicious death of her sister.  Why is that?  Carolyn made repeated attempts to contact the Prosecutor, the Sayreville Police Department, and the Medical Examiner’s Office to discuss Joyce’s suspicious death investigation, and was available via telephone, cell phone, email, the United States Postal Service, and in person.  None of the aforementioned public servants responded to her numerous communications.

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF JOYCE’S DAUGHTER

MIRANDA STATEMENT

December 27, 2005

( See 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 )

 

This is an analysis of Joyce’s daughter’s Miranda interview.  To understand this analysis, it is necessary to read the Miranda interview first.  The Miranda interview of Joyce’s daughter may be found at ( See 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218 ).

 

On December 27, 2005, Joyce’s daughter provided a voluntary (Miranda) statement at the request of the Sayreville Police Department.  It is interesting to note that Bill Strouse accused the alleged murderer of the suspicious death of Joyce, and he is not requested to provide a voluntary (Miranda) statement.  The alleged murderer is never Mirandized.  Joyce’s daughter was not accused of anything, yet the Sayreville Police Department seeks a statement from her.  Is this the blue wall at work?  The statement is taken by Det. Sgt. Jeffrey Sprague and Det Amy Noble, of the Sayreville Police Department Narcotics Bureau.  It is interesting to note that most of Sprague’s questions to Joyce’s daughter are leading questions, in the legal sense of the word.  Is this normal questioning technique?  We presume it helps the person giving the answers give the hoped for answers.  In this case, that is what worked.

 

The very first question asked of Joyce’s daughter is in “error”.  The sole reason the daughter is there, and the sole reason that Sprague and Noble are asking the questions is because of a report of a suspicious death, a murder, alleging that Joyce’s negligent caregiver murdered Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  This is not/not about a “hospice death” investigation, it is supposed to be about a “hospice death/suspicious death” investigation.  This is deliberate, knowing and purposeful on the part of the Sayreville Police Department.  Remember that these people are skilled at manipulating interviews.

 

Well into the questioning Sprague inquires of the daughter how much time Joyce had left.  She never answers here.  In February 2005, Joyce was given 8 months to live; she lived 10 months.  In September 2005, Joyce was given another 6 months to live by her primary care physician ( See 24 ).  Sprague never follows up as to how much time Joyce had to live.

 

Sprague asks the daughter if she left her employment to care for Joyce, and she answers yes.  Sprague then asks the daughter if the caregiver left his employment “during this time” and she answers yes.  She lied.  The caregiver was not employed for any length of time during this period because he could not hold a job.  That would have been easy enough for Sprague to verify—he did not.  The daughter lied.

 

Sprague inquires if the daughter was at Joyce’s place of death on the evening of her death.  The daughter answers yes.  However, it is important to note that she was not at the place of Joyce’s death at the time of Joyce’s death.  Both she and the caregiver told Bill that the caregiver sent her to the pharmacy to pick up more pain medication for Joyce, and that the caregiver was alone in the house with Joyce at the time.  So the caregiver had an opportunity to put a pillow over Joyce’s face and slowly smother her to death.  In her very weakened condition, Joyce would have been unable to struggle.  And it is highly probable and possible there would have been no signs of petechial hemorrhaging.  Of course, had the Sayreville Police Department completed a crime scene investigation, this is one of the things they surely would have explored.  Their intent is pretty clear.

 

MORE LIES AND LEADING QUESTIONS

 

In response to another leading question by Sprague, Joyce’s daughter agrees that the Sayreville Police arrived at the same time as the hospice (nurse Dawn Malakuskie).  That would place the Sayreville Police, Officer J. Sztukowski and Dawn Malakuskie, of Hospice, at the residence of Joyce at 18:26:27, according to the Sayreville Police Department Report of Investigation.  Sprague does not ask the daughter why the caregiver or she waited over an hour to contact the police or hospice following Joyce’s death. 

 

Something is amiss here time-wise.  The Sayreville Police Department report of investigation indicates that Malakuskie pronounced Joyce dead at 1813, and she suggested that Joyce actually died, she believed, at 1700—which is what the caregiver reported ( See 188, 189, 190, 191 ).  This would mean that Malakuskie arrived before the police did.  Which is it?  So is the daughter telling the truth, or lying?  Which is it, Sayreville Police Department?  The more confusion the better.  Apparently Sprague and the daughter have had a prior conversation regarding this subject referencing one of their earlier interviews of record.

 

On the bottom of page 6 of the Miranda statement, out of the blue, Sprague inquires about phone calls from Bill and Carolyn.  What is Sprague setting the stage for?  The daughter indicates that there were six calls from Carolyn and two from Bill.  She focuses on the calls regarding non-health care subjects.  Sprague entertains this line again and continues with his staged questions to discredit Bill and Carolyn and provide validation to the daughter’s and caregiver’s efforts.  Both Carolyn and Bill had numerous questions about Joyce’s significant weight loss and diet and suggestions on how to improve her diet and give her strength, but Sprague avoids asking the daughter questions along those lines—they might lead to comments from her requiring Sprague to investigate the caregiver’s and Joyce’s daughter’s participation in Joyce’s suspicious death.

 

Sprague pursues Joyce’s daughter’s efforts to separate herself from Bill and Carolyn, as if on cue.  Sprague makes a point to enable her to accuse Bill and Carolyn of being “cold towards her mother.” ( See 216 )  She forgot that Bill and Carolyn are Joyce’s sister and brother and had every right to inquire about Joyce’s care.  The daughter had, and has, no idea what discussions or arrangements Joyce had made with either Bill or Carolyn regarding Joyce’s life or death.  Siblings communicate quite differently than mothers and daughters.  Had Sprague interviewed Bill or Carolyn the information received from them would have put an entirely different flavor on the interview.  Of course, Sprague’s intent is to protect the caregiver and discredit Bill and Carolyn, and he succeeded.  Sprague continues to avoid discussions regarding the main subject of the investigation, which is supposed to be a suspicious death.

 

Sprague then addressed the email her half-sister sent to Carolyn Ausley documenting the caregiver abusing Joyce and the out of state daughter a few years earlier ( See 109 ). This same email from the out of state daughter testifies that the NJ daughter was aware of the abuse at the time it was going on.  However, Sprague conveniently frames the question so that the NJ daughter can deny the report from the out of state daughter.  The out of state daughter never accused the caregiver of sexual abuse.  She only accused him of physical, mental and emotional abuse.  In responding to Sprague’s question, the NJ daughter denies any knowledge of “physical or sexual abuse” to her, her half-sister, or Joyce.  This of course, is a lie on her part.  The NJ daughter also denies any knowledge of accusations (i.e., her half-sister’s August 2, 2005, email) made against the negligent caregiver.  Another lie.  It is also interesting to note that the NJ daughter asks the question, regarding sexual abuse, if Sprague means the caregiver.  She asks that question as if there may have been abuse by someone else.  Sprague does not pick up on that lead.  At this point, why doesn’t Sprague professionally confront her regarding the contents of her sister’s email.  Clearly, Sprague is aware that she was either lying then, or lying now.  But Sprague intentionally lets it go.  To go there would be an indictment of the caregiver.

 

Sprague asks the all-encompassing question regarding anything else to her knowledge that comes to mind about the caregiver’s involvement in Joyce’s death.  She responds “no” and that “cancer killed” her mother.  Of course, it is confirmed that cancer did not kill Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  The cause of death of Joyce will never be known beyond a reasonable doubt because the Sayreville Police Department permitted the Medical Examiner’s Office to release Joyce’s body for immediate cremation to the caregiver ( See 37 ), who was alleged to have caused her suspicious death.  And the caregiver had her immediately cremated. ( See 37 )  Further, Joyce’s daughter had previously shared with Carolyn, her knowledge of issues with the caregiver, including apparently a lawsuit filed against him by a fellow police officer whom the caregiver assaulted.

 

Sprague continues the leading questions regarding allegations made by Bill, Carolyn and the out of state daughter.  Joyce’s daughter responds, “I wasn’t aware ‘my sister’.”  Sprague corrects himself, “Oh not, I’m sorry.  I wanna be correct on that.  Not ‘your half-sister’. Caroline Ausley and Bill Strauss.”  ( See 217 ) Of course Sprague is incorrect.  In fact, the out of state daughter made serious allegations against the caregiver in her August 2, 2005, email to Carolyn Ausley and the NJ daughter knew it and Sprague knew it.  He intentionally avoids going down that road.  So what is going on here with Sprague?  Did the lines rehearsed suddenly head towards a truthful statement?  Sprague must discount that email, however, or else he will have to interview the caregiver and lay a foundation for motive to harm Joyce. 

 

In response to Sprague’s question, the NJ daughter limits her comment to an understanding that only a complaint of overmedication was made.  This, too, is a lie from her.  One of Bill’s and Carolyn’s persistent topics of discussion, including sending written material and computer website addresses, was the lack of proper diet and hydration being provided to Joyce, in addition to overmedication. 

 

Here is another leading and staged question from Sprague regarding how soon Joyce would pass.  Exactly 30 days prior to Joyce’s suspicious death, the NJ daughter was told by Joyce’s doctor, in certifying her for hospice care on September 29, 2005, that Joyce had six months to live if the cancer took its course.  Six months from September 29th is March 29, 2006.  So first, she was told that Joyce had perhaps up to six months to live from a medical doctor, who had been treating Joyce for years.  Now along comes a hospice nurse who knows Joyce less than a month and tells her Joyce will be around ”just a matter of days.”  Who is the doctor and who does the Sayreville Police Department believe?

 

Joyce’s imminent death is kept quiet by her daughter and the caregiver.  She never tells Bill or Carolyn that their sister has only a matter of days to live, thus denying them of a final moment with her.  Seems strange.  Sprague does not indicate when this conversation took place.  What is known, according to the daughter, is that she stated that Joyce would begin 24-hour nursing care on October 30, 2005—the day after she died.  If the caregiver was going to act, he had to make it happen on the 29th of October, just a matter of days from when the daughter had the conversation with Malakuskie of hospice care.  Coincidence?  If Sprague asks too many questions, he may have to pursue the caregiver to a place he can no longer protect him.

 

Sprague asks her a question regarding any concerns about things being done illegally or improper and she responds “no”.  She is afraid of the caregiver, as previously related by Carolyn; she is not going to say anything to anger the alleged murderer.  What would she know about anything being done illegally or improper? What is the point of this question except to show further unfounded support for the alleged murderer?  She was not privy to estate issues, though she was aware of the terrible financial situation her mother and the caregiver were in.  Sprague does not pursue that line, because it could go to motive to kill Joyce.  She was the dutiful daughter trying to help her mother. 

 

The daughter shared with Carolyn that she feared if she stepped out of line that the caregiver would not let her see her mother.  Joyce had previously given her daughter a key to the house in case the caregiver refused the daughter entry to visit her mother.  The caregiver  made it clear that as the caregiver, and by written designation from Joyce ( See 312, 314, 316 ), he was solely responsible for Joyce’s care through the end of Joyce’s life.  Joyce’s end of life statement made it clear, however, that she was to be provided appropriate care—and starving and dehydrating her, no less over-medicating her or suffocating her is not considered appropriate care.  ( See 316 ) The daughter lies when she says that Joyce had the “best care.”  There was so much more that could have been done had the plan been for Joyce to live.  However, as stated by the negligent caregiver, “The plan for Joyce is to die.”

 

Sprague asks the daughter one of the last questions in reference to the caregiver.  The daughter has to necessarily answer it to protect herself as much as the caregiver.  Sprague inquires of the daughter, “’The caregiver, the alleged murderer’, ever did anything to bring on her death?”  The daughter’s response is, “No, I would have reported it.”  This of course is a lie.  If she had failed to report it, she’d be in big trouble now.  Both Bill and Carolyn know that the daughter is afraid for her life from the caregiver, despite what she says to the Sayreville Police Department.  And she knows that her half-sister is afraid for her life going against the caregiver, as clearly stated in her August 2, 2005, email.  The Sayreville Police Department also knows of the out of state daughter’s fear of her life regarding going against the alleged murderer, but they conveniently ignore it.  It should be noted that the out of state daughter was so afraid of being questioned once court papers were filed by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse, that she went into hiding, and Carolyn and Bill had to hire a private detective to track her down and serve her legal papers.  What was the out of state daughter afraid of?

 

This sworn statement from the NJ daughter is unfortunate in several ways.  First, it is clear that the Sayreville Police Department has slanted the investigation towards discrediting Bill and Carolyn, as they have done throughout the investigation.  The Sayreville Police Department only pursues a line of leading questions that support the daughter and the caregiver in terms of outcome.  Though a suspicious death investigation, the Sayreville Police Department consistently refer to it as a hospice death and not even “investigation”.  Questions that reasonable investigators would ask are not asked because the answers would necessarily lead them to have to Mirandize the alleged murderer, which they did not want to do, which is their intent.  Even though the alleged murderer was accused by Bill and Carolyn of murdering Joyce, Sprague told Bill that the caregiver and alleged murderer was not the “target or suspect” of the investigation.  How is that possible?

 

Regarding these reports, pay attention for a moment to the dates of the interviews of the supplemental investigation reports.  The first report of a suspicious death is taken on October 29, 2005; the second report is on October 30, 2005; the third interview and report is December 22, 2005; there are two interviews and reports on December 27, 2005, plus the Miranda interview of the NJ daughter; and finally, the last interview and report on January 6, 2006.  There is no interview or Miranda statement of the alleged murderer, nor of Bill Strouse, nor of Carolyn Ausley, nor of Dr. DiCarlo, nor of any of Joyce’s doctors.  What happened to the investigation of a suspicious death?  For approximately 53 days nothing was done by public servants regarding the investigation, between October 30 – December 22, 2005.  All this time both Carolyn and Bill had been calling and writing and emailing the Sayreville Police Department, the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Governor’s Office in an effort to have the suspicious death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, investigated.  We still await that suspicious death investigation and the criminal investigation of the identified public servants, no less the alleged murderer of our sister, Joyce.

 

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY

 

Please note that the individuals mentioned herein are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The trick is to get them into a court of law.  In New Jersey a citizen can make a criminal complaint, as we have, against a public servant.  The complaint has to be made to a prosecutor who will then make a decision regarding the conduct of a criminal investigation.  To date, the prosecutor in Middlesex County, the Honorable Bruce Kaplan, and the prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, both concluded, despite the direct and relevant evidence to the contrary, including what you have read herein, is insufficient to charge these individuals with criminal violations.  The interesting thing about all of this, is that they are part and parcel to the cover-up and criminal complaints and should not in any way be involved in making any conclusions regarding what is criminal and what is not.

 

  

MATERIALITY

 

Though they knew a suspicious death had been reported, and though they reported a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner and the Prosecutor, the Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely did not conduct a crime scene investigation and suspicious death investigation in accordance with generally accepted investigative protocols.  As a result of deliberately not establishing a crime scene, any evidence left at the scene by the alleged murderer disappeared; this was their intent.  The Sayreville Police Department failed to ensure that the primary evidence in the case, the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, was protected, when they failed to ensure the Medical Examiner’s Office took immediate custody, leaving Joyce’s body in a private funeral home for two days.  The Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely did not interview Bill Strouse and Carolyn Ausley, the two individuals who presented the suspicious death allegation to the Sayreville Police Department. 

 

Perhaps most glaringly, the Sayreville Police Department permitted the Medical Examiner’s Office to release the body of Joyce to the negligent caregiver, the person alleged to have murdered Joyce, without complying with the NJ Medical Examiner Act requirement to conduct an autopsy and determine the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  This was intentional on their part as they all knew if the body was cremated, there could be no subsequent autopsy.  In addition to investigative protocol, numerous laws were broken by the Sayreville Police Department, including but not limited to hindering an investigation, obstruction, and perhaps even accessory after the fact.  They intended to protect the alleged murderer, a former police officer, and they succeeded.  In so doing, they protected themselves, too.

 

IRREPARABLE HARM

         

Irreparable harm befell both Bill and Carolyn because of the material deficiencies of the Sayreville Police Department.  Because of the Sayreville Police Department’s knowing and purposeful actions previously described, a murderer may be on the loose.  Bill and Carolyn will never have closure as they will never know the cause of their sister’s death beyond a reasonable doubt, thanks to the Sayreville Police Department’s knowing and purposeful desire to protect a former police officer. Bill and Carolyn spent two years in the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, at considerable personal expense, to obtain custody of Joyce’s specimens for private and independent testing.  As noted in the New Jersey Superior Court, the only one who objected to the release of the specimens was the negligent caregiver and alleged murderer, a former police officer. 

 

RETRACTION

 

At no time has the Sayreville Police Department retracted, or attempted to retract any information contained in the direct evidence reports provided to Bill or Carolyn.  The Sayreville Police Department has gone on record as saying they have divulged full and complete reports of investigation to Bill and Carolyn.

 

PLEASE NOTE THAT N.J. DEP ATTNY GENERAL DENISE HOLLINGSWORTH REVIEWED ALL OF THIS DIRECT AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF IT HAD ANY MERIT, CRIMINAL OR OTHERWISE.

 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

This concludes Chapter II.  Please check back again in about 30 days for Chapter III, describing another aspect of a corrupt New Jersey law enforcement system.

 

To Make a Comment to this Chapter.  Please click on the Comment word at the bottom.  The “log-in” in at the top is for the site administrator.  After you hit comment the site will refresh and take you back to the beginning of the Chapter.  Make your way back to the bottom of the page (scroll, control end, page down) and you will see your opportunity to enter your comment.  Do not worry if you do not immediately see your comment.  To access the LINKS to the direct and relevant evidence, click on the numbers or letters in parenthesis that are underlined in blue.

 

Because of inappropriate postings, we have taken the liberty to screen all postings for appropriateness prior to posting.  Thanks for your understanding.  Though your email address is requested, it will not/not appear as part of your comment.  You may use just your first name if you like.  Thanks for taking the time to read this and we hope to see your comments.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »