INTRODUCTION:

• The log-in at the top is for the site administrator.
• 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.

UPDATES: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BODY OF INFORMATION IS DOWN BELOW THE 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.

January 5, 2014:  We are still waiting to hear from the Newark FBI Field Office.  Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit in the Washington, DC, Field Office, forwarded our communication, including about 100 pages of evidence, to the FBI Field Office in Newark.

September 5, 2013:  The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.

Aug 4, 2011:  Since Judge Lawson (Monmouth Vicinage) refused, despite instructions from Middlesex Vicinage, to allow submission of evidence during the probable cause hearing (stating on the record that it was a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing), we submitted a single complaint against Dr. DiCarlo for falsifying government records.  Ignoring relevant evidence submitted with the citizens criminal complaint, Judge Lawson knowingly and purposely used false affirmations made by Dr. DiCarlo to support his intended outcome, which was to exonerate DiCarlo.  Judge Lawson disregarded material evidence, including an admission by Dr. DiCarlo that he violated the law by not conducting an autopsy, and thus falsified Joyce’s certificate of death.  Judge Lawson concluded that we had no standing to file an appeal in this matter.  This continues to show his ignorance of the law and his intent to protect Raymond J. Sauter, and all the others, from being investigated for circumstances surrounding Joyce’s suspicious death, and the subsequent cover-up.  At the least, this shows a Pattern of Official Misconduct on Judge Lawson’s part.

This chapter is about corruption in the N.J. Courts.  It is also about a biased and prejudiced Probable Cause Hearing held on January 11, 2011, in Monmouth County (Freehold) Vicinage, by the Hon Lawrence M. Lawson, A.J.S.C. (Assignment Judge Superior Court).  Governor Chris Christie is aware of this case.

According to the Rules of the Court, and in concert with a statement from the Court, this Probable Cause Hearing was open to the public.

There are three parts to this chapter.  Part I is the Official Court Transcript available to the public.  Part II is the Official Opinion of the Court (Judge Lawrence M. Lawson), also available to the public.  Part III, immediately below, is Strouse’s response to the Court’s biased and prejudiced Opinion.

 PART I

 Click on the following link to review the Official Transcript of the Probable Cause Hearing – Court Transcript 01.11.2011.

 PART II

 Click on the following link to review the Official Transcript of the Courts Opinion – Court Opinion.

 PART III

 The following narrative is Strouse’s Official Response to the Courts Opinion.  The “attachments” mentioned in the narrative are not included herein.

Strouse Response to the

Opinion of

Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, A.J.S.C.,

Dated January 20, 2011

This hearing comes to Monmouth County Superior Court following a Change of Venue hearing in Middlesex County Superior Court on October 5, 2010. This Court has once again changed the “name” from State v Raymond J. Sauter et al to State v Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D. et al.  For whatever reason, it appears the Courts do not want the name of Raymond J. Sauter prominent on these documents.  This is a murder case charging Sauter with the suspicious death of his wife, who was my sister, and the subsequent cover-up by numerous public servants from Middlesex County and the Attorney General’s Office.  This Court refused to permit Strouse to enter any evidence into the record and found no probable cause for all 61 criminal complaints “pursuant to R. 3:3-2”, a Rule of the Court that was deleted effective January 1, 1995. 

Comments to Judge Lawson’s Cover Letter:

Judge Lawson has the matter incorrectly stated, that is to say, he neglects to state it at all (attachment 1).  In the audio CD-R (two disks), Judge Lawson refers to the case as “The State of New Jersey v. Frederick J. DiCarlo”, which is likewise incorrect.  Based on previous Middlesex County Court’s writings, the case should be stated, for consistency’s sake, “The State of New Jersey v. Raymond J. Sauter et al” (attachment 2).  Previously, Judge Lawson had referred to this case as the “State of New Jersey v. Strouse (attachment 3), also in error, as he acknowledged on January 11, 2011.  This continues the well-established pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment on the part of the Courts against Strouse.

Judge Lawson incorrectly refers to an action that did not occur on January 11, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County Court House, to wit, “Re:  Probable Cause Hearings”  (attachment 1).  Judge Lawson refused to accept evidence brought specifically for the Court’s use and refused to permit William H. Strouse, the Complainant (or Carolyn Ausley, sibling), to use the evidence to present and support his Citizen Complaints for Probable Cause (attachment 4).  Strouse was previously informed by other Courts that he would be expected to present his evidence at the hearing, and indeed, other courts clearly stated that all necessary information was included with the Complaints.    In fact, Strouse was told, regarding providing evidence, “In response to your letter dated December 16, 2009, as explained in our phone conversation the face of the complaint has limited space so you are asked to condense your statement as much as possible.  If you feel you need to attach an additional sheet for the Judge to review you may do that but please be advised it is impossible to include all of that statement of (sic) the face of the original complaint.”  Nearly two hours were spent on hearing “xxx-313) (charge against Frederick J. DiCarlo?), though the topic was mostly about Raymond J. Sauter.  Through the relationship among all 61 complaints, a number of other defendants were discussed, but none of their specific complaints were addressed.  Sixty other complaints were not heard before Judge Lawson ended what he referred to as the “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.” 

Judge Lawson sent a copy of the Court’s opinion to two individuals as (cc) unknown to Strouse, by name, address, and or purpose: 1) James P. Nolan, Jr. Esquire, and 2) Benjamin D. Leibowitz, Esquire.  Surely if these two individuals, whomever they are or represent, can know the name and address of Strouse, Strouse is clearly entitled to know their full names and complete addresses, and who they represent (attachment 1).

Pages 1-5 of Judge Lawson’s Opinion:

Since Strouse was refused copies of the “Summons” documents by the Sayreville Municipal Court (Ms. Lesinski) on June 2, 2010, at signing, Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the accuracy of the Plaintiffs’ names vis-à-vis the Summons Nos. contained in pages 1-5 of the Opinion. 

Strouse notes, however, that there remain four Citizen Complaints against Raymond J. Sauter that have yet to be assigned “Summons Nos.”, and despite repeated requests to the various Courts, no Court has yet provided Strouse a response as to the status of those four complaints (attachment 5). 

Additionally, as noted by Judge Lawson, a complaint filed by another citizen was incorrectly included in the complaints filed by Strouse, suggesting a continuing problem with frivolous conduct and harassment on the part of the various Courts (attachment 6).

The Court is in error by declaring that this was a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.” and prohibiting Strouse from presenting his evidence in support of his 61 criminal complaints.  In so declaring, the Court violated Strouse’s due process.  Based on the Rules of the Court cited by Judge Lawson, there is no such thing as a “non-evidentiary” probable cause hearing. The words “non-evidentiary” are not found in the Rules.  Additionally, the Rule cited by Judge Lawson upon which he found no probable cause was deleted effective January 1, 1995 (Rule 3:3-2).  As such, the Court’s finding of no probable cause must be vacated.

I.          STATEMENT OF FACTS (these comments by Strouse in direct response to the Court)

            Following an ORDER by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Strouse located the trial court in Sayreville that would accept his criminal complaints.  Strouse filed 61 criminal complaints against 12 public servants and three others, for various crimes, including murder, in February 2010.  In late May 2010, Strouse was called by the Sayreville Municipal Court announcing that the 61 criminal complaints were ready to be signed; June 2, 2010 was the date of signing.  There were four complaints[1] against Raymond J. Sauter that Ms. Lesinski said the Court would have to make a decision on, and that that would happen in time.  Ms. Lesinski withheld those four complaints from signature, and to this day, Strouse awaits the Court’s decision on those four Complaints (attachment 5). 

Page 6:

Lines 13-19:  The Court states “This matter comes before the Court for a probable cause determination on the citizen Complaints filed by William H. Strouse (hereinafter, “Mr. Strouse”) against multiple defendants in connection with the death and suspicious death investigation of Mr. Strouse’s sister, Joyce Sauter (hereinafter, “Mrs. Sauter”). The Court’s statement should read: “This matter comes before….in connection with the SUSPICIOUS death and suspicious death investigation….” (attachments 7, 8, and 20).

Reporting a death is everyone’s responsibility, including Strouse’s and Ausley’s.  The State Medical Examiner Act, 52:17B-89. Report of death; violation; provides the basis upon which Strouse and Ausley have an obligation and the authority to report a “suspicious death”:

Any person who may become aware of any death by criminal

violence or by accident or suicide or in any suspicious or unusual

manner, shall report such death to the office of the county medical

examiner, the office of the State Medical Examiner, or the 

police of the municipality in which such person died. (emphasis added)

Any person who shall willfully neglect or refuse to report such

death, or who, without an order from the office of county medical

examiner or the office of the State Medical Examiner, shall

willfully touch, remove or disturb the body of any such person, or

touch, remove or disturb the clothing upon or near such body,

is a disorderly person.

Lines 19-20:  The Court makes reference to “trial briefs”.  Strouse is not aware of “the trial briefs” read by the Court.  There has been no trial regarding the 61 criminal complaints.  Such information was unknown to Strouse and to his knowledge was not discussed on January 11, 2011, as Judge Lawson refused to permit Strouse to present any evidence, though the Court acknowledged Strouse brought 3 boxes for the court to keep and review.

Page 6:

I.          STATEMENT OF FACTS

            (no comments)

Page 7:

Lines 1-2:  Judge Lawson was not privy to any “facts” relating to any of the 61 Citizen Complaints filed by Strouse, other than what is mentioned in Strouse’s 61 criminal complaints.  As such, Strouse is confused as to how the Court plans to ”individually provide the facts underlying the Complaints against each individual.” The only facts Judge Lawson had were the 61 Criminal Complaints signed by Strouse on June 2, 2010, at the Sayreville Municipal Court. Judge Lawson refused to permit Strouse to “provide the facts underlying the Complaints against each individual.”  Judge Lawson told Strouse that the hearing was not “an evidentiary probable cause hearing” and thus Strouse was not permitted to present any evidence in support of his statements (attachment 4).

Lines 4 & 5:  Mrs. Sauter had a State of New Jersey end of life agreement in effect at the time of her death (attachment 9), which appointed Raymond J. Sauter as primarily responsible for Mrs. Sauter’s physical and mental health needs.  At one point in the hearing, Judge Lawson suggested that because of the age of the document, the document might not be valid.  Such pondering by the Court seems to weigh in on the side of the defendant.  The end of life agreement was current according to Deby Bath, Mrs. Sauter’s daughter. The Court suggests that Mr. and Mrs. Sauter may have had a secret agreement not known to anyone else, different from the written agreement, alleviating Mr. Sauter from responsibility to care for Mrs. Sauter (attachment 4 and attachment 9); this suggestion has no basis in fact.  Strouse wonders why the Court is defending the defendant.  The Court also opined that at what point would Mr. Sauter be able to make the decision to end his wife’s life (attachment 4), a question not pertinent to this discussion, since Mrs. Sauter’s end of life agreement was still valid.  Mrs. Sauter’s directive dictated the terms of her living and dying and Sauter was compelled to follow those terms; he did not.  The Court heard testimony from Strouse that Sauter stated, while Mrs. Sauter was still living, “The plan for Joyce is to die.” Sauter carried out the plan.

Lines 6 & 7:  Judge Lawson does not provide the full quote, which should read, “Based on my clinical expertise and in consultation with the Central New Jersey hospice Interdisciplinary Team, I certify that the above named patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less if the illness runs its course.” (attachment 8).  The key words omitted by the Court are “…if the illness runs its course.”  Mrs. Sauter had already beaten the first estimate of her demise, given in January 2005, of eight months.

            Raymond J. Sauter

Lines 9-25: One criminal complaint was discussed at the hearing on January 11, 2011; the complaint discussed was Murder, as presented by Judge Lawson (attachment 4). It is completely unclear from Judge Lawson’s Opinion exactly what Citizen Complaints/Criminal Complaints regarding Sauter he is making reference to herein., though we will presume its murder.  The Court states in the audio CD that the complaint discussed focused on Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County.

Ausley and Strouse also discussed the subject of starvation and dehydration of Mrs. Sauter with her daughter, Deby Bath.  Ms. Bath made it clear that she had no say in the matter, and in her response to a motion in Superior Court in Middlesex County, made it clear to Judge Travis Francis that Mr. Sauter was solely responsible for her mother’s care (attachment 10).

Starving or dehydrating someone to death is against the law.  Special diets exist for people with special medical problems, cancer included.  Inquiry of Sauter was made regarding what diet Mrs. Sauter was placed on following multiple discharges from the hospital or visits to her doctors; Sauter had no response.  Sauter noted in the Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Report (attachment 11) that at one point in time he was able to increase Mrs. Sauter’s weight from 91 pounds to 112 pounds, clearly demonstrating that he was aware of the significance of weight loss and weight gain, and that he had been successful at helping Mrs. Sauter gain considerable weight when Sauter made the effort, demonstrating that he had the knowledge, ability and intent.

At one point, in the Sayreville Police Department report, Sauter reported that he and his step-daughter, Deby Bath, fed Mrs. Sauter with an “eye dropper.” (attachment 11).  Sauter was also referred to the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, in addition to local dietitians, to develop a diet suitable for someone in Mrs. Sauter’s condition. Sauter refused.  Again, had the Court permitted Strouse, evidence would have been presented in support of his statements.  Though Mrs. Sauter’s end of life agreement provided for her to be fed and hydrated through normal means, the Court makes a futile effort (attachment 4) to try to suggest that the feeding and hydrating efforts discussed by Strouse and Ausley amount simply to a preference by Strouse and Ausley that was different from Mr. Sauter—a suggestion not based on anything but conjecture on the Court’s part.  And why is the Court defending the defendant’s actions?

Regarding a “pain management regiment” (sic) mentioned by Judge Lawson (line 13), Sauter had none, and was not following one provided for Joyce upon her hospital discharges.  Though Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., the Middlesex County Medical Examiner, who failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy in accordance with N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, and the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, stated in his External Examination Report that Mrs. Sauter was on morphine and fentanyl (attachment 8).  Mr. Sauter showed Strouse a yellow legal-sized lined paper wherein he commented that without that sheet of paper he would not be able to remember what medications to give Mrs. Sauter, the amounts, and the times.  The question remains why Mr. Sauter did not follow the medication management program provided by Mrs. Sauter’s physicians. It also remains unclear why Mr. Sauter did not follow the diets proscribed by the hospital physicians upon her discharge from treatment. It is clear that Mr. Sauter had other intentions in mind and a more sinister outcome intended.  And the fact that Mrs. Sauter was not oriented to time, place, and person, and was hallucinating, further supported the need for a pain management program; Mrs. Sauter was clearly being over-medicated.    Again, Judge Lawson refused to let Strouse provide evidence in support of his comments.  Remember that Sauter stated that “The plan for Joyce is to die.”

The Court, throughout its opinion on Page 7 for example, continues to use words such as “alleges” and “claims”.  For example, line 13 and line 16 “Mr. Strouse alleges…” and line 20 Mr. Strouse claims ….”  The Court also uses Mr. Strouse’s citizen complaints content as the basis for presenting its “facts”, yet the Court does not give any credibility to Mr. Strouse’s allegations and claims, a seeming double-standard use of “facts”.  It is testimony—a fact—that Ms. Bath stated that Mr. Sauter was alone in the house at the time of Mrs. Sauter’s death.  It is also a fact that Sauter waited an hour and twenty-two minutes before calling the police and an hour and thirteen minutes before calling a hospice nurse.  Regarding the latter, the Court was invited to look at the Sayreville Police Incident Report (attachment 12) that documented that specific information—but theCourt did not want to confirm the facts that did not support the outcome the Court was seeking at this hearing.

Had the Court permitted Mr. Strouse to present his facts to the Court, the Court would not only have had the actual facts in hand, but would also be able to state with certainty that Mr. Strouse’s allegations and claims were based on evidence proving that the crimes were  committed beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least to the point of passing the reasonable person test, necessary for referral to a Probable Cause hearing by a prosecutor and a grand jury.

Page 8:

Lines 1-11: Regarding the information stated by Judge Lawson in lines 1-11, where is Judge Lawson obtaining his “facts” from?  Is it possible he is obtaining his facts from the information contained in the Citizen Complaints filed by Strouse?  Where else would the Court obtain this information from?  Why is it that some of the facts are “alleged by Strouse” or “claimed by Strouse”, and then the Court reports other information from the Citizen Complaints as if they were facts, the very facts reported by Strouse?  Some “facts” fit the Court’s intent and some facts seemingly do not.

Lines 1-3:  Setting the Court’s record straight.  Strouse was notified by Bath almost three hours after Joyce’s reported death.  When Strouse asked Bath why she waited three hours to tell him that his sister had died, Bath had no answer.  No one ever questioned either Bath or Sauter why they waited one hour and twenty-two minutes before they called police following Mrs. Sauter’s death, nor one hour and thirteen minutes before they called hospice.  The reason, of course, was to make sure Mrs. Sauter was dead, as Mr. Sauter was alone in the house with her at the time of her death (said Sauter and Bath), and full-time (24/7) nursing care was to begin the very next day. 

Though Eric M. Aronowitz, the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, falsely swore in Superior Court Middlesex County that Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death was never reported as suspicious (attachment 13), a suspicious death report was taken and a suspicious death “investigation” was begun by the Sayreville Police Department, as reported by Lt. Brennan and Det Sprague; these two also reported (attachment 7) a suspicious death to the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office—specifically Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D.  In his External Examination Report (attachment 8), the same one Judge Lawson refused to permit Strouse to present into evidence at the probable cause hearing, Dr. DiCarlo directs that the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office must conduct the necessary suspicious death investigations.  Both the N.J.A.C. (13:49-5.1 Death investigations, conduct) and the Medical Examiner Act (52:17B-87 Notification of county medical examiner and prosecutor) make reference to the County Prosecutor’s Office being involved early on in the investigation of a suspicious death. As noted in the criminal complaints, Kaplan and Lamb knowingly and purposely refused to participate in the mandatory suspicious death investigation.  It is also noted that in her investigation Dep Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth defended Kaplan and Lamb in stating that they waited over 80 days before they decided not to conduct the mandatory investigation (attachments 15 and 16).  What happens to the crime scene and the evidence over 80 days? 

Dr. DiCarlo authored his final (External Examination) report on January 27, 2006, which is also the date he falsified Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death (attachment 17 and attachment 21), evidence that Judge Lawson would  not permit Strouse to present to the Court.  It should be noted that Dr. DiCarlo violated a number of laws and failed to conduct proper forensic practice[2], evidence that Strouse would have presented to the Court had the Court permitted and evidence that would have supported the criminal complaints filed against DiCarlo and all the other public servants.

Herein lies the beginning of the conspiracy.  As noted by Judge Lawson (where did he get his information from?), Dr. DiCarlo removed four specimens from Mrs. Sauter’s body as part of his External Examination (attachment 8). However, DiCarlo only requested that two of the four specimens be analyzed:  blood and urine.  The two specimens that could have exonerated Sauter from being charged with starvation,  dehydration, over medication, and suffocation (all the criminal complaints) were knowingly and purposely not tested.  This is evidence that Strouse would have presented in Court, had Judge Lawson so permitted.   Why wouldn’t DiCarlo test the two specimens that could exonerate Sauter?  What was DiCarlo afraid he would find?

Because a suspicious death was reported to and was being investigated by Dr. DiCarlo (and the Sayreville Police Department), Dr. DiCarlo was compelled to conduct a mandatory autopsy per N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, 13:49-1.1 Mandatory Autopsies (a) and knowingly and purposely did not.  The N.J.A.C., Title 13 Law and Public Safety, Chapter 49. State Medical Examiner, (13:49-1.5 Medical Examiner Autopsies) defines the least intrusive autopsy as follows:

(d) Except as provided in (c) above, the autopsy standard for apparent

homicides, suicides, suspicious death, and deaths from no visible

anatomic cause shall include a complete inspection, removal and

dissection of the cranial compartment and contents, the neck viscera

and tongue, the thoracic, abdominal and pelvic compartments and

viscera, and any additional dissections which may be indicated by the

circumstances of the death….”

Dr. DiCarlo notes on the initial certificate of death for Mrs. Sauter that he did not conduct an autopsy (attachment 21) ; he also acknowledges in a letter to Carolyn Ausley (Mrs. Sauter’s sister), that he did not conduct the mandatory autopsy (attachment 22), in violation of State law.  At another time he swears, in Superior Court, Middlesex County, through Eric M. Aronowitz, that he did conduct an autopsy (attachments 17 and 23).  DiCarlo then falsely certified on a change to Mrs. Sauter’s certificate of death that, based on an autopsy that was never conducted, that Mrs. Sauter died a natural death from cancer (attachment 17).  Nowhere in his External Examination Report does DiCarlo address cancer as the cause of death.  Further, once DiCarlo completed his External Examination, he immediately released Mrs. Sauter’s body (on November 1, 2005) to the person alleged to have murdered her—Sauter, in violation of common sense and N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, 13:49-5.1 Death Investigations:

The duty medical examiner shall take complete charge of every body whose

death is reported to the office, and shall not release it to the next of kin or

authorized representative for burial or cremation until sufficient information

has been accumulated, proper specimens and evidence have been collected

as needed, and appropriate examinations have been conducted to establish

the cause and manner of death and the identity of the decedent.

As can be seen from Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination Report, his Final Report was dated January 27, 2006, which is the date he falsely changed Mrs. Sauter’s certificate of death to reflect cancer as the cause of death (attachments 17 and 21).  In order to prove the manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt in a suspicious death case, an autopsy is mandatory.

Lines 11-19:  Where is Judge Lawson obtaining his facts from?  According to the Court, Strouse’s comments are allegations and claims, which the Court refuses to believe, or refuses to permit Strouse to provide the evidence in support of his statement, yet the Court somehow presents all this other information as fact.  Is this prejudice or bias?

Remember that DiCarlo was mandated by law to conduct an autopsy and not just an External Examination.  In spite of the fact that DiCarlo had the specimens over a year while the Court case moved along, and could have tested the very specimens he retained but had not tested, he could have tested them and avoided the subsequent legal battle for Mrs. Sauter’s specimens.  Additionally, as Natarajan, DiCarlo, and Falzon knew, the Medical Examiner’s Office also could have sent the specimens to another State Toxicology Lab that was properly certified, in accordance with New Jersey law; they chose not to (New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiner, Statutes and Regulations, p.94, Para 45:9-42.42. c).  Why?

Lines 21-24:  It appears on the surface that the Court has chosen what facts to accept and what facts to deny; the facts presented by the Court are slanted, incomplete, and biased, so as to achieve the Court’s intended outcome of finding no probable cause.  Strouse cannot affirm or deny what Summons Nos. are applicable for Sauter, as written, since the Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons.

Page 9:

Lines 1-6:  The Citizen Complaints listed in the Courts Opinion are neither accurately nor fully representative, suggesting a continued bias on the part of the Court.  Strouse alleges that Raymond J. Sauter committed the following crimes:  (1) Conspiracy 2C:5-2.a(1) ETC. (DiCarlo, Kaplan, Lamb, Sprague, Noble); (2) Murder 2C:11-3.a (1); (3) Abandonment, Neglect of Elderly Person, Disabled Adult 2C:24-8.1 ETC.; (4) Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution 2C:29-3.b ETC.; and (5) Liability for Another’s Conduct 2C:2-6.a.b.c. ETC. (DiCarlo, Sayreville Police Department, Kaplan, and Lamb)[3].  Strouse did not/not file a criminal complaint against Raymond J. Sauter for Falsifying or Tampering with Records, contrary to N.J.S.A 2C:21-4 (a), as reported by the Court in its Opinion.  This is another example of frivolous conduct or harassment on the part of the Court.

The Court forced Strouse to make a painful effort to identify a motive for Sauter to murder Mrs. Sauter (see 2-disk CD), when the State of New Jersey does not require that the State prove motive in a murder case.[4]  In response to the Court’s numerous questions, Strouse clearly demonstrated to the Court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sauter, by his own conduct, (1) stated that “The plan for Joyce was to die”. (2) Knew that if he withheld food, the outcome was that Mrs. Sauter would die of starvation; (3) Knew that if he withheld hydration, the outcome was that Mrs. Sauter would die of dehydration, and (3) knew that if he continued to keep Mrs. Sauter heavily medicated, she would not eat or drink.  Additionally, Strouse testified that both he and Ausley specifically told Sauter and Bath that to withhold food and hydration from Mrs. Sauter would cause her death.  Sauter, as sole responsible caretaker for Mrs. Sauter, told Strouse that he (Strouse) was not a doctor and to mind his own business, specifically stating in a telephone conversation, “What is, is.  What is will be.  That is that.”  While Strouse, according to the Court, “alleged” this, and “claimed” that, and “opined” something else, the forensic evidence (attachment 20), acknowledged by the Court earlier, concluded that Mrs. Sauter was dehydrated and in a prolonged fasting or starvation condition at the time of her death.  Recall that Sauter stated that “The plan for Joyce is to die.”  Sauter was successful. 

Regarding suppression of evidence, as mentioned by the Court, when DiCarlo released Mrs. Sauter’s body to the alleged murderer on November 1, 2005 (attachments 8 and 25), prior to the return of the specimen analysis (which occurred on November 29, 2005), and prior to the completion of his investigation (which is noted by Dr. DiCarlo to be January 27, 2006), in violation of the law, Sauter had Mrs. Sauter cremated on the same day (attachment 25).  That is not an allegation, that is a fact that the Court refused to permit Strouse to enter into evidence so as to continue to benefit and protect Sauter from investigation.  As noted by the Judge Lawson, Sauter, in his response motion in Superior Court, Middlesex County, opposed release of the specimens to Ausley, and subsequently lost on appeal.  It was noted by Judge Francis’ and Judge Reisner’s Courts that Sauter had no interest in the specimens until Ausley requested release for completing testing that DiCarlo was obligated to have ordered, but knowingly and purposely chose not, in violation of the NJ State Medical Examiner Act and NJAC Title 13, Chapter 49.

Page 10:

            Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D. (Assistant Medical Examiner at the relevant time (and for the past 2 years, apparently the Medical Examiner for Monmouth County under a sharing contract with Middlesex County) (attachment 32)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The 10 Complaints against Dr. DiCarlo were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future, or the appointment of a special prosecutor.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on DiCarlo (attachment 32).  This evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Lines 1-5:  Both Lt. Brennan and Det Sprague contacted the Medical Examiner’s Office reporting a suspicious death on the night of October 29, 2005 (attachment 12).  Following that contact, Dr. DiCarlo told both the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office (attachment eight) that they needed to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation, as required by the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13, Chapter 49, and the New Jersey State Medical Examiner’s Act (the “Act”).  The Sayreville Police Department initiated something akin to an investigation.  In violation of the NJAC (13:49-5.1 Death Investigations, conduct) and the  Act  (52:17B-86, Investigation of deaths; causes and 52:17B-87, Notification of county medical examiner and prosecutor) the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office knowingly and purposely did nothing (attachments 15 and 16).  Their intentional omission in refusing to conduct the mandatory investigation was material as it was as much a duty and responsibility inherent in their jobs.

Lines 6-16:  As noted in the Courts Opinion, DiCarlo violated the Act by not conducting the mandatory autopsy and only conducting an external examination.  While taking four specimens from Mrs. Sauter, the Court correctly notes that DiCarlo requested analysis of only two of the four specimens (blood and urine) and did not request analysis of the two specimens that could have exonerated Sauter (liver and vitreous). 

Also in violation of the Act, DiCarlo released Mrs. Sauter’s body to the alleged murderer, Sauter, before the return of the specimen analysis by the State Tox Lab (attachment 19), thus preventing additional testing should foul play be determined.  And, as noted by the date on DiCarlo’s final report (January 27, 2006), he also released the evidence prior to the completion of his investigation N.J.A.C. 13:49-5.1 (c), another violation intended to benefit and protect Sauter and all the other public servants charged herein, from investigation.  To date, including this Court, all have been successful. Not one public servant has been investigated.  Only Deby Bath, Mrs. Sauter’s daughter, has been Mirandized and investigated. DiCarlo violated all these laws, and others, to benefit Sauter and the other public servants, while protecting Sauter from investigation of Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.  These acts by DiCarlo were and remain material and clearly support the charges made by Strouse.  His failure to perform proper forensic practice inherent in his position was material and caused all family members irreparable harm.

Page 10:

Lines 17-24:  Contrary to what is written in the Opinion, and according to Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination Report, finalized January 27, 2006, Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct any tests on Mrs. Sauter.  This was a false statement made and perpetuated by Eric M. Aronowitz (attachment 13) in a response motion in Superior Court, Middlesex County, for which Strouse has filed a criminal complaint.  All tests were conducted by the State Toxicology Lab.  Though Dr. DiCarlo received the State Tox Lab report on November 29, 2005, he did not complete his investigation until January 27, 2006.  It is on that date that he falsely certified a new manner and cause of death for Mrs. Sauter.  It is on that date that Dr. DiCarlo falsely certified that the manner of death was “natural” and the cause of death was “bilateral non-small cell carcinoma of lungs with lymph node involvement and metastases.” (attachments 17 and 21)  As the Court knows, such a conclusion would only be possible had DiCarlo conducted the mandatory autopsy—which official government records and his own admission, show he did not.

This false certification is ignored by Judge Lawrence, who incorrectly and prejudicially reports it as fact, so as to support his intended outcome.  As noted by Judge Lawson, Dr. DiCarlo relies on three items to support his new certification: (1) autopsy; (2) toxicology; (3) histology.  Had Judge Lawson permitted the presentation of evidence Strouse brought to what he thought was going to be a probable cause hearing, the Court would have learned the following.  First, as Dr. DiCarlo certified on October 31, 2005, Certificate of Death for Joyce B. Sauter, no autopsy was conducted (attachment 21).  Second, the toxicology report from the State Toxicology  Lab is completely silent on a cause or manner of death for Mrs. Sauter, simply reporting on the blood and urine status, and nothing else (attachment 19).  Finally, histology, the study of tissues, is a non-event in this case, as no histological studies were requested by DiCarlo in reference to the four specimens submitted for analysis, and histology was not a part of the External Exam conducted by DiCarlo on October 31, 2005 (attachment 8).  Judge Lawson presented just half the facts.  The Court’s presenting select “facts” leads a reasonable person to conclude that there quite possibly is bias and prejudice on the part of the Court.

Page 11:

Lines 4-6:  As the Courts have refused to provide Strouse copies of the Summons Nos.[5] he is unable to confirm or deny that the listed Summon numbers agree with the listed complaints.  There is another reporting error on the part of this Court.  One complaint filed by Strouse, False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities (2C:28-4.a.b. (1)(2)) is listed incorrectly by the Court as, ”Falsely Incriminating Another” (2C:28-4 (a)”.  This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment on the part of the Courts.  It also brings into question the accuracy and reliability of this Court’s decision-making process, and makes one begin to question the Court’s Professional Conduct.

Lines 20-24:  These complaints were not heard on January 11, 2011.  No evidence was permitted to be submitted to the Court, though Strouse and Ausley made an effort to leave three boxes of evidence with Judge Lawson; he refused to accept them.  In response to the Opinion of the Court, Strouse provides the following comments.  Again, evidence to support all of Strouse’s comments was available for Judge Lawson, but he refused stating that it was not an “evidentiary probable cause hearing.”[6]  What was the purpose of the hearing then, if not to permit Strouse to provide evidence to support his complaints? 

Had the Court been willing to accept evidence brought to the hearing by Strouse, the Court would have confirmed that documents certified by Dr. DiCarlo show that he did not conduct the mandatory autopsy (attachments 8, 17, 19, and 22).  Not only did Dr. DiCarlo certify on October 31, 2005, that he did not conduct and autopsy, he also sent Carolyn Ausley a letter on December 27, 2007 (attachment 22), admitting that he only conducted an External Examination, in violation of the N.J.A.C. and the Act. The Court refers to Strouse’s statement as an “allegation”.  Strouse also noted that there is nothing in the NJ State Tox Lab Report that addresses cancer, and the Court refused to accept a copy of the report supporting Strouse’s statement.  The Court refers to Strouse’s statement as a “claim”, suggesting it is not factual.

Page 12

Lines 1-3:  The Court again reports that Strouse “alleges” that no histological studies were conducted by DiCarlo as evidenced in the NJ State Tox Lab Report on blood and urine, received by DiCarlo on November 29, 2011 (attachment 19).  Had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to present the evidence, the Court would have concluded Strouse’s statements were factual beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence was a NJ State-produced document.

Page 12:

            Geetha Ann Natarajan, M.D. (Medical Examiner Middlesex County at the relevant time and direct supervisor of Dr. DiCarlo) (attachment 32)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The two Complaints against Dr. Natarajan were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse against Dr. Natarajan.  This evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

Dr. Natarajan knowingly and purposely failed to perform her sworn duties.  Had Dr. Natarajan properly performed duties and responsibilities inherent in her role as Medical Examiner and Dr. DiCarlo’s supervisor, she would have ensured from the outset that Dr. DiCarlo followed all the rules and regulations required for investigation of a suspicious death, including the conduct of the mandatory autopsy for the suspicious death investigation, a material omission on her part.  Her omissions were material and contributed to the irreparable harm caused to Mrs. Sauter’s family. Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed by Judge Lawson.

Page 12:

            Jeffrey Sprague, Detective (Sayreville Police Department)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three Complaints against Det Sprague were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Sprague.  This evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Page 12:

Lines 21-24:  Strouse initially reported the suspicious death of Mrs. Sauter to the NJ State Police, who said to contact the South Amboy Police, who told Mr. Strouse to contact the Sayreville Police Department.  Mr. Strouse first reported the suspicious death to Lt. Brennan.  Strouse reported the suspicious death to Brennan, including the fact that Raymond J. Sauter, the alleged murderer, was a former police officer and may have weapons in a basement safe.  The suspicious death was again reported to Det Sprague when Sprague phoned Strouse on the night of October 29, 2005.

Page 13:

Lines 1-7:  The information stated by the Court is correct. It should be noted that there is no indication that Sauter, a former police officer, asked any questions as to why Det Sprague was knocking on his door at 11:30 PM, after having awakened Sauter, asking the whereabouts of Mrs. Sauter’s body.  Sprague would have the reader believe that Sauter just gave Sprague the address of the funeral home and went back to bed.  The Court knows that a former police officer would be asking all kinds of questions  about why the police want to know where his deceased wife’s body is.  The evidence, which Judge Lawson did not want to see nor would he accept for later analysis, would have confirmed this (attachment 7). 

Line 8:  The Court significantly understates the complexity of the reasons Strouse filed complaints against Sprague; it was not for the few important reasons provided by the Court but rather includes many other direct and circumstantial facts found in the Sayreville Supplemental Investigation Reports filed by both Sprague and Det Amy Noble, especially Bath’s Miranda statement.  Other evidence, available to the Court but rejected by it at the hearing, included some of the following: Sprague did not corroborate any statements made by Sauter, Deby Bath, appropriate persons in the Medical Examiner’s Office, appropriate persons in the County Prosecutor’s Office, Candice Boehler-Marquette and any others; Sprague, though informed by Strouse that Sauter caused Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death, concluded that Deby Bath was the suspect or accused, and Mirandized her instead.  In conducting the Miranda interview, Sprague asked 101 questions, only 20 of which specifically pertained to the suspicious death investigation; Sprague did not contact Boehler’s therapist to confirm that Boehler had been in therapy for years as a result of being abused by Sauter; Sprague did not confront either Boehler or Bath regarding Boehler’s August 2, 2005, email wherein Boehler accuses Sauter of abusing her and Mrs. Sauter for years; Sprague ignores Boehler’s concern that a telephone interview was or was not being recorded and then she denies the abuse occurred; Sprague asks Boehler if she was ever abused physically, mentally, emotionally or sexually and Boehler answer no.  Sprague had the email in front of him at the time and Sprague knew that Boehler had not accused Sauter of sexual abuse—it was easy for Boehler to deny the question.; Sprague permitted Bath, in the Miranda, to complain about Strouse and Ausley and did not confront Bath about any specific issues;  Sprague’s questions of Bath in the Miranda regarding information provided by Strouse and Ausley consisted mostly of “are you aware of letters, and faxes, and an email” received by the Sayreville Police Department, without discussing any of the specific allegations; in other words, Sprague punched a ticket so as to be able to say he Mirandized someone, and asked 101 questions, and obtained no useful information, except to discount everything Strouse or Ausley said.  Not one word of corroboration.  Based on these facts, and facts contained in all the other evidence the Court refused to accept on January 11, 2011, Strouse filed the criminal complaints against Det Sprague, and the others.

Lines:  9-16:  In response to the Court, Strouse provides the following comments.  The complaints as reported by Judge Lawson on page 13 are again incorrect.  Strouse filed the following criminal complaints against Sprague: (1) Conspiracy 2C:5-2.a ETC; (2) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-1.a ETC; and (3) Official Misconduct 2C:30-2.a. ETC.

Contrary to what the Court reports herein, Strouse did not file the following complaint against Det. Sprague:  (2) Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function as noted on lines 12-13 in the Opinion.  This is another mistake by the Court and amounts to continued frivolous conduct and harassment. It also clearly brings into question the Court’s ability to accurately and factually render a valid Opinion in this, or any other matter.

Lines 17-21:  Strouse provided accurate and truthful comments regarding who was and who was not a target or suspect in the suspicious death case (attachment 28).  Sprague had Bath sign her name on the Miranda statement above the words “accused or suspect”.   Had the Court been so inclined to accept the evidence offered by Strouse, the Court would have seen the Supplemental Investigation Reports showing that nothing was done on the suspicious death investigation case by Sprague between October 30, 2005, and December 22, 2005.  It is in the official police reports.

Lines 22-24:  It is a matter of fact that Mrs. Sauter’s body was released to the alleged murderer by Dr. DiCarlo, in violation of the law, immediately after DiCarlo completed his External Examination, and that Mrs. Sauter was cremated by Sauter on November 1, 2005 (attachments 8 and 25).  As the lead investigator in the case, Sprague had an inherent duty and responsibility to ensure that Mrs. Sauter’s body remained protected until DiCarlo completed his investigation—an investigation which DiCarlo’s records shows was not completed until January 27, 2006 (attachment 8).  Sprague, knowing that he was investigating a suspicious death, also knew that an autopsy was required to be conducted by DiCarlo (N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49 and the Act).  Sprague knowingly and purposely permitted DiCarlo to release Mrs. Sauter’s body, the primary evidence, to the alleged murderer, so that the mandatory autopsy would not be conducted and so as to have the evidence destroyed and to benefit Sauter.

Page 14:

Lines 1-8:  As lead detective Sprague had an inherent duty and responsibility to coordinate with the Prosecutor’s office and ensure he was conducting its mandatory investigation, as directed by Dr. DiCarlo on the evening of October 29, 2005 (attachments 7 and 8).  Sprague failed to ensure that Kaplan and Lamb were conducting their investigation, and when learning they were not conducting an investigation, Sprague (and Noble and Brennan and Garbowski) purposely and knowing ignored their omission,, as did DiCarlo.  Likewise, both Strouse and Ausley had key information for Sprague and DiCarlo and others involved in the investigation, yet Sprague made no effort to followup with interviews or corroborate information obtained during the investigation, for example, with Bath and Boehler.  Though Strouse spoke on the telephone with Dr. DiCarlo on/about January 6, 2005, DiCarlo ignored everything Strouse told him, (attachment 8) including specifically the information contained in Boehler’s August 2, 2005, email (attachment 29) to Carolyn Ausley, which Strouse provided to DiCarlo.  All of this factual information was available to Judge Lawson on January 11, 2011 and he refused to let Strouse present it.  These complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing and thus cannot be dismissed. There is no mention in Rules of the Court of a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.”, as cited by the Court.

Page 14:

            Det. Amy Noble (Sayreville Police Department)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three Complaints against Det Amy Noble were not discussed on January 11, 2011.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  In response to the Court, Strouse provides the following comments. 

The complaints as reported by Judge Lawson on page 13 are incorrect.  Again the Court makes another mistake.  The Court has again confused the complaints filed by Strouse.  For example, Complaints filed against Det Noble include the following: (1) Conspiracy 2C:5-2 ETC; (2) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C-29-1 ETC.; and, (3) Official Misconduct 2C:30-2.a ETC.  Contrary to what the Court states in its opinion, Strouse did not file a complaint against Noble, as noted by the Court on line 16 for “(2) Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).” This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment on the part of the Court.  It also brings into question the Court’s ability to adequately and accurately review information and render opinions.  If the Court cannot keep track of the various criminal cases that come before it, how can the Court represent itself, and its decisions, as creditable?

Lines 21-24: The Court states that Strouse “alleges” that Noble followed the lead of Sprague.  The Court, had it permitted Strouse to refer to his evidence brought to the probable cause hearing, would have clearly seen that Sprague was the lead detective and that Noble played a support role.  Supplemental Investigation Report dated 12-22-2005 (attachment 26) shows that Noble acknowledges that she was told by Sprague to speak with four persons:  Bath, Boehler-Marquette, Ausley, and Strouse. 

Page 15:

Lines 1-4:  The Court reports that Strouse alleges that Noble never called Strouse, but such allegation by the Court is again inaccurate. As noted by Noble in the report, she had nothing to say to Strouse when she spoke with him, except to ask him for Boehler-Marquette’s telephone number (attachment 26).  The Court would have known this had the Court permitted Strouse to use the evidence he brought for the probable cause hearing.  The interviews noted by the court which were conducted by Noble must be read to appreciate their staged quality (attachment 26 and 27) The Court will easily see through both Sprague’s and Noble’s efforts by knowingly and purposely couching numerous questions to protect Sauter, and themselves.  Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing it cannot be dismissed.  This complaint is not dependent upon other complaints and stands alone.

Page 15:

            LT. Timothy Brennan (Sayreville Police Department)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one Complaint against LT Brennan was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Brennan.  This evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing, it cannot be dismissed.

Page 15-16:

            Captain John Garbowski (Chief of Sayreville Police Department at the relevant time)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one Complaint against Captain Garbowski was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Garbowski.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Page 16:

            Lines 1-7:  Captain Garbowski had a duty and responsibility inherent in his position to properly supervise his subordinates and/or those working on cases within his jurisdiction; he failed to do so (Brennan, Sprague, and Noble).  Knowing that Sauter was a former police officer with the Dunellen Police Department should have made Garbowski more sensitive towards providing appropriate oversight and supervision.  His knowing and purposeful omission of such oversight was derelict, material, and caused irreparable harm to Mrs. Sauter’s family, thus supporting charges of official misconduct.  Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, it cannot be dismissed.

            Candace Marquette (Candice Boehler-Marquette)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The five Complaints against Boehler-Marquette were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Boehler-Marquette.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

            Lines 8-14:  The information stated by the Court is accurate.

            Lines 15-22: The information stated by the Court is accurate.  However, it is not complete.  The Court fails to note that neither Sprague nor Noble (nor Brennan nor Garbowski nor Kaplan nor Lamb) confronted Boehler about changing her oath, testimony, or affirmation.  Boehler knew this was a suspicious death investigation and knew the seriousness of providing truthful statements.  Sprague did not ask Boehler if she was giving false information to law enforcement, information that contradicted what she stated in her August 2, 2005, email. It is also noted in the Supplemental Investigation  Report that Noble provided Boehler-Marquette a definition of “abuse”, though Noble does not give the definition she provided Boehler-Marquette in her report.  As a result of providing false or inconsistent statements, Boehler-Marquette hindered the apprehension of Sauter and others regarding Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.  Her false statements also obstructed the administration of law, and she perjured herself in the process.  Her oath or affirmation enabled Sprague and Noble to keep the focus from Sauter and thus benefited Sauter and the others. Sprague et al just accepted her changed story because it fit their intended outcome, which was to benefit Sauter and others, and avoid an investigation of Sauter.  They were successful.

Page 17:

            Lines 1-10: Once again the Court incorrectly records one of the complaints.  Specifically, lines 8-9, as recorded by the Court: “(4) Inconsistent Statements, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2 (c)”.  This should read False Swearing (Inconsistent Statements) 2C:28-2 (c). This error calls into question the Courts ability to provide an accurate assessment of the very limited information discussed at the hearing and provides continuing support for a conclusion that the Court continues with its frivolous conduct and harassment of Strouse.  Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 17:

            Deby Bath (Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter’s daughter)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The six Complaints against Deby Bath were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Deby Bath.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Line 12:  Once again the Court has made a notable error.  The Court states that “Ms. Bath is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sauter.”  This is not true.  Mrs. Sauter (Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter) and Raymond J. Sauter did not/not have any children together.  In fact, Candice Boehler-Marquette, in her email of August 2, 2005, accuses Sauter of abusing Mrs. Sauter to the point of having a miscarriage.  Ms. Deby Bath is Mrs. Sauter’s daughter by a prior marriage.  Such inaccuracies on the part of the Court continues to call into question the Courts ability to provide an accurate assessment of the very limited information discussed at the hearing and provides continuing support for a conclusion that the Court continues with its frivolous conduct and harassment of Strouse.

Lines 16-18:  The Court reports an extremely narrow summary in this case, as it does in all of the others, limiting exposure of the complaint and evidence.  Using this limited summary the Court draws certain conclusions which are not fully representative of the complexity of the complaints and their relationship to one another. Indeed, it appears the Court cites select information to meet its intended outcome, which is to prevent the investigation of Sauter for Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death, and all the others accused in the 61 criminal complaints.  Additionally, Ms. Bath was not/not a primary caretaker of Mrs. Sauter, as Bath stated to Judge Travis L. Francis in her response to a motion submitted by Carolyn Ausley (attachment10), and as noted on the End of Life agreement signed by Joyce, which directly appointed Sauter as being solely responsible for her medical and mental health care needs.  This information could have been accurately presented to the Court had the Court permitted Strouse to provide the Court with the necessary and available evidence at the time of the hearing.  The Court conveniently omits the fact that neither Sprague nor Noble nor Brennan nor Garbowski confront Bath regarding her denial of abuse, as reported by Boehler-Marquette in the August 2, 2005 email, to wit, “Are you lying now or were you lying then?” This is a knowing and purposeful material omission in the flawed investigative process, not only by the Sayreville Police Department, but also by Dr. DiCarlo (et al) in the Medical Examiners Office, and Kaplan and Lamb in the Prosecutors Office.

Lines 19-24:  The Court comments that “Based on these facts, Mr. Strouse filed one complaint against Ms. Bath ….” There are significantly many more facts available to the Court than those mentioned by the Court in its opinion.  These facts would have been presented to the Court had the Court permitted Strouse to use them. 

Once again the Court errs in documenting the complaints filed by Strouse, this time against Deby Bath. For example, Strouse filed six complaints against Bath.  The Court lists only five.  Missing from the Court listing is the following complaint:  False Swearing (Inconsistent Statements) 2C:28-2.(c). Also, the Court lists one complaint as “(5) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3 (a) (2).” When it should read as follows:  Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another….”  Such inaccuracies on the part of the Court continues to call into question the Courts ability to provide an accurate assessment of the very limited information discussed at the hearing and provides continuing support for a conclusion that the Court continues with its frivolous conduct and harassment of Strouse.

Page 18: 

Lines 5-8:  The Court again uses words to plant seeds in the mind of the reader of this opinion.  In lines 5, 8, 10, 15 the court says that Strouse “alleges” and “claims” certain things happened.  When the Court cites a “fact” however, there are no such words used.   The Court selectively excerpts information from the complaint and this is intended to support its position regarding its intended outcome for this “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.”  For example, had the Court permitted Strouse to present the August 2, 2005, Boehler-Marquette email, the Court would have concluded that Boehler-Marquette did indeed state that Bath was aware of the abuse at the time it was occurring.  The fact that the Sayreville Police could find no record of an abuse report in their records (contained in one of their Supplemental Investigation Reports not permitted by the Court to be entered into the record and in attachment 8) is also addressed in the 8/2/2005 email wherein Boehler-Marquette comments that she could not go to the police because Sauter was a “cop” and she would have been “killed.” (attachment 29).

Lines 8-18:  Again, the Court makes a limited effort to summarize a complaint.  Had the Court permitted Strouse to refer to and submit the evidence available to the Court at the hearing, the Court would not be using words such as, “Strouse alleges” and/or “he also claims”  The Court would have seen the evidence for itself.  What is reported here by the Court, as allegations and claims, can be proven if an investigation is conducted and by a comparison of statements made by, for example, Bath and Boehler, as shown in the Sayreville Police Department Supplemental Investigation Reports.  All of this evidence was available for the Court; however the Court refused to permit Strouse to use any of it, citing the hearing as “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.” Ausley and Strouse will testify as to Bath’s stated fear of Sauter.  Since the complaints against Bath were not discussed at the probable cause hearing they cannot be dismissed.

Page 18:

            William F. Lamb, Esq. (Middlesex County Prosecutors Office)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one Complaint against William Lamb was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on William Lamb.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Lines 21-24:  First, as already proven, an autopsy did not occur in this case (attachments 21 and 30).  While Lamb’s statement is true in the sense that he violated the law by not conducting a suspicious death investigation when directed to do so by Dr. DiCarlo (attachment 8 and 7), it is also false in the sense that, as already a matter of public record, an autopsy was not conducted as mandated by State law.  Additionally, this is contrary to what DAG Denise Hollingsworth reported, based on her investigation (attachment 16), wherein she reported that Lamb and Kaplan waited until the Medical Examiners (DiCarlo) investigation was complete, which was on January 27, 2006, according to DiCarlo’s External Examination Report (attachment 8).  Which of these two public servants are falsely swearing and making inconsistent statements?  The Court is in error again, wherein the Court states on page 18, lines 23-24, and Page 19, lines 1-2, wherein the Court claims that the investigation ”began on January 19, 2006, the date on which Dr. DiCarlo completed his final report.” What investigation began on January 19, 2006?  As already proven, DiCarlo’s final report is dated January 27, 2006.

Page 19:

Lines 7-15: An inherent part of the County Prosecutors official duty and responsibility is the conduct of suspicious death investigations, as the Court well knows.  On the evening of October 29, 2005, Dr. DiCarlo directed both the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Prosecutor to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation (attachments 8 and 12).  Had this Court permitted Strouse to enter the Police Supplemental Investigation Report (attachment 7) into the record, along with DiCarlo’s External Examination Report (attachment 8), the Court would have seen the truthfulness of the statement by Strouse.  The evidence shows that Lamb and Kaplan knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation, as noted in Hollingsworth’s review and Lamb’s letter of May 16 and 23, 2006.  It is also a fact that Lamb ignored the improper forensic practices of Dr. DiCarlo. These investigations are inherent in their duties and responsibilities.  Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing it cannot be dismissed.

Page 19:

            Bruce Kaplan, Esq. (Middlesex County Prosecutors Office)

The Court refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one Complaint against Bruce Kaplan was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Bruce Kaplan.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Lines17-23:  First, as already proven, an autopsy did not occur in this case. (attachments 21 and 22).  While Kaplan’s statement is true in the sense that he violated the law by not conducting a mandatory suspicious death investigation when directed to do so by Dr. DiCarlo, it is also false in the sense that, as already a matter of public record, an autopsy was not conducted as mandated by State law.  Additionally, this is contrary to what DAG Denise Hollingsworth reported, based on her investigation (attachment 16), who reported that Lamb and Kaplan waited until the Medical Examiners (DiCarlo) investigation was complete, which was on January 27, 2006, according to DiCarlo’s External Examination Report (attachment 8).  Strouse wonders how or where the Court obtained a copy of the Hollingsworth letter such that the Court quotes from it?  It is not lost on Strouse that the Court, when citing material from the public servants, uses words such as “According to” while the Court, when citing material from Strouse, uses words such as “alleges” and “claims.”

Page 20:

Lines 4-14:  First, a suspicious death report was taken by Lt. Brennan.  Second, Det. Sprague followed up that suspicious death report conversation between Strouse and Brennan by contacting the Medical Examiners Office and reporting a suspicious death (attachment 7).  In response to DiCarlo receiving a suspicious death report from Sprague, DiCarlo directed that the police and the prosecutors offices had to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigations (attachment 8).  Though the Court knows that the County Prosecutor has a mandated obligation, inherent in his duty and responsibility, to conduct suspicious death investigations, the Court presents the information as if the Court is hearing it for the first time.  Indeed, not only was Kaplan told by DiCarlo to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation, but Sprague also had a conversation with an investigator from Kaplan’s office regarding the suspicious death of Mrs. Sauter (attachment 7).  The fact, available in evidence refused by the Court and acknowledged by the Court in this Opinion, is that Kaplan and Lamb knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation when it was timely to do so.  Had Kaplan and Lamb conducted the mandatory suspicious death investigation inherent in their duties and responsibilities, Sauter would have been investigated for Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death. Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing it cannot be dismissed.

Page 20:

            Eric M. Aronowitz, Esq. (1^st Dep County Counsel, Middlesex County)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The six Complaints against Mr. Aronowitz were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Eric M. Aronowitz.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

Lines 16-22: The Court once again provides erroneous information.  Contrary to what the Court states, Mr. Strouse did not pursue a lawsuit against Middlesex County.  Ms. Ausley filed an Order to Show Cause to obtain Mrs. Sauter’s specimens taken from Mrs. Sauter during her External Examination by Dr. DiCarlo, two of which DiCarlo did not have analyzed; Sauter filed to stop release of the specimens and when the release was ordered, he filed an appeal and lost. Evidence, which the Court refused to admit, clearly shows that the Sayreville Police reported a suspicious death to the Medical Examiners Office (both Brennan and Sprague) and the Medical Examiners External Examination Report clearly shows that both the Police and the Prosecutor were directed by DiCarlo to conduct the necessary mandatory suspicious death investigation.  Further, Aronowitz falsely swore in Superior Court, Appellate Division, Middlesex County, that Mrs. Sauter’s death was not reported as suspicious (attachment 13).  Had the Court permitted Strouse to do so, Strouse would have entered into evidence proof beyond a reasonable doubt in support of his statements.  In the same breath, the Court notes that Aronowitz stated (not alleged or claimed) that “complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.” 

This was another false statement in Superior Court by Aronowitz on two counts.  First, though DiCarlo took four specimens from Mrs. Sauter, he requested the NJ State Toxicology Lab to analyze only two of the four—so complete toxicology testing was not performed (attachment 19).  Second, Dr. DiCarlo did not perform any testing on any specimens, and in fact, according to the Lab Report, did  not order the testing that could have exonerated Sauter or convicted him, as he did not want to run the risk of the analysis of the liver and vitreous supporting the allegations made by Strouse that Sauter killed his wife by starvation, dehydration, overmedication, or suffocation.  It was subsequently concluded by an independent Laboratory and Forensic Pathologist that at the time of her death, Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged fasting and starvation condition and was dehydrated (attachment 20). 

The Court again is in error regarding the complaints Strouse submitted.  Beginning on the bottom of page 20 and carrying over to page 21, please note the following. Strouse did not/not file a complaint against Aronowitz for “Inconsistent Statements, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2 (c)”.   Also, Strouse filed a complaint against Sauter for “Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another, 2C:29-3 (a), not/not simply “Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution”. This error calls into question the Courts ability to provide an accurate assessment of the very limited information discussed at the hearing and provides continuing support for a conclusion that the Court continues with its frivolous conduct and harassment of Strouse.

Pages (21 bottom) 22:

Lines (23) 1-2:  It is a matter of Court records (motions, responses) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Middlesex County, before Judges Travis L. Francis (attachment 10) and Susan L. Reisner (attachments 23 and 30), for example, that Aronowtiz falsely swore that an autopsy had been conducted on Mrs. Sauter, when all the time Aronowitz knew that an autopsy had not been conducted on Mrs. Sauter.  These false affirmations were material in each previous Courts decisions regarding Ms. Ausley’s efforts to obtain Mrs. Sauter’s specimens, ownership of which Raymond J. Sauter fought tooth and nail.  Since these complaints were not discussed at the January 11, 2011, probable cause hearing they cannot be dismissed.

Page 22:

            Andrew Falzon, M.D. (followed Natarajan as Medical Examiner)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three Complaints against Dr. Falzon were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Dr. Andrew Falzon.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

Lines 4-11:  Strouse filed three complaints against Dr. Falzon contained in Summons No: 1219-S-2010-000314, according to the Court.  The three complaints as listed by the Court are accurate.

Lines 12-17:  It is not clear which complaint the Court is addressing, as Strouse filed three against Dr. Falzon.  It is a matter of public record that DiCarlo falsified an official document, Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death (attachments 17, 21, and 22), which was available to the Court at the time of the hearing, but the Court refused to enter it into evidence.  When Ms. Ausley requested to correct the certificate of death (attachment 30), based on the various examinations and admissions to date, Dr. Falzon parroted Mr. Aronowitz’s prior response (attachment 13 and 30) as noted in the Opinion.  Falzon’s response was already proven false; see the evidence supporting the complaints against Aronowtiz, DiCarlo, Natarajan and Falzon for the details, that the Court refused to enter into evidence.  Note that evidence that would have supported Strouse’s statements was not accepted by the Court at the probable cause hearing, citing that for some reason unknown to Strouse, this was not an “evidentiary probable cause hearing.”  In responding that there was no basis upon which to make any changes, Falzon, knowing that continued legal action was ongoing, knowingly and purposely took the party line to benefit and protect Sauter and the other public servants from investigation for Mrs. Sauter’s murder, and the subsequent cover up.  Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing they cannot be dismissed.

Page 22:

            Denise Hollingsworth, Esq. (OAG, Dep. Attorney General)

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The five complaints against Ms. Hollingsworth were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Denise M. Hollingsworth.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  Strouse filed five complaints against Hollingsworth.

Page 23:

            Lines 6-13:  Evidence to support the criminal complaints filed against DAG Hollingsworth, like the criminal complaints filed against the other 14 persons, was available for the Court to review on the day of the hearing, however, the Court refused to accept the evidence, stating that this was a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing”, in accordance with Rules of the Court cited, but not found, by the Court..  Ms. Hollingsworth’s knowing and purposeful efforts to protect all personnel against whom complaints were filed was successful, at the cost of violating duties and responsibilities inherent in the nature of her position in the Attorney Generals Office. 

Over 600 pages of evidence was reviewed by Hollingsworth, according to her letter of June 9, 2008.  For example, despite having a copy of the falsified certificate of death from Dr. DiCarlo, Hollingsworth concluded the certificate of death was not falsified (attachments 17 and 21); despite having written statements from Dr. DiCarlo indicating he did not conduct an autopsy (attachments 21 and 22), she saw nothing wrong with Aronowitz falsely swearing in Superior Court that DiCarlo had indeed conducted an autopsy on Mrs. Sauter (attachment 23); despite reading in the Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Reports and the Medical Examiner External Examination Report that a suspicious death had been reported and was being investigated by authorities (attachments 7 and 8), she found no merit in the fact that Aronowtiz falsely reported that a suspicious death had not been reported in Superior Court, Middlesex County (attachment 13).  Though Hollingsworth knew that the Medical Examiner told the Middlesex County Prosecutor to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation (attachment 8), Hollingsworth found no problem with the Prosecutor’s Office waiting over 80 days (attachment 16), before making a decision not to investigate.  See all the complaints against the other 14 persons involved in this suspicious death case. Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, it cannot be dismissed.

Page 23:

            Anne Milgram, Attorney General State of New Jersey

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The two complaints against Ms. Milgram were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Milgram were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Ms. Milgram.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

Page 24:

            Lines 1-12:  Ms. Milgram had a duty and responsibility inherent in her office to ensure that Deputy Attorney Generals working for her properly carried out their own duties and responsibilities.  She failed with DAG Denise Hollingsworth, as Hollingsworth knowingly and purposely failed to properly investigate criminal allegations against 15 persons in Middlesex County.  Evidence to support Strouse’s statements was refused to be entered into the record by Judge Lawson, who stated that this was a non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.  As a result of Milgram’s failure to provide adequate supervision, Milgram hindered the apprehension or prosecution of another, specifically Sauter and the other 14 persons charged by Strouse.  Evidence to support this charge was refused entry into the record by Judge Lawson.  Since these complaints were not heard on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 24:

II.        APPLICABLE LAW (Strouse’s comments to the Court’s Opinion)

A.    Probable Cause Determination

In this opinion, the Court cited Rule 3:3-1 (a)(d) and 3:3-2 as being applicable.

The Court cited  R. 3:3-2 (attachment 39) as being the source for stating that such as thing as a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing” existed.  Rule 3:3-2 was deleted effective January 1, 1995.  Such statement is totally false and calls into question the Court’s knowledge of criminal law and its basis for conducting  what it stated was a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.” (see the Transcript or listen to the 2-disk CD).  In fact, there is nothing in the Rules of the Court regarding conducting a non-evidentiary probable cause hearing. 

Such a false statement by the Court is a violation of due process and clearly brings into question the Court’s intent for the planned outcome of the hearing.  The purpose of a probable cause hearing is to permit a citizen, in this case, to present a complaint along with the evidence to support that complaint, which may or may not lead to an arrest and subsequent trial.  Contrary to what previous Courts told Strouse, Judge Lawson advised Strouse at the beginning of the hearing on January 11, 2011, that  his supporting documentation and evidence was required to be attached to each complaint at the time the complaints were signed (June 2, 2010), and as a result, the Court would not permit Strouse to enter or use his evidence in the hearing.  Also, there is nothing stated in the Rule cited by the Court that evidence in support of the complaint must be attached to the Citizens Complaint documents at the time of initial filing of the complaint.  Also, decisions regarding the determination of probable cause are based on less strict interpretations of the law, often referred to as the reasonable person test.  Judge Lawson misses the point when he holds Strouse to, first, no evidence permitted, and second, engaging in a legal debate on the merits of the written complaint alone. 

B.     Complaints Against Public Officials

Page 25:

Lines 8-13: The Court makes a broad generalization that “Almost all of the

Complaints against the public officials listed above stem from the allegedly illegal suspicious death investigation conducted by Dr. DiCarlo and alleged cover up that followed.”  This is blatantly false.  Sauter murdered Mrs. Strouse through starvation and dehydration and overmedication, and possibly suffocation.  Without Raymond J. Sauter murdering Mrs. Sauter, DiCarlo would not have been in the picture.  DiCarlo is but one of 15 persons who are actively involved benefiting Sauter by protecting him from investigation for the suspicious death of Mrs. Sauter. The Court cannot “address those complaints together.” except as part of the murder investigation of Sauter (pending).  Regardless of the status of the murder investigation, each of the other 14 persons committed crimes separate and distinct and can be prosecuted separately; though they are inter-related, they are not/not inter-dependent, as the Court is falsely portraying.  Dr. DiCarlo’s criminal actions are separate and distinct from any criminal actions taken by any of the other persons against whom criminal complaints were filed.  Further, each complaint filed against Dr. DiCarlo stands alone, as if no other complaints were filed against him.  The Court could find probable cause for one and dismiss another.  The criminal complaints exist on their own merit.  In other words, the Court is in error to dismiss criminal complaints against all others should it find no probable cause against DiCarlo, for one or more complaints. Likewise, if no probable cause is found against any one of the others, that is no reason to dismiss a finding of probable cause against the remainder of defendants.  The complaints are all criminal, being properly cited under 2C; none are civil.  The facts remain that a variety of criminal laws under 2C were broken.  The Court’s logic is severely flawed and needs to be addressed at a higher level.  For the sake of argument, Strouse will address the Courts rationalizations as follows.

            Lines 14-24: The Court cites select passages from the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-78 et seq. in support of its position and intended outcome.  The Court’s citation of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-86(b) is unnecessary because a suspicious death was reported to and by the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Medical Examiners Office.  Therefore, the paragraph that applies is 52:17B-86 (c).  It is under paragraph (c) that the investigation is conducted in this case. N.J.S.A 52:17B-87, Notification of county medical examiner and prosecutor, requires that the county medical examiner and county prosecutor be immediately notified. 

N.J.S.A 52:17B-88 notes that if the cause of death is established beyond a reasonable doubt, the medical examiner reduces his findings to writing and prepares a full report that is submitted to the State Medical Examiner.  Of note here is that in the case of a suspicious death, the cause of death is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.  When the cause of death is not established beyond a reasonable doubt, an autopsy is the only way in which the true cause and manner of death can be determined.

In addition to what the Court cites on page 25 of the Opinion, regarding a suspicious death report, the Court fails to mention that the same paragraph (52:17B-87) also states:

 “… it shall be the duty of the physician in attendance, any law

enforcement officer having knowledge of such death, the funeral

director, or any other person present, to notify immediately the

county medical examiner and the county prosecutor ….” (emphasis added) 

Further, the Act, in 52:17B-90 Cooperation in investigation and autopsy, states:

 (a) All law enforcement officers, county prosecutors and other

officials shall co-operate fully with the office of the State Medical

Examiner and the county medical examiners in making the

investigations and conducting the autopsies herein provided. 

Such officials and all physicians, funeral directors, embalmers

and other persons shall assist in making dead bodies and

related evidence available to such medical examiners for

investigations and autopsies. (emphasis added)

Additionally, NJAC 13L49-5.1 Death Investigations cites the following:

(c) The duty medical examiner shall take complete charge of every body

whose death is reported to the office, and shall not release it to the next

of kin or authorized representative for burial or cremation until

sufficient information has been accumulated, proper specimens and

evidence have been collected as needed, and appropriate examinations

have been conducted to establish the cause and manner of death and

the identity of the decedent.”

AND

            (e) iv. Recovery of physical evidence from the scene of suspected

criminal homicides shall be the responsibility of the prosecutor.

(f).3. In criminal homicide investigations, witnesses and potential

suspects shall be interviewed by law enforcement personnel,

and the medical examiner shall coordinate with the prosecutor

to obtain information that is required as part of the medical death

investigation.

(i)The responsibility of the medical examiner to investigate the

medical cause of death as set forth in this subchapter shall also

oblige him to cooperate and coordinate with the county prosecutor

in the conduct of a criminal investigation.     

As previously stated, Dr. DiCarlo, when learning of the suspicious death report from Lt. Brennan and Det Sprague, directed both the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation (attachments 8 and 7).  Kaplan and Lamb of the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation so as to benefit and protect Sauter from being investigated for Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.

Page 26

            Lines 4-15: The Court acknowledges that the medical examiner must conduct an autopsy of the decedent’s body in cases of suspicious death.  Since the Court agrees that a suspicious death was properly reported regarding the suspicious death of Mrs. Strouse, the Court acknowledges that a suspicious death investigation should have occurred which included an autopsy.  As the Court already knows, an autopsy was not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo (attachments 8 and 21), though at one point he falsely certified that he did conduct an autopsy (attachment 17).  Why would DiCarlo certify on one occasion that he did not conduct an autopsy and then on another occasion, certify that he did conduct an autopsy on Mrs. Sauter (attachments 17 and 21 and 22)?  The Court, however, has outdone itself regarding the definition of autopsy.  The 2-disk CD audio of the probable cause hearing shows that the court knowingly and purposely insisted on using a definition of autopsy not found in law.  The Court first used a definition from Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary that defined autopsy as a post mortem examination of the human body and the taking of specimens. Then the court shifted to Black’s Dictionary to define autopsy, which was basically to determine the cause and nature of disease. Strouse pointed out to the Court that New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13. Law and Public Safety Chapter 49. State Medical Examiner Subchapter 1. Autopsies, provides the definition in paragraph (d), which reads:

            (d) “…, the autopsy standard for apparent homicides, suspicious

deaths, and deaths with no visible anatomic cause shall include

a complete inspection, removal and dissection of the cranial

compartment and contents, the neck viscera and tongue, and any

additional dissections which may be indicated by the circumstances

of death; and shall include the collection and preservation of

body tissues for toxicological and microscopic examination

and any additional examinations which may be required

by the nature of the circumstances.” (emphasis added)

The reason Judge Lawson did not want to use the definition found in N.J.A.C. 13:49 for the acceptable definition of autopsy is because it did not support his intended outcome of benefiting and protecting Sauter and DiCarlo, Natarajan, Falzon, and all the rest. Note that the law uses the word “standard”.  “Standard” for suspicious death autopsies includes a complete removal, and dissection of the cranial compartment and contents, the neck viscera and tongue, and any additional dissections which may be indicated, among others.  Clearly this is an invasive process and not just the mere removal of several specimens, as performed by Dr. DiCarlo.  The standard proscribes the least intrusive procedure of any autopsy.  The Court again selects its citations to support its intended outcome, which is the dismissal of all complaints.

Page 26:

            i.  Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The 10 complaints against Dr. DiCarlo were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against DiCarlo were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Dr. DiCarlo.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 32)

            Lines 16-24: Judge Lawson refers to the “alleged suspicious death” of Mrs. Sauter.  As shown in the Sayreville Police Department Supplemental Investigation Report (attachment 7), and Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination Report dated January 27, 2006 (attachment 8), the death of Mrs. Sauter was deemed suspicious by both law enforcement and the Medical Examiners Office. The Court falsely implies that Strouse delayed the reporting of a suspicious death to the Sayreville Police Department on October 29, 2005, when in fact, Raymond J. Sauter waited 1 hour and 22 minutes after Mrs. Sauter’s death before he decided to call the police—sufficient time for Sauter to ensure that Mrs. Sauter was dead.  Further, Deby Bath waited almost three hours before she notified Strouse that his sister was dead. When asked by Strouse why Bath waited so long, she had no explanation. 

Page (26)-27

Lines (24) and 1-9: If the Court is unwilling to accept as true any statements made by Strouse, how is it that the Court can possibly state with confidence that “Dr. DiCarlo conducted an external examination of Mrs. Sauter’s body and took blood, urine, liver, and vitreous samples?  Where did Judge Lawson obtain this information from?  How does Judge Lawson know that four specimens were sent to the State Tox Lab on November 1, 2005, and that Dr. DiCarlo requested only two of the four be analyzed?  And how does Judge Lawson know that the two specimens Dr. DiCarlo did not request to be analyzed were the two specimens (liver and vitreous) that could have exonerated or convicted Sauter of murder?  The Court knows the significance of destroying evidence before the investigation is complete, yet does not address that particular issue herein.  Why is that?  The results of the analysis of Mrs. Sauter’s specimens were received on November 29, 2005 (attachment 19).  Those results only report on the “contents” of the blood and urine and say absolutely nothing about cancer.  Dr. DiCarlo failed to interview the two most important witnesses, Strouse and Ausley, who made the accusations that initiated the suspicious death investigation.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo not interview either Strouse or Ausley?  Why does the Court ignore that significant fact in its Opinion?  The Court ignores that so as to continue to provide a benefit to Sauter and all the other persons named in the 61 criminal complaints.  Contrary to what the Court writes, Dr. DiCarlo finalized his report on January 27, 2006 (not on January 19, 2005), when he falsified Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death (attachment 8) The Court knows that since an autopsy was not conducted, it is not possible to determine the cause and manner of death, in a suspicious death case, beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Court knowingly and purposely chooses to ignore that fact. 

Page 27:

            Lines 10-24: Once again to help support his slanted, biased, and prejudiced outcome, Judge Lawson does not provide the full detail of the facts he has somehow come up with.  For example, Judge Lawson notes only that “she had six (6) months or less to live, ….”.  However, the full statement from Mrs. Sauter’s doctor, Elias Lehaf, M.D., strictly for Hospice purposes (to get into Hospice you have to be certified you have 6 months or less to live), was the following:  “Based on my clinical expertise and in consultation with the Central New Jersey hospice Interdisciplinary Team, I certify that the above named patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less if the illness runs its course.” (attachment 8; emphasis added)  That is only if the illness runs its course.  That means that Mrs. Sauter could have lived 4 months, 8 months or maybe 2 years or more, if Sauter had not hastened her death by reneging on his responsibility as sole caretaker and starved, dehydrated, and overmedicated Mrs. Sauter to death.  In January 2005, Joyce had previously been given 8 months to live.  Judge Lawson tries, and fails, to draw a correlation between Dr. Lehaf’s statement and an autopsy that was not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo.  Judge Lawson also fails to link his concept of the term “least intrusive” to support the taking of four specimens from Mrs. Sauter, when as demonstrated previously, the N.J.A.C. makes it clear that the minimum standard for conducting the least intrusive autopsy involves,

a complete inspection, removal and dissection of the cranial

compartment and contents, the neck viscera and tongue, and

any additional dissections which may be indicated by the

circumstances of death   (emphasis added)

The External Examination conducted by Dr. DiCarlo does not meet the standard of an autopsy and is in fact “Certified” by DiCarlo as an External Examination (attachment 8).  Likewise, Dr. DiCarlo, certified that all he conducted was an External Examination, and did not certify that he conducted an autopsy.  Thus, despite Judge Lawson’s contention, Dr. DiCarlo did not in fact meet the minimum autopsy standard and did not conduct an autopsy.  Further, in his own words, Dr. DiCarlo documented in a letter dated December 27, 2007 (attachments 22), to Carolyn Ausley, that he did not conduct an autopsy, stating: “The postmortem examination of Joyce B. Sauter consisted of an external examination and toxicology testing in conjunction with review of the medical records and investigative reports.”  In his own words, DiCarlo acknowledges he did not conduct an autopsy and acknowledges he violated the law.  This is the same Court that initially refused to accept the State’s definition of autopsy (N.J.A.C. 13:49) and instead turned to Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary, and Black’s Dictionary for a definition that would meet the Court’s intended outcome.  How obvious can the Court be? The Court knowingly and purposely misleads all reading this Opinion by clearly demonstrating a significant bias against Strouse and compromising what could have been a fair and impartial hearing.  While Mrs. Sauter’s medical records showed a history of cancer, something not contested by Strouse, nothing Dr. DiCarlo did in terms of his investigation confirmed Mrs. Sauter’s condition.  Nothing.  The evidence the Court refused to accept from Strouse shows that decisively, yet the Court seeks to use its power and authority to bully its way to its intended outcome, which is to provide a benefit for Sauter and all the others, the benefit of no probable cause and no investigation.  Judge Lawson is successful.

            Since Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy in accordance with the law, the report he issued regarding cause and manner of death on January 27, 2006 is false, and resulted in his certifying a false certificate of death, as noted previously.  The Court further notes that “The only possible action or omission by Dr. DiCarlo that rendered his investigation non-compliant with the Act was the delay in obtaining possession of the body.” While the Court admits to one law violation for DiCarlo, this is a mostly false statement on the part of the Court because of the numerous, documented law violations.  This Court should be held accountable for its continued innuendos and false and misleading statements.  The specific listing of criminal violations committed by Dr. DiCarlo are contained in the criminal complaint evidence that the Court refused Strouse to use at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011. 

For example, DiCarlo falsified a Certificate of Death; DiCarlo Falsely swore in Superior Court Middlesex County that he conducted an autopsy; DiCarlo falsely certified that he did not conduct an autopsy; DiCarlo provided false information to law enforcement authorities; DiCarlo tampered with public records or information by making false entries and making or presenting false documents; DiCarlo, by his own conduct and in conspiracy with Sauter and others, hindered the apprehension or prosecution of Sauter and others; DiCarlo is guilty of official misconduct as he failed to conduct proper forensic practice even though it was inherent in his duties and responsibilities to do so; as a result of all of his violations, proven in the evidence  Judge Lawson refused Strouse to use, DiCarlo is also guilty of pattern of official misconduct.  These are all criminal complaints under 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Conduct.  Not one of these complaints is Civil, as the Court would have you believe.

What the Court is making out to be a delay in reporting a suspicious death was caused by the fact that Bath and Sauter waited almost three hours after Mrs. Sauter’s death to notify Strouse of his sister’s demise.  If anyone delayed in reporting Mrs. Sauter’s death, it was Mr. Sauter, who waited one hour and twenty-two minutes before calling the police.

Lines 18-24:  Strouse is confused.  Why is the Court defending DiCarlo, on the one hand, and suggesting limitations for civil claims on the other, by suggesting that “The only possible action or omission by Dr. DiCarlo that rendered his investigation non-compliant with the Act was the delay in obtaining possession of the body”  It is interesting that the Court is suggesting to Strouse that he may have civil claims against DiCarlo for delay in securing Mrs. Sauter’s body.  What is going on with this Court?

Had the Court accepted Strouse’s evidence, as it was compelled to do, the Court would have been convinced of the truthfulness of Strouse’s complaints. Since the complaints against DiCarlo were not discussed at the probable cause hearing, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 28:

ii.  Geetha Ann Natarajan, M.D., Medical Examiner (DiCarlo’s supervisor)

The Court refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The two complaints against Dr. Natarajan were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Natarajan were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Dr. Natarajan.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

            Lines 4-12: Contrary to what the Court states, the complaints against Dr. Natarajan arise from her own conduct in failing to carry out duties and responsibilities  inherent in her job as Medical Examiner and Dr. DiCarlo’s supervisor, or from omission to do the same.  Her complaints stand alone and though they may be inter-related to all other complaints, they are not inter-dependent, as the Court would have one believe.  The two criminal complaints, Official Misconduct (2C:30-2 (a)(b)) and Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another (2C:29-3 (a) (3)(5) stand alone in their criminal violations.  As noted above, based on the N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, and the State Medical Examiner Act 52-17B-86 et al, and the criminal complaints filed against Dr. DiCarlo available to the Court but refused by the Court at the Probable Cause hearing, Dr. DiCarlo’s investigation was not/not conducted in compliance with either.  As a result, the separate and distinct criminal charges against Dr. Natarajan must stand. (attachment 32). Since the complaints against Dr. Natarajan were not discussed at the probable cause hearing they cannot be dismissed.

Page 28:

            ii. Andrew Falzon, M.D., Medical Examiner Post Natarajan, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three complaints against Dr. Falzon were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Falzon were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Dr. Falzon.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof. 

Lines 4-12: Contrary to what the Court states, the complaints against Dr. Falzon arise from his own conduct in failing to carry out duties and responsibilities  inherent in his job as Medical Examiner and Dr. DiCarlo’s supervisor, or from omission to do the same.  The three criminal complaints, (1) Official Misconduct (2C:30-2 (a)(b)); (2) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another (2C:29-3 (a) (3)(5); and (3) False Swearing 2C:28-2(a), stand alone in their criminal violations.  As noted above, based on the N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, and the State Medical Examiner Act 52-17B-86 et al, and the criminal complaints filed against Dr. DiCarlo available to the Court but refused by the Court at the Probable Cause hearing, Dr. DiCarlo’s investigation was not/not conducted in compliance with either.  As a result, the separate and distinct criminal charges against Dr. Falzon must stand. Since the complaints against Dr. Falzon were not discussed at the probable cause hearing they cannot be dismissed. (attachments 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 37)

Page 28:

            iii. (a) Jeffrey Sprague, Detective, Sayreville Municipal Court, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three complaints against Det Sprague were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Sprague were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Sprague.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 35)

Lines 13-25: As noted previously, the 2C criminal complaints/charges against Det Sprague stand alone.  Regardless of the outcome of other complaints, or the basis upon which the complaints are made, Sprague, by his own conduct, chose to act in violation of Department policy and the laws of the State of New Jersey.  For the Court to dismiss these charges based on the dismissal of one other charge is unheard of, biased, and prejudicial.  Conspiracy is only one of the three charges against Det Sprague.  It was clearly Sprague’s intent, by his own conduct, to provide a benefit for Sauter, to wit, no investigation, and he was successful.  Again, as detailed above, the basis for the Courts opinion herein is bogus, that is, the alleged failure of one complaint does not result in failure of all the other complaints.  Additionally, it must be noted that Dr. DiCarlo’s complaints were not discussed, per se, at the probable cause hearing.  The only complaint discussed at the probable cause hearing was the charge of murder against Raymond J. Sauter, and again, the Court refused to let Strouse present any evidence in support of his charges.  As a reminder, Dr. DiCarlo’s suspicious death investigation was not conducted in compliance with the “Act”, a false statement from Judge Lawson.  Therefore, contrary to the false conclusion by the Court, the charges against Sprague must stand. 

Page 29:

Lines 1-9: Significant deficiencies in the conduct of Sprague’s investigation occurred.  According to Sprague’s own Supplemental Investigation Report of 10-29-2005, he did not conduct a crime scene investigation and did not recover any evidence; neither did Kaplan nor Lamb of the Prosecutor’s Office, though each was directed by DiCarlo to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation (attachment 8).  Over the course of the investigation, Sprague failed to conduct necessary interviews with appropriate parties having information pertinent to the investigation, such as Sauter, Ausley, Strouse, Candice Boehler-Marquette’s therapist, and so on.  Instead of Mirandizing Sauter, the accused murderer and a former police officer, Sprague and Noble Mirandized Mrs. Sauter’s daughter, Deby Bath, identifying her as the accused or suspect of Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death (attachment 28).  Had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to enter his evidence into the hearing, the Court would have learned how incompetently the investigation was conducted by law enforcement (attachments 35 and 36).  In fact, at one time in the effort to obtain Mrs. Sauter’s four specimens for independent lab testing, Judge Travis L. Francis opined (attachment 10):

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 allegations of — of the — of

the plaintiff in this matter.

What factual basis does the Judge Lawson have for making statements?  While the Court appears to be using information taken from Strouse’s complaints favorable to the defendants, the Court, like Sprague and all others against whom charges are filed, discounts the very same comments when used by Strouse.   Judge Lawson notes that Det Sprague and Det Noble interviewed Bath, Sauter, and Boehler-Marquette.  Without letting Strouse present his evidence, how does the Court know this to be true?  That aside, what Sprague and Noble did was to merely punch a ticket, to say they conducted interviews with appropriate personnel.  What the Court did not see, because it refused to permit Strouse to use his evidence in support of his complaints, was the failure of the interviews to obtain information pertinent to a suspicious death investigation that directly addressed the allegations made by Strouse and Ausley.  Surely the Court must wonder why Sprague and Noble Mirandized Bath when the report indicates it was Sauter who was accused of murdering Mrs. Sauter. 

The mis-carriage of justice continues.  The Court falsely concludes that following Dr. DiCarlo’s final report (which is dated January 27, 2006), which the Court says declared the cause of death to be cancer, the death was no longer suspicious.  The Court’s statement is false and is intended to support its intended outcome, which is to exonerate all 15 persons charged in Strouse’s complaints.  The Court’s statement is false because according the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13, Chapter 49, and the State Medical Examiner Act 52-17B-78 et al, the only way to determine the true cause and manner of death in a suspicious death case is to conduct an autopsy.  Documentation available to the  Court, which the Court refused to enter into evidence, shows that no autopsy was conducted on Mrs. Sauter (attachments 21, 22, 32, and 33) this to be true, as previously discussed.  Further, with the findings of the independent forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Berkland, D.O., Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged fasting and starvation condition, and was dehydrated, at the time of her death (attachment 20).  How Mrs. Sauter got into that condition is the subject of these complaints. Though Judge Lawson spent a good portion of the “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing” on the charge of murder against Raymond J. Sauter, and seeking a ”motive” which is not necessary to prove according to the State law, very little of that is discussed by the Court herein, leading one to conclude missteps on the part of the Court, and questioning the Court’s ability to provide a fair and impartial hearing.

Page 29:

Lines 10-20: Judge Lawson defends Sprague’s knowing and purposeful decision not to conduct a crime scene investigation when he returned to the Sauter house on October 29, 2005, to obtain from Sauter the location of Mrs. Sauter’s body.  The crime that failure to preserve the crime scene: “however, even if they failed to adequately preserve the scene and evidence, such an omission certainly does not rise to a crime.”  There was no/no preservation of the crime scene, nothing close to “failed to adequately preserve….” This omission supports official misconduct.  Sprague, Noble, Brennan and Garbowski had a duty and responsibility inherent in their positions with law enforcement to conduct a crime scene investigation, especially knowing that they were now investigating a suspicious death, allegedly caused by a former Dunellen police officer.  Either by omission, or knowing and purposely, the abdicated their sworn responsibility.  Under 2C:30-2, this is a criminal offense, not civil.  The crime is hindering apprehension or prosecution of another.  By not conducting the standard protocol crime scene investigation, among others, their actions hindered the apprehension and subsequent prosecution and conviction of Sauter and others, surrounding the crime against Mrs. Sauter that was never/never investigated. The crime is conspiracy.  Sauter, a former police officer, is likely to have known the individuals involved in this investigation and called upon protection from the “blue wall”, which only citizens seem to know exists.

The Court refused to permit Strouse to present his evidence, city a Court Rule that supported a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.”  No such Rule could be found as cited.  Had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to present his evidence, Strouse would have demonstrated how the conspiracy unfolded, on a complaint by complaint basis. All of these complaints are criminal, not civil. 

Judge Lawson’s continued defense of the defendants is disturbing and totally incongruent with the intent of a fair and impartial probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson makes it clear that he is not merely seeking clarification of information, nor is he seeking the truth, rather, it is clear that his efforts are oriented to defending the defendants so as to be able to discount everything Strouse says, and render a finding of no probable cause.  While the Court states it is “unaware of the steps taken by the detectives upon their initial arrival at the Sauter house to secure the scene,” had the Court permitted Strouse to present the Supplemental Investigation Report dated 10/29/2005, the Court would have clearly seen that no crime scene investigation was conducted by the Sayreville Police Department, (or the Medical Examiners Office, or the Prosecutors Office), and Det Sprague in particular.  The Court needs to review the complaints against Sprague, Noble, Brennan, Garbowski, and all the others, so as to make a fair and impartial ruling in these matters.  Judge Lawson raises, for some strange reason, tort liability, which is not part and parcel to any charges by Strouse.  Judge Lawson offers such a comment to distract, as we know the Court is not permitted to offer legal advice to Strouse.  Since complaints against Sprague were not discussed, per se, at the probable cause hearing, the cannot be dismissed.

Page 28:

            iii. (b) Detective Amy Noble, Sayreville Police Department, Middlesex County

Page 28:

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The three complaints against Det Noble were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Noble were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Noble.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 35)

Lines 13-25: As noted previously, the 2C criminal complaints/charges against Det Noble stand alone.  Regardless of the outcome of other complaints, or the basis upon which the complaints are made, Noble, by her own conduct, chose to act in violation of Department policy and the laws of the State of New Jersey; her actions and omissions are material.  For the Court to dismiss these charges based on the dismissal of one other charge is unheard of, biased, and prejudicial.  Conspiracy is only one of the three charges against Det Noble.  It was clearly Noble’s intent, by her own conduct, to provide a benefit for Sauter, to wit, no investigation, and she was successful.  Again, as detailed above, the basis for the Courts opinion herein is bogus, that is, the alleged failure of one complaint does not result in failure of all the other complaints.  While the complaints may be inter-related they are not inter-dependent.  Additionally, it must be noted that complaints against Det Noble were not discussed at the probable cause hearing.  The only complaint discussed at the probable cause hearing was the charge of murder against Raymond J. Sauter, and again, the Court refused Strouse to present any evidence in support of his charges.  As a reminder, Dr. DiCarlo’s suspicious death investigation was not conducted in compliance with the “Act”, a false statement from Judge Lawson.  Therefore, contrary to the false conclusion by the Court, the charges against Noble must stand.  Since complaints against Det Noble were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 29:

Lines 1-9: Significant deficiencies in the conduct of Noble’s and Sprague’s investigation occurred.  According to Sprague’s own Supplemental Investigation Report of 10-29-2005, he did not conduct a crime scene investigation and did not recover any evidence; neither did Kaplan nor Lamb of the Prosecutor’s Office, though each was directed by DiCarlo to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation.  Noble was aware of these discrepancies and violations and did nothing.

Over the course of the investigation, Noble failed to conduct necessary interviews with appropriate parties having information pertinent to the investigation, such as Sauter, Ausley, Strouse, and Candice Boehler-Marquette’s therapist, and “Augustina”, Mrs. Sauter’s primary hospice nurse.  Instead of Mirandizing Sauter, the accused murderer and a former police officer, Sprague and Noble Mirandized Mrs. Sauter’s daughter, Deby Bath, identifying her as the accused or suspect of Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death (attachment 28).  Had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to enter his evidence into the hearing, the Court would have learned how incompetently the investigation was conducted by law enforcement (attachment 35).  In fact, at one time in the effort to obtain Mrs. Sauter’s four specimens for independent lab testing, Judge Travis L. Francis opined (attachment 10):

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 allegations of — of the — of

the plaintiff in this matter.

These allegations referenced by Judge Francis were murder, neglect, and others.  See the complaints against Sauter et al.  What factual basis does the Judge Lawson have for making statements?  While the Court appears to be using information taken from Strouse’s complaints favorable to the defendants, like Noble and all others against whom charges are filed, the Court then discounts the very same comments when used by Strouse.   Judge Lawson notes that Det Sprague and Det Noble interviewed Bath, Sauter, and Boehler-Marquette.  Without letting Strouse present his evidence, how does the Court know this to be true?  That aside, what Sprague and Noble did was to merely punch a ticket, to say they conducted interviews with appropriate personnel.  What the Court did not see, because it refused to permit Strouse to use his evidence in support of his complaints, was the failure of the interviews to obtain information pertinent to a suspicious death investigation that directly addressed the allegations made by Strouse and Ausley.  Surely the Court must wonder why Sprague and Noble Mirandized Bath when the report indicates it was Sauter who was accused of murdering Mrs. Sauter.  The mis-carriage of justice continues. 

The Court falsely concludes that following Dr. DiCarlo’s final report (which is dated January 27, 2006), which the Court says declared the cause of death to be cancer, the death was no longer suspicious.  The Court’s statement is false and is intended to support its intended outcome, which is to exonerate all 15 persons charged in Strouse’s complaints.  The Court’s statement is false because according the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13, Chapter 49, and the State Medical Examiner Act 52-17B-78 et al, the only way to determine the true cause and manner of death in a suspicious death case is to conduct and autopsy.  Documentation available to the  Court, which the Court prohibited Strouse from entering into evidence, shows this to be true, as previously discussed.  Further, with the findings of the independent forensic pathologist, Dr. Michael Berkland, D.O. (attachment 20), Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged fasting and starvation condition, and was dehydrated, at the time of her death.  How Mrs. Sauter got into that condition is the subject of these complaints. Though Judge Lawson spent a good portion of the “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing” on the charge of murder against Raymond J. Sauter, and the seeking of motive—very little of that is discussed by the Court herein, leading one to conclude missteps on the part of the Court, and questioning the Court’s ability to provide a fair and impartial hearing.  As the Court knew, I am sure, it is not necessary to prove motive in a murder case.  If the Court knew that, why did the Court spend so much time pressing Strouse for Sauter’s motive in murdering Mrs. Sauter?

Page 29:

            Lines 10-20: Judge Lawson defends Sprague’s knowing and purposeful decision not to conduct a crime scene investigation when he returned to the Sauter house on October 29, 2005, to obtain from Sauter the location of Mrs. Sauter’s body.  The crime that failure to: “however, even if they failed to adequately preserve the scene and evidence, such an omission certainly does not rise to a crime.”  supports official misconduct.  Sprague, Noble, Brennan and Garbowski had a duty and responsibility inherent in their positions as law enforcement officers to conduct a crime scene investigation, especially knowing that they were now investigating a suspicious death caused by a former police officer.  Either by omission, or knowing and purposely, they abdicated their sworn duties and responsibility.  Under 2C:30-2, this is a criminal offense, not civil.  The crime is hindering apprehension or prosecution of another.  By not conducting the standard protocol crime scene investigation, among others, their actions hindered the apprehension and subsequent prosecution and conviction of Sauter and others, surrounding the crime against Mrs. Sauter that was never/never investigated. The crime is conspiracy.  Sauter, a former police officer, is likely to have known the individuals involved in this investigation and called upon protection from the “blue wall”, which only citizens seem to know exists.  Had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to present his evidence, Strouse would have demonstrated how the conspiracy unfolded, on a complaint by complaint basis. All of these complaints are criminal, not civil. 

Judge Lawson’s continued defense of the defendants is disturbing and totally incongruent with the intent of a fair and impartial probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson makes it clear that he is not merely seeking clarification of information, nor is he seeking the truth, rather, it is clear that his efforts are oriented to defending the defendants so as to be able to discount everything Strouse and Ausley say, and render a finding of no probable cause.  The Court states it is “unaware of the steps taken by the detectives upon their initial arrival at the Sauter house to secure the scene,”.  Had the Court permitted Strouse to present the Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Report dated 10/29/2005 (attachment 12), the Court would have clearly seen that no crime scene investigation was conducted by the Sayreville Police Department, (or the Medical Examiners Office, or the Prosecutors Office), and Det Sprague in particular.  The Court needs to review the complaints against Sprague, Noble, Brennan, Garbowski, and all the others, so as to make a fair and impartial ruling in these matters.  Judge Lawson raises, for some strange reason, tort liability, which is not part and parcel to any charges by Strouse.  Strouse is talking about knowing and purposeful  failure to investigate a crime scene and the Court tosses in a red herring regarding investigating information concerning unlawful or criminal activity.  Judge Lawson offers such a comment to distract, as we know the Court is not permitted to offer legal advice to Strouse.  Since this was not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, it cannot be dismissed.

Page 28:

            iii. (c) Lt. Timothy Brennan, Sayreville Police Department, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one complaint against Lt. Brennan was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Brennan were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Brennan.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 35)

            Lines 16-25:  Lt. Brennan took the initial suspicious death report from Strouse and contacted the Medical Examiners Office (attachments 7 and 8), according to Det Sprague’s report.  According to the same report, Lt Brennan briefed Sprague on the suspicious death of Mrs. Sauter, and also talked with the Medical Examiners Office and then with Strouse.  The criminal charge against Lt. Brennan is Official Misconduct, and is supported  in the evidence that Judge Lawson refused Strouse to present at the non-evidentiary probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011.  Brennan knowingly and purposely did not provide proper supervision over an investigation he knew was sensitive, sensitive in the sense that Strouse informed Brennan that the alleged murderer was a former police officer with the Dunellen police department.  Strouse also informed Brennan and Sprague that Sauter had a gun safe in his basement. 

As discussed in Sprague and Noble, immediately above, the Court’s assertions are not founded on any facts supported by either the Court or Strouse, as Strouse was not permitted to enter his evidence for the Court’s benefit.  To reiterate, Dr. DiCarlo’s investigation was not compliant with N.J.A.C. 13.49 nor the State Medical Examiners Act.  Sprague and Noble knew this, so did Brennan and Garbowski, as their supervisory chain.  Noted is Judge Lawson’s false logic in stating that since the Court discounted Strouse’s statements regarding DiCarlo’s investigation—which was not discussed at the probable cause hearing, per se—that the “charges against the officers relating to their complicity in the actions of Dr. DiCarlo must fail.”  There is no truth to this statement by Judge Lawson.  While the complaints and charges may be inter-related, they are not inter-dependent. The logic of the court regarding these criminal charges is beyond reason.

Page 29:

Lines 1-9:  Had the Court accepted the direct and relevant evidence offered by Strouse to support his complaint, the Court would have learned that the crime scene was not secured, contrary to police investigative protocol.  Brennan and Garbowski had an inherent duty and responsibility to ensure that this investigation followed protocol because it involved a former police officer and so as to avoid accusations of favoritism.  Both Brennan and Garbowski failed, as noted in the complaints filed against them, Sprague, Noble, and all the others  (attachment 35).

The only reason the Court is unaware of the steps taken by the detectives, Brennan, and Garbowski, is because the Court refused to permit Strouse to present his evidence in support of his complaints.  Since this complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, it cannot be dismissed.

Page 28:

iii.(d) Captain John Garbowski, Chief, Sayreville Police Department, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one complaint against Garbowski was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaint against Garbowski was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Garbowski.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof (attachment 35).

            The Courts statement that “Much of Mr. Strouse’s charges against the Sayreville Police Officers …allege complicity in covering up Dr. DiCarlo’s illegal death investigation in order to protect Mr. Sauter.”  is only partially accurate.  Likewise, it is supported by Strouse’s evidence, which the Court refused to enter in the record.  Garbowski’s, Brennan’s, Noble’s, and Sprague’s charges stand alone and are not dependent upon “Dr. DiCarlo’s illegal suspicious death investigation….”  As proven earlier, DiCarlo’s investigation violated numerous N.J.A.C. and State Medical Examiner laws, including failure to conduct the mandatory suspicious death autopsy (attachment 21), and the following criminal charges: Conspiracy; Falsifying or Tampering with Records; False Swearing; False Swearing Inconsistent Statements; False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities; Tampering with Public Records or Information (False Entry or Alteration); Tampering with Public Records or Information (Making, Presenting, Or Filing a False Document, Record, or Thing) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another; Official Misconduct; and Pattern of Official Misconduct.

Page 29:

Had the Court accepted the direct and relevant evidence offered by Strouse to support his complaint, the Court would have learned that the crime scene was not secured, contrary to police investigative protocol.  Brennan and Garbowski had an inherent duty and responsibility to ensure that this investigation, because it involved a former police officer, followed protocol so as to avoid accusations of favoritism.  Both Brennan and Garbowski failed, as noted in the complaints filed against them, Sprague, Noble, and all the others  (attachment 35). The only reason the Court is unaware of the steps taken by the detectives, Brennan, and Garbowski, is because the Court refused to permit Strouse to present his evidence in support of his complaints, wherein Sprague’s Supplemental Investigation Report (Suspicious Death) is silent on actions taken at the crime scene (attachment 12).

            Lt. Brennan took the initial suspicious death report from Strouse and contacted the Medical Examiners Office, according to Det Sprague’s report (attachment 7).  According to the same report, Lt Brennan briefed Sprague on the suspicious death of Mrs. Sauter, and also talked with the Medical Examiners Office and then with Strouse.  The criminal charge against Garbowski is Official Misconduct, and is supported  in the evidence that Judge Lawson refused Strouse to present at the non-evidentiary probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011.  Garbowski knowingly and purposely did not provide proper supervision—inherent in his position—over an investigation he knew was sensitive, sensitive in the sense that Strouse informed Brennan and Sprague that the alleged murderer was a former police officer with the Dunellen police department.  Strouse also informed Brennan and Sprague that Sauter had a gun safe in his basement.

As discussed in Sprague and Noble, immediately above, the Court’s assertions are not founded on any facts supported by either the Court or Strouse, as Strouse was not permitted to enter his evidence for the Court’s benefit.  To reiterate, Dr. DiCarlo’s investigation was not compliant with N.J.A.C. 13.49 nor the State Medical Examiners Act 52:17B-86 et al.  Sprague and Noble knew this, so did Brennan and Garbowski, as their supervisory chain.  Noted is Judge Lawson’s false logic in stating that since the Court discounted Strouse’s statements regarding DiCarlo’s investigation—which was not discussed at the probable cause hearing—that the “charges against the officers relating to their complicity in the actions of Dr. DiCarlo must fail.”  There is no truth to this statement by Judge Lawson. It is false logic and false law.  While the complaints may be inter-related they are  not inter-dependent.  Since the complaint was not discussed at the probable cause hearing it cannot be dismissed.

Page 29:

iv. Bruce Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, and William F. Lamb, 1^st     Assistant Prosecutor, Middlesex County

The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The one complaint against Kaplan and the one complaint against Lamb was not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaint against Kaplan and Lamb was ignored by the Court (attachment 36).  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Kaplan and Lamb.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof  (attachment 36).

Page 29:

            Lines 21-25:  The allegations made by Strouse would have been proved had Judge Lawson permitted Strouse to present the evidence at the probable cause hearing on January 11. 2011.  The allegations stem from the fact that both Kaplan and Lamb had duties and responsibilities inherent in their jobs and knowingly and purposely decided not to exercise those duties and responsibilities with the outcome benefiting Sauter and all the others who have been charged (attachment 8, 15, and 16).

Page 30:

            Lines 1-4:  Falsely stated by Judge Lawson is that DiCarlo’s forensic practices were not improper.  The Court has absolutely no evidence to support such a statement. Evidence Judge Lawson refused to be entered by Strouse would have shown that DiCarlo’s forensic practice—all of them as previously noted—was improper and violated N.J.A.C. 13:49 and the State Medical Examiner Act 52:B17-68 et al, and were designed to provide benefit to Sauter et al, by not having Sauter investigated for Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.  He was successful. 

Lines 5-24: Nowhere does Mr. Strouse’s complaint allege that an investigation was conducted starting on January 19, 2006.  The Court is again in error when it states that DiCarlo’s final report declares, on January 19, 2006, that “Mrs. Sauter’s cause of death to be cancer.”  First, DiCarlo’s “Final Report” is dated January 27, 2006 (attachment 8).  This is also the date that DiCarlo falsified Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death (attachments 17, 21,22, and 33), as verified in the public records.  Second, DiCarlo could not have legally declared Mrs. Sauter’s death to be from cancer because DiCarlo never conducted the mandatory suspicious death autopsy, as required by State law and proven earlier and contained in the evidence that Judge Lawson refused Strouse to present at the probable cause hearing.  Third, the analysis of the specimens taken from Mrs. Sauter during the DiCarlo-Certified External Examination on October 31, 2005, do not address cancer at all, just blood and urine analysis (attachment 19).  Indeed, DiCarlo knowingly and purposely chose not to request testing of the two specimens (liver and vitreous) that subsequently concluded that Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged state of fasting or starvation condition and was dehydrated at the time of her death (attachment 20).  N.J.A.C. 13:49 and the State Medical Examiner Act 52-17B-86 et al, as discussed earlier, both require the Middlesex County Prosecutor to initiate the necessary suspicious death investigation, in coordination with the Sayreville Police Department and the County Medical Examiner (attachments 32, 25, 36, and 37).

According to DAG Denise Hollingsworth, based on her contacting the Prosecutors Office during the conduct of an administrative investigation (attachment 16), Kaplan and Lamb decided to wait until DiCarlo completed his investigation before concluding that they would not conduct their own investigation (attachments 15 and 38).  The incompetence of that decision meant that for a suspicious death reported on October 29, 2005, the crime scene was not secured through the date DiCarlo completed his investigation on January 27, 2006, over 80 days later.  The OAG, the Prosecutor, and now Judge Lawson would have anyone believe that there is no negligence and/or Official Misconduct on the part of Kaplan and Lamb.  The complaints filed against Kaplan and Lamb would shed considerable light on this subject, and clearly demonstrate criminal conduct, again to benefit Sauter and all the rest.

Both statutes cited earlier (N.J.A.C. and the Act) require the Prosecutors Office to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation in coordination and cooperation with the Sayreville Police and the County Medical Examiner.  DiCarlo also notes in his External Examination Report (attachment 8) that the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office was directed to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigation.  The Court knows you cannot coordinate and cooperate if you are not investigating.  There is no prosecutorial discretion in a suspicious death investigation. 

Contrary to what Judge Lawson said in the probable cause hearing, the Prosecutor is not able to exercise discretion when the Medical Examiner directs him to conduct an investigation, as DiCarlo did.  Kaplan and Lamb knowingly and purposely chose not to investigate, abrogating duties and responsibilities inherent in their positions.  As such, the Middlesex County Prosecutors, Kaplan and Lamb, were not authorized to exercise discretion not to investigate and file charges against various public servants for their role in Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.

Lines 19-24: Incredibly, the Court—without completing its review—on this page (page 30 of 35 pages)  of the Opinion, concludes “…and based on the record before this Court and the finding of a lack of probable cause against all of the defendants,….”  The record before the Court is significantly incomplete, as intended by the Court.  The Court refused Strouse a fair and impartial probable hearing when it declared, without reference to a legitimate Rule of the Court, and contrary to what other Courts had proffered, the opportunity to present evidence in support of each one of his complaints.  Equally incredible is the fact that only one case was heard on January 11, 2011, a complaint against Raymond J. Sauter, for Murder 2C:11-3 (a) (1)(2).  That complaint alone took two hours.  And from that one case, the Court dismisses all 61 criminal complaints against all of the defendants.  Such conclusion by the Court is indeed a case of arbitrariness or abuse. This case was not heard at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011 and thus it cannot be dismissed.

Page 31:

            iv. Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy County Counsel, Middlesex County

            Lines 1-2:  The Court’s demeanor and attitude is quite disconcerting in this section of the Opinion.  One would have thought that in a probable cause hearing, the Court would merely receive evidence, seek clarification and explanation, be fair and impartial, and render an objective opinion.  This 35 page Opinion by Judge Lawson presents itself as if it was a trial,  requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when in fact, the evidentiary requirements for a probable cause hearing are much less and more in line with what is considered the “reasonable person test.”  Judge Lawson sounds like the attorney representing the defendants, wherein he states:  “The charges of Perjury and False Swearing can be easily dismissed because Mr. Aronowitz was never under oath.” Can be easily dismissed?

The Court refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The six complaints against Aronowitz were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaint against Aronowtiz was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Aronowitz.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 37)

Lines 1-2:  The Court defends Aronowitz.  The Court acknowledges that Aronowitz would be guilty of Perjury and False Swearing if Aronowitz was under oath at the time.  Judge Lawson erroneously makes the statement that “Mr. Aronowitz was never under oath.”  Doesn’t the Court know the law?

According to Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:28-1. Perjury:

a.  Offense defined.  A person is guilty of perjury, a crime of the third

degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement

under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth

of a statement previously made, when the statement is material

and he does not believe it to be true.

            The State of New Jersey’s Criminal Charges to the Jury provides additional clarification regarding the meaning of certain words.

            Official proceeding is defined as follows:

            The term official proceeding is defined as “a proceeding heard or

which may be heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative

or other governmental agency or official authorized to take evidence,

under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner,

notary or other .person taking testimony or deposition in connection

with any such proceeding.

Oath is defined as follows:

Under this element, any device employed to demonstrate the special

importance of the declaration, that is, the seriousness of the demand

for honesty, constitutes an oath or equivalent affirmation.

Thus, Aronowitz was under oath when he responded to the OSC for Judge Travis L. Francis (attachments 10, 13, and 23)), and according to Judge Lawson, as stated in his Opinion of January 20, 2011, there is a probable cause finding against Aronowitz for Perjury and False Swearing.

How the Court concluded that Aronowitz was not under oath at the time he made those written statements in response to an Order to Show Cause, and other motion responses, is anyone’s guess.  In fact, Aronowitz was under oath at the time he made the statements resulting in complaints of Perjury and False Swearing, among others.  At the time Aronowitz made the statements, he was responding to a motion before Judge Travis L. Francis, P.J.Ch., on behalf of Dr. DiCarlo and Middlesex County (attachments 13 and 10). 

This office represents the County of Middlesex, the Middlesex

County Medical Examiner’s Office and Dr. Frederick DiCarlo,

M.D.  I am in receipt of the Verified Complaint and Order to

show Cause With Temporary Restraints, which is returnable

before Your Honor, Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.   AND

On behalf of the County of Middlesex, the Middlesex County

Medical Examiner and Dr. Frederick DiCarlo, M.D., we do not

opposed the relief sought and the entry of an Order consistent

therewith.  As such, unless Your Honor deems the presence

of this office necessary, we will not be appearing on the return

date of the Order to Show Cause.

This response to the Order to Show Cause places Mr. Aronowtiz under oath or equivalent affirmation, and thus the Court must conclude that Aronowitz did indeed Perjure himself and make False Swearings before the Court.  As such, Aronowitz’s statement:  “The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.” is a false statement, as was previously demonstrated (attachments 7 and 8).  Further, Aronowitz makes the following comment regarding toxicology testing: “Paragraph 24 of the Verified Complaint suggests that Dr. DiCarlo did not perform all tests that he might have.  Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.”  Two issues.  First, DiCarlo did none of the toxicology testing, the NJ State Toxicology Lab did all the testing.  Second, as has already been demonstrated by the Tox Lab Report, Dr. DiCarlo sent four specimens to the Tox Lab (attachment 19).  However, DiCarlo requested analysis of only two of the four specimens—blood and urine.  So Aronowitz lied when he stated that “Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.”  DiCarlo was aware of this false statement by Aronowitz and did nothing to correct it.  There has been no retraction. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not request analysis of the liver and vitreous, the two specimens that would have supported Strouse’s complaint, because he knew, as substantiated by independent forensic testing, that the results of the analysis of the liver and vitreous would confirm the starvation and dehydration accusation of murder against Sauter, which it did (attachment 20).

            Judge Lawson has clearly lost his objectivity in this matter and it appears as if he is not familiar with how a probable cause hearing should be conducted. It is unfortunately clear that Judge Lawson is defending Aronowitz, to wit, in defense of Aronowitz at lines 9-15 are almost laughable, if not sad:  “Mr. Aronowitz may have been trying to stat (sic) that such testing was conducted, not directly state which individual or lab performed the testing.”  As already proven by the State Lab Report, not all “such testing was conducted.” Where is the Court’s defense of Strouse’s statements? 

Judge Lawson’s actions are quite inappropriate for a probable cause hearing, even an illegal “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.”  And Judge Lawson does not stop there.  Judge Lawson goes on to suggest that there were more than four specimens or samples taken from Mrs. Sauter, based on no evidence.  Opines Judge Lawson, “Furthermore, whether or not complete available toxicology testing was conducted hinges on whether he was referring to such testing on only the samples submitted for testing or on all samples taken.”  Here Judge Lawson suggests that more than four specimens/samples were taken.  Now why would Judge Lawson suggest something like that except in defense of DiCarlo?  According to the State Lab Report (attachment 19), only four specimens were taken, and DiCarlo requested that only blood and urine be analyzed.  Judge Lawson would have discovered that only four specimens/samples were taken during DiCarlo’s External Examination had he permitted Strouse to present the evidence in support of the criminal complaints.  The Court’s defense of defendants is certainly improper and denies Strouse a fair and impartial hearing. 

Lines 17-19: It is not a stretch at this point for a reasonable person to conclude that the Court is clearly defending Aronowitz, and as such is as guilty of misrepresentation of the probable cause hearing process as Aronowitz is guilty of all the complaints filed against him.  In fact, Judge Lawson may well be guilty of Official Misconduct.

Lines 20-24: Once again Judge Lawson brings into question his fairness in conducting this probable cause hearing.  Judge Lawson again defends Aronowtiz regarding the suspicious death report taken by Brennan and Sprague, reported to the Medical Examiner by Brennan and Sprague, and investigated by the Sayreville Police Department and the Medical Examiners Office.  Aronowitz makes the statement, “The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.”  (attachment 13) It is clear that Sprague, on October 29, 2005, refers to the crime/incident as “HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH” and writes in his report, “On 10-29-05, this officer was contacted while off duty by Sgt. Donnamaria, who advised me that they needed a detective to respond to work in reference to a suspicious hospice death.” (attachment 7)  As late as 12-22-05, Det Amy Noble is investigating a HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH (attachment 27), as recorded in her Supplemental Investigation Report.  Further, DiCarlo acknowledges in his External Examination Report (attachment 8) that possible foul play was reported by Mrs. Sauter’s brother (Strouse) and the Sayreville Police and the Prosecutors Offices had to conduct the necessary suspicious death investigations.  Note that the investigation would not have been initiated to begin with had this been a “normal” hospice death, as first reported.  Mrs. Sauter’s body was transported to the Funeral Parlor for next day cremation.  There was no need for an investigation.  An investigation is only conducted under certain circumstances, which, in this case, was a suspicious death.  Addressing the Courts concern regarding Aronowitz’s intent of meaning, the various reports speak for themselves.  For example, the Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Reports all indicate they are investigating a suspicious death; they offer no answers and no conclusion at the end of their investigation.  Likewise, the Medical Examiner’s External Examination offers no stated conclusion regarding a determination of a suspicious death, except for the fact that they were investigating a reported suspicious death.  The Medical Examiner, as we saw, had much to hide (attachment 32), and the Sayreville Police Department, based on their investigation, had much to cover up (attachment 35).  Had the Court permitted Strouse to present his evidence, both circumstantial and direct, the Court would have learned such.  To reiterate, neither the Supplemental Investigation Reports completed by the Sayreville Police nor the External Examination Report completed by the Medical Examiners Office (Dr. DiCarlo) made a definitive statement that Mrs. Sauter’s death was not suspicious.  By all counts, all of the evidence available to the Court, but not entered into the record, confirms that Mrs. Sauter’s death was suspicious, and that she was in a prolonged fasting or starvation condition and was dehydrated at the time of her death.  Had the Sayreville Police, the Medical Examiner, and the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office conducted an investigation of Mr.  Sauter, that answer could have been provided beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page 32:

Lines 3-4:  While the Court comments that “The Court will not parse words to find a misrepresentation.”, it is clear that it is the intent of the Court to find fault with most everything Strouse reports and to defend the defendants every step of the way, thus preventing Strouse from receiving a fair and impartial probable cause hearing(attachment 4).  It is also clear that a suspicious death was investigated (short of investigating Sauter) by the Sayreville Police and the Medical Examiners Office (attachments 7, 8, 12, 32, 35, and 36).

Lines 5-12: The Court again defends both DiCarlo and Aronowitz.  Public records available to but refused by the Court clearly demonstrate that Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct an autopsy as mandated and defined by N.J.A.C. 13:49, and the Act(attachment 21).  DiCarlo only took specimens from Mrs. Sauter (attachments 8 and 19) and did not meet the autopsy standard or definition described in the law.  The Court is intent on steering any complaints away from criminal to other venues, such as civil or Ethics Board and or the Bar Association.  Is the Court offering legal advice to Strouse, by suggesting that those are the venues to best hear these complaints? 

The Court states, “Accordingly, the Court finds no instance of lies or misrepresentation made by Mr. Aronowitz, and even if there were such instances, the complaint would only be properly before the Ethics Board and the Bar Association rather than a criminal complaint.”  Not so.  As demonstrated by Strouse, the complaints lodged against Aronowitz are Criminal Complaints and all fall under 2C.  The complaints lodged against Aronowitz would not fall under the umbrella of an ethics board or the bar association until after Aronowitz’s conviction. So here the Court is once again defending the defendants. It is clear that this Court has crossed the line of professional conduct in reviewing these complaints. Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 32:

            vi. a.  Anne Milgram, Attorney General, State of New Jersey

            The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The two complaints against Milgram were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaint against Milgram was ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Milgram.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 38)

Lines 16-25:  The Court once again makes an erroneous broad generalization regarding the criminal complaints against Ms. Milgram.  The two complaints against Ms. Milgram include Official Misconduct 2C:30-2(a)(b) and Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-3 (a)(3)(5).  The charges against Ms. Milgram do not just stem from her refusal to prosecute, rather, and equally important, they stem from her refusal to properly investigate. 

The Court’s demeanor and attitude regarding its comments about this defendant are of concern and show favoritism towards the defendant and bias and prejudice towards Strouse.  For example, Judge Lawson states, “These charges can be quickly dismissed because this Court finds a lack of probable cause to issue an arrest warrant or summons against any of the above-named public official defendants.” “Can be quickly dismissed”?  These charges stand alone.  While the complaints may be inter-related they are not inter-dependent.  The Court cannot dismiss all complaints based on the dismissal of one complaint.

The Court is intent on dismissing all charges if just one charge is dismissed.  The Court must do this because if the Court finds probable cause for one of the complaints, it is concerned that it will necessarily have to find probable cause for all or many of the complaints.  This is the reason the Court refused to permit Strouse to present his evidence.  Other Courts would have permitted Strouse to present his evidence in support of his complaints as that is what one of the purposes of a probable cause hearing is all about.  Without looking at any evidence, Judge Lawson dismisses all complaints against all defendants. Without looking at the evidence, how can Judge Lawson arbitrarily and capriciously dismiss all charges?  Milgram knowingly and purposely failed to provide the necessary oversight over Hollingsworth, which was inherent in Milgram’s duties and responsibilities.  Strouse and Ausley had written Milgram numerous times imploring her intervention, and she ignored them. Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 32:

            vi. b Denise M. Hollingsworth, Deputy Attorney General, OAG

            The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The five complaints against Hollingsworth were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaint against Hollingsworth were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaint and evidence from Strouse on Hollingsworth.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof (attachment 38).

The Court once again makes an erroneous broad generalization regarding the criminal complaints against Ms. Hollingsworth.  The five complaints against Ms. Hollingsworth include Official Misconduct 2C:30-2(a)(b); Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-3 (a)(3)(5); Conspiracy 2C:5-2 a(1)(2); Pattern of Official Misconduct 2C:30-7 (a); and, Obstructing the Administration of Law or Other Government Function 2C:29-1(a).  The charges against Ms. Hollingsworth do not just stem from her refusal to prosecute, rather, and equally important, her refusal to conduct a criminal investigation, among others, and her bogus conclusions based upon a biased and prejudiced administrative review.

For example, Strouse had a lengthy telephone conversation with Hollingsworth describing the falsification of Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death (attachments 17, 21, 33, 38, and 22).  Hollingsworth had over 600 pages of evidence before her and Strouse went line by line showing her how DiCarlo falsified the records, falsely swore in Superior Court, provided false information to authorities, including Superior Court, hindered Sauter’s and others apprehension, and committed Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct.  Despite seeing in black and white before her very eyes that DiCarlo (among others) was “guilty”, Hollingsworth’s letter of June 9, 2008 (attachment 16), cleared DiCarlo and all defendants, resulting in the five complaints filed against her.  Please review the complaints against Ms. Hollingsworth, and the evidence Strouse can provide.

The Court’s demeanor and attitude regarding its comments against this defendant are of concern and show favoritism towards the defendant and bias and prejudice towards Strouse.  For example, Judge Lawson states, “These charges can be quickly dismissed because this Court finds a lack of probable cause to issue an arrest warrant or summons against any of the above-named public official defendants.” “Can be quickly dismissed”?  These charges stand alone. To dismiss one is not a license to dismiss all.  While the complaints may be inter-related they are not inter-dependent.  The Court is misguided in this logic.  The Court is intent on dismissing all charges if just one charge is dismissed.  The Court must do this because if the Court finds probable cause for one of the complaints, it is concerned that it will necessarily have to find probable cause for all of the complaints.  This is the reason the Court refused to permit Strouse to present his evidence.  Other Courts would have permitted Strouse to present his evidence in support of his complaints as that is what one of the purposes of a probable cause hearing is all about.  Without looking at any evidence, Judge Lawson dismisses all complaints against all defendants. Without looking at the evidence, Judge Lawson has arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed all charges.  Since these complaints were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, they cannot be dismissed.

Page 33:

            B. Complaints Against Members of Mrs. Sauter’s Family

                        i.  Deby Bath and Candice Boehler-Marquette

            The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  The six complaints against Bath and the five complaints against Boehler-Marquette were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Bath and Boehler-Marquette were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaints and evidence from Strouse on Bath and Boehler-Marquette.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.  (attachment 35)

Lines 3-15: Contrary to what the Court wants the reader to believe, it matters not what the basis for all the criminal complaints are against Bath or Boehler.  Each complaint stands on its own merits. Dismissing one complaint does not require the Court to dismiss all the complaints, as the Court implies.  While the complaints may be inter-related they are not inter-dependent. 

The complaints against Bath include the following: (1) Perjury 2C:28-1 ETC; (2) False Swearing 2C:28-2 ETC.; (3) False Swearing (Inconsistent Statements) 2C:28-2 ETC; (4) Obstructing the  Administration of Law or Other Government Function 2C:29-1 ETC; (5) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-3 ETC; (6) False Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities 2C:28-4 ETC. 

The complaints against Boehler-Marquette include (1) Perjury; (2) False Swearing; (3) False Swearing (Inconsistent Statements); (4) Obstructing the Administration of Law or Other Government Function; and (5) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another.

Once again the Court’s demeanor concerns Strouse and should concern the judiciary at all levels.  In a legitimate probable cause hearing the judge should objectively hear the information, seek clarification where necessary, and note the evidence.  This Court continues to improperly defend the defendants in analyzing the complaints and generating its opinions.  For example, the Court comments, “The Perjury, False Swearing and Inconsistent Statements charges are easy to dispose of because neither Ms. Bath nor Ms. Marquette was ever under oath.”  The Court states that these complaints  “…are easy to dispose of.”?  The Court’s bias and prejudice is quite evident and revealing.  It is the intent of Judge Lawson to dismiss all of the complaints regardless of their validity, and statements from the Court like these certainly support that conclusion.  It brings into question the ability of the Court to provide a fair and impartial hearing for Strouse.

Either the Court does not know the law or its bias and prejudice against Strouse is overwhelming, making it impossible for Strouse to receive a fair and impartial hearing. Regarding Perjury, the Court alleges that Bath was not under oath at the time she made her Miranda statement, or when she provided other answers to law enforcement in official interviews.  According to Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:28-1. Perjury:

a.  Offense defined.  A person is guilty of perjury, a crime of the third

degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement

under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth

of a statement previously made, when the statement is material

and he does not believe it to be true.

            The State of New Jersey’s Criminal Charges to the Jury provides additional clarification regarding the meaning of certain words.

            Official proceeding is defined as follows:

            The term official proceeding is defined as “a proceeding heard or

which may be heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative

or other governmental agency or official authorized to take evidence,

under oath, including any referee, hearing examiner, commissioner,

notary or other .person taking testimony or deposition in connection

with any such proceeding.

Oath is defined as follows:

Under this element, any device employed to demonstrate the special

importance of the declaration, that is, the seriousness of the demand

for honesty, constitutes an oath or equivalent affirmation.

In summary then, when Bath was Mirandized she was under oath or equivalent affirmation.  A Miranda statement was taken at the Sayreville Police Station by Sprague and Noble, two detectives authorized to take evidence.  Bath was aware of the charges of murder that Strouse made as early as October 30, 2005, and thus was cognizant of the seriousness of the demand for honesty.  Clearly there are no grounds for dismissal of these complaints.  Short of the Miranda statement, the same holds true for Boehler.

            Regarding the complaint against Bath and Boehler for False Swearing and Inconsistent Statements, Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:28-2. False Swearing and Inconsistent Statements, the law states:

a. False swearing.  A person who makes a false statement under oath

or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such

a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement

to be true is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

b. Perjury provisions are applicable.

c. Inconsistent Statements. Where the defendant made inconsistent

statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having

been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the

prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent

statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one

or the other was false and not believed by the defendant.  In such

case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which

statement was false but only that one or the other was false and

not believed by the defendant to be true.

            In summary then, Bath was under oath or equivalent affirmation during her Miranda statement and, along with Boehler, each time she was interviewed by Sprague and Noble. Bath and Boehler lied during these interviews and the Miranda statement, making statements that contradicted previous statements made.  As such, Bath and Boehler also provided false information to law enforcement.  There is no doubt that they knowingly made the statements and that one of the statements was false.  Further, it is clear that at the time each made the statements they knew they were false (attachment 35).  The Court’s actions are arbitrary and capricious with the intent to benefit and protect Sauter and all other persons charged herein from investigation.  The Court continues the conspiracy.

            Lines 16-23: The Court states “Moreover, the charges against both Ms. Bath and Ms. Marquette for Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function and Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution are also unsupported by any facts.”  Strouse reminds the Court that the Court prohibited Strouse from presenting any facts at the probable cause hearing when Judge Lawson informed Strouse and Ausley that this was a “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing.” The Court states that “Obstruction requires physical resistance or some other illegal act.”  What other illegal act is required?

            Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:29-1, Obstructing administration of law or other governmental function states:

            a. A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs

or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function

or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully

performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation,

force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means

of any independently unlawful act.

As noted by the Court, “Obstruction requires … some other illegal act.”  The law, as stated, uses the terms “independently unlawful act.”  The other unlawful or illegal acts are those proved above, including Perjury and False Swearing and False Swearing Inconsistent Statements.  These rise to the level of unlawful or illegal acts as they are criminal violations.  Evidence in support of these illegal acts was prohibited by the Court from being entered into the discussion on January 11, 2011.  The unlawful or illegal acts were committed to benefit and protect Sauter, DiCarlo, and all the other persons charged in these complaints.  The acts perverted the administration of law, and prevented public servants from lawfully performing an official functions i.e., murder investigation. 

The Court further states in defense of the defendants, “All that is alleged is that Ms. Bath and Ms. Marquette lied to the police about Mr. Sauter’s history of abuse.  These alleged lies, even if true, do not rise to the level of Obstruction.”  See also attachments 35 and 28. Recall that the Court refused to permit Strouse to present evidence at the probable cause hearing.  There is considerably more evidence than lying to the police about Mr. Sauter’s history of abuse (attachment 29).  False statements made by Bath and Boehler include awareness of acts by Sauter that were harmful to Mrs. Sauter; include first hand knowledge of Mrs. Sauter being starved; first hand knowledge of Mrs. Sauter not receiving adequate hydration; first hand knowledge of Mrs. Sauter being over-medicated to the point Mrs. Sauter was hallucinating and did not know the day, date, year, who she was, where she was, and who anyone else was, as a direct result of Sauter’s care.  Based on the law, these actions clearly rise to the level of obstruction.  Obstruction is a criminal offense.

            Regarding Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution 2C:29-3, Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides the following, only one of which needs to be proven:

            a.  A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder

the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution,

conviction or punishment of another for an offense or

violation of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes or a violation

of chapter 33A of Title 17 of the Revised Statutes he:

(2) Provides or aids in providing a weapon, money transportation,

disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension

or effecting escape;

OR

 (3) Suppresses, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence

of the crime, or tampers with a witness, informant, document or

other source of information, regardless of its admissibility in

evidence, which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of

such person or in the loading of a charge against him;

OR

 (5) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception,

anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or

apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a charge against him;

OR

            (7) Gives false information to a law enforcement officer . . . .

            Clearly both Bath and Boehler-Marquette knew that Sauter had been or was likely to be charged with murder (attachments 26, 27,  28, and 35).  For example, they were both served in Ausley’s efforts to obtain Mrs. Sauter’s specimens, and in those papers, it was clear Sauter was alleged to have murdered Mrs. Sauter (Boehler-Marquette went into hiding and a private detective had to be hired to find and serve her).  By False Swearing and Inconsistent Statements, both acted with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, or conviction of Raymond J. Sauter.  Likewise, both provided information to the Sayreville Police Department that was false, as charged in False Swearing Inconsistent Statements, specifically the contents of the August 2, 2005, email (attachments 29 and 35) from Boehler-Marquette to Ausley, in which Boehler states that Bath was aware of the abuse at the time it was happening.  These false and inconsistent statements misled the police and had the effect of discrediting both Ausley and Strouse; neither Detective Sprague nor Detective Noble ever corroborated any of Bath’s or Boehler’s accusatory statements against Ausley or Strouse and neither contacted Boehler’s therapist to confirm her admission of being in therapy for years, for abusive treatment from Sauter. No one ever retracted anything previously said.

By these actions, and others contained in the evidence that the Court refused Strouse to present, Bath and Boehler deceived Sprague and Noble, among others, from performing acts which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of Sauter (or others), or in the lodging of a charge against Sauter (or others).  Finally, both Bath and Boehler-Marquette gave false information to a law enforcement officer, as previously described; a law enforcement officer is defined as a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of the State (N.J.S.A. 2C25-19c)  It was Bath’s and Boehler’s knowing and purposeful objective and intent to provide benefit to Sauter and protect him from investigation.  They succeeded, as Sauter has yet to be investigated for Mrs. Sauter’s suspicious death.

Page 34:

            Lines 1-6:  The Hindering complaint is laid out in detail in the preceding pages.  The Court comments:  “On the Hindering charge, there is no evidence that Mr. Sauter abused either Ms. Bath or Ms. Marquette except for the allegation by Mr. Strouse of an email by Ms. Marquette months before her mother’s death.  Accordingly there is no probable cause that Ms. Bath or Ms Marquette ever made false statements.” (attachment 29).  The Court is misinformed.  To perfect the Hindering complaint one need not prove “abuse” or physical action, as is stated by Judge Lawson.  As noted in the previous pages, Hindering may involve (2) aiding someone by other means to avoid discovery or apprehension; OR (3) Suppressing any evidence of a crime which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a charge against him; OR (5) Preventing or obstructing by means of deception anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a charge against him; OR (7) Gives false information to a law enforcement officer…. Any one of those are sufficient to conclude Hindering took place.  Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that  probable cause exists. Since complaints against Bath and Boehler-Marquette were not discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, these complaints cannot be dismissed.

Page 34:

            Raymond J. Sauter

            The Courts refused to provide Strouse a copy of the Summons Nos. so Strouse is unable to confirm or deny the Summons Nos. as they relate to the criminal Complaint.  Eleven of the 12 complaints against Sauter were not discussed on January 11, 2011, at the probable cause hearing.  The only complaint against Sauter discussed, as best Strouse and Ausley understand, was murder (2C:11-3) As a result, valuable evidence that would have supported Strouse’s criminal complaints against Sauter were ignored by the Court.  The criminal complaints as submitted by Strouse speak for themselves, noting that the prior Courts indicated that Strouse would be able to present his evidence at the Probable Cause Hearing.  Strouse looks forward to being able to have a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in the near future.  See the complaints and evidence from Strouse on Sauter.  The evidence can be provided to the Court in advance of the probable cause hearing if necessary.  The Court’s comments are a partial summary of Strouse’s complaint and in no way reflect the total sum of his accusation or the evidence in support thereof.

Lines 8-23: The Court  begins with “Mr. Strouse has only presented sufficient evidence to allow the Court to find that Mr. Sauter did not follow Mr. Strouse’s or Ms. Ausley’s care recommendation for Mrs. Sauter.”  Strouse would remind the reader that the Court prohibited Strouse from presenting any evidence at the probable cause hearing, denying him a fair and impartial hearing. 

In refusing to permit Strouse to present any evidence, the Court stated that (1) this was not an evidentiary probable cause hearing, and (2) that despite the Rules Strouse was following from filing in Middlesex County regarding not/not attaching the evidence to each complaint, the Monmouth Vicinage required all the evidence to be attached to each complaint.  Judge Lawson would not recognize that Strouse was simply following the rules and as a result of change of venue from Middlesex to Monmouth County (not a choice made by Strouse) there was no way that Strouse could comply with the Monmouth Vicinage requirements.  Strouse was dead in the water.  Ausley and Strouse made frequent references to the evidence but Judge Lawson refused to permit them to use it.  Ausley requested, at the end of the two-hour hearing of one complaint against Sauter, to leave the boxes of evidence for the Court’s use, review, and analysis.  Judge Lawson refused to accept the evidence.  As a result, Strouse did not receive a fair and impartial hearing, as he was caught in the middle between conflicting rules from two counties.

Regarding Mrs. Sauter’s end of life health care directive (attachment 9), written in 2000, the Court alleges that Strouse “has not offered any evidence to show that Mr. Sauter violated the directive by taking steps to end her life.”  First the Court refused to permit Strouse to present the a copy of the directive that provided the specific instructions and wishes of Mrs. Sauter.  Second, the Court refused to permit Strouse to present any evidence that would have shown that Sauter violated the directive.  Statements made by Strouse on this subject were rejected by the Court.  For example, Strouse  testified before Judge Lawson that Sauter made the following statement:  “The plan for Joyce is to die.”  Strouse also stated  that when Strouse (and Ausley) saw Joyce in September and October 2005, she looked as if she was living in a concentration camp, nothing but skin and bones, dying.  They also told Sauter that there existed special diets for patients in Mrs. Sauter’s condition and wondered where her diet or pain management medication plans were they she would have received at the time of discharge from the hospital.  While some persons may experience weight loss as a result of their cancer, not all do. 

The Court, without any evidence, generalizes the reason for Mrs. Sauter’s weight loss, simply saying it is normal.  Such conclusion completely discounts Strouse’s statements at the probable cause hearing, in essence calling him a liar.  The Court rejects the information presented by Strouse regarding the report from Dr. Berkland, the forensic Pathologist who analyzed the test results of Mrs. Sauter’s specimens (attachment 20), which indicated that Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged fasting and starvation condition and was dehydrated at the time of her death.

By his own conduct, Sauter knowingly and purposely took actions that resulted in Mrs. Sauter’s death.  As Strouse reported to the Court on January 11, 2011, they specifically told Sauter that failure to feed Mrs. Sauter food would cause her to starve to death and that failure to give her liquids would dehydrate her to death.  Sauter, being a former police officer, knew this as well.  Despite offering all kinds of help, financially as well as inpatient care at a cancer treatment center (at no cost to Sauter), Sauter refused all help, at one point telling Strouse that he (Strouse) was not a doctor and to mind his own business.  By his own conduct, Sauter was starving Mrs. Sauter, dehydrating her, was told it was killing her, and continued to not feed or hydrate her.  Sauter knew that his actions would cause Mrs. Sauter’s death, and that was his plan.  Sauter was successful.

The Court is in error when it implies that the only evidence offered to the Court was the fact that “Sauter did not follow Mr. Strouse’s or Ms. Ausley’s care recommendation for Mrs. Sauter.”  These were not only the recommendations of Strouse and Ausley, but also the recommendations from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society, as well.  The were also clearly stated in Mrs. Sauter’s end of life directive.  Surely, Strouse stated, when Mrs. Sauter was discharged from the hospital  for her cancer treatment, Sauter would have followed the hospitals discharge instructions for diet and hydration; apparently not.  Sauter also made the point, said Strouse, that he was successful in the past at increasing Mrs. Sauter’s weight from 91 pounds to 112 pounds (attachment 11).  So Sauter knew what to do to keep Mrs. Sauter’s weight and hydration in check, and knowingly and purposely failed to do so, as was his intent..  The steps Sauter took, as Strouse explained at the hearing, included not following the proper diets or hydration procedures provided by her doctors or obtained by local nutritionists or dietitians., and; not following the pain medication management plan provided by Mrs. Sauter’s doctors.  In January of 2005, Mrs. Sauter was given 8 months to live, according to Deby Bath her daughter. 

For some reason, the Court accepts statements made by Strouse regarding Mrs. Sauter’s doctor’s certification of the amount of time she has to live.  Could it be that such statement supports the Courts intent of supporting Sauter?  Why would the Court accept this statement by Strouse as true and not others?  On September 29, 2005, in order to enter Hospice Care, Mrs. Sauter’s doctor certified that she had “6 months or less if the illness runs its course.”  This is the standard certification.  Mrs. Sauter had already outlived the eight months initially given.  Thus there was every reason to believe that if provided adequate food and hydration under a proper pain medication management program, Mrs. Sauter could conceivably live at least the six months mentioned by Dr. Lahaf in Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination Report (attachment 8). 

The Court states that “Based upon the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Sauter, other than his refusal to effectuate the care recommendations made by Mr. Strouse and Ms. Ausley, the Court finds no probable cause to support the charges of Murder or Neglect of Elderly or Disabled Persons.[7]”  As best Strouse and Ausley can figure, Murder was the only charge heard at the probable cause hearing.  As Ausley and Strouse told the Court, the care they were seeking for Mrs. Strouse, their sister, was the standard level of care available for anyone in Mrs. Sauter’s condition; it is the care that a reasonable person would provide for someone in Mrs. Sauter’s condition.  It was also the standard of care that Mrs. Sauter requested and expected to be provided to her, in her end of life agreement (attachment 9), which Mr. Sauter concurred with, and which he knowingly and purposely chose not to follow.  Regarding the Murder charge, the Court again seems to not understand what is necessary to prove.  For example, Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:11-3 Murder, provides the following:

Except as provided in N.J.S. 2C:11-4, criminal homicide constitutes murder when:

(1) The actor purposely causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death;

OR

(2) The actor knowingly causes death or serious bodily injury resulting in death;

            Since the Court spent almost the entire two hours of the hearing on the Murder charge against Raymond J. Sauter, and no other complaints, it is worth taking a closer look at the information available.

MURDER

(N.J.S.A. 2C:11?3a(l) and 3a(2))

            A citizen’s complaint is filed against Raymond J. Sauter for the murder of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

            A person is guilty of murder if he:

                        (1)        caused the victim’s death or serious bodily injury that then resulted in the victim’s death; and

                        (2)        the defendant did so purposely or knowingly.

            Each of the following elements will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

                        (1)        that Raymond J. Sauter caused Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter’s

 death or serious bodily injury that then resulted in Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

 death, and

                        (2)        that the defendant did so purposely or knowingly.

            One element that must proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Sauter acted purposely or knowingly.

            A person acts purposely when it is the person’s conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.

            A person acts knowingly when the person is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.

            The nature of the purpose or knowledge with which Sauter acted toward Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter is a question of fact to be decided by a jury. Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary to produce a witness or witnesses who could testify that Sauter stated, for example, that Raymond J. Sauter’s purpose was to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death; or that Raymond J. Sauter knew that his conduct would cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death. It is within the Jury’s power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances. Such things as the place where the acts occurred, warnings given to Sauter regarding feeding and hydration, offers of help for treatment, feeding, and hydration made by family and friends, the requirements authorized by Joyce in her end of life document, the physical condition of Joyce at the time of her death, and all that was done or said by Sauter preceding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the events leading to the death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter are among the circumstances to be considered.

            Although it must be proven that the Sauter  acted either purposely or knowingly, it is not required to prove a motive.  If the essential elements of the offense are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court must accept that probable cause exists and that Sauter must be charged with the offense regardless of his motive or lack of a motive. 

            A homicide or a killing by starvation, dehydration, overmedication, or suffocation, such as withholding nutrients or food, withholding liquids, overmedication to the point of disorientation and hallucination, in itself would permit a reasonable person to draw an inference that Sauter’s purpose was to take the life or cause serious bodily injury resulting in death.  The withholding of food and liquids is known to be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The Jury should consider the lack of food and hydration, along with overmedication, and Sauter’s stated plan for Joyce to die, and the manner and circumstances of her killing.  The Jury should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Raymond J. Sauter failed to follow hospital discharge instructions to properly feed, properly hydrate, and properly medicate Mrs. Sauter, resulting in her death, and from the manner and circumstances of the killing, as to Sauter’s purpose or knowledge.

            The other element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Sauter caused Mrs. Sauter’s death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.

            In order to convict Sauter of murder, it must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either purposely or knowingly caused the victim’s death or serious bodily injury resulting in death. In that regard, “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death. A substantial risk of death exists where it is highly probable that the injury will result in death.

            To find Sauter guilty of purposeful serious bodily injury murder, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Sauter’s conscious object to cause serious bodily injury that then resulted in the Joyce’s death; that Sauter knew that the injury created a substantial risk of death; and that it was highly probable that death would result. To find Sauter guilty of knowing serious bodily injury murder, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sauter was aware that it was practically certain that his conduct would cause serious bodily injury that then resulted in Joyce’s death; that Sauter knew that the injury created a substantial risk of death; and that it was highly probable that death would result. As Ausley and Strouse have already stated, they specifically told Sauter if he did not feed Mrs. Sauter, she would die from starvation, and; that if Sauter did not give Mrs. Sauter liquids, she would die from dehydration.  Sauter proceeded to not feed or hydrate Mrs. Sauter sufficiently to keep her alive.  As noted in the forensic report prepared by Dr. Michael O. Berkland, DO, Mrs. Sauter was in a prolonged fasting and starvation condition and was dehydrated at the time of her death. Both Bath and Sauter acknowledge that they only fed Mrs. Sauter from an “eyedropper” on occasion.  Both Bath and Sauter acknowledge that they purposely kept Mrs. Sauter overmedicated because they thought she was in pain—though they never asked her, and could not ask her, because she was medicated to the point of being non-responsive, as testified to by Strouse.

Page 35:

            Lines 1-12:  The Court again has confused criminal complaints made by Strouse with someone else. This again brings into question the Courts ability to accurately and effectively review, analyze, and make decisions regarding probable cause.  If the Court cannot review the correct charges, how can the Court reach the correct conclusions and decision and opinions?  For example, the Court states that Strouse charged Sauter with (1) Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution and (2) Falsifying or Tampering With Records.  These statements by the Court are grossly inaccurate. Strouse did not charge Sauter with (2) Falsifying or Tampering With Records.  Strouse charged Sauter with Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution 2C:29-3.b(1)(2)(3), among others.  Regarding Conspiracy 2C:5-2 (a) ETC., there are four separate complaints. Since none of these complaints were discussed at the probable cause hearing on January 11, 2011, it is not possible for the Court to dismiss any of them by a finding of no probable cause.

            The Court comments, “As for the destruction of evidence, Dr. DiCarlo legally turned Mrs. Sauter’s body over to Mr. Sauter, who followed Mrs. Sauter’s wishes in having her body cremated.”  Mrs. Sauter’s wishes do not trump the State Medical Examiner Law requirements that next of kin do not receive the body of the deceased until the medical examiner completes his investigation.  Since Dr. DiCarlo did not complete his investigation until January 27, 2006, Mrs. Sauter’s body should not have been released until that time, no less to the person alleged to have murdered her N.J.A.C. 13:49-5.1 (c).  Dr. DiCarlo’s release of Mrs. Sauter’s body to the person alleged to have murdered her was in violation of State law and was an illegal act.  Since Strouse was not permitted to present his evidence in support of his charge of Murder against Raymond J. Sauter, the complaint should not be dismissed.  Additionally, since none of the other complaints against Sauter were discussed at the probably cause hearing they cannot be dismissed, either.

III.       CONCLUSION

            Page 35:

Lines 13-16:  The Court states that it finds no probable cause to issue summons or

arrest warrants pursuant to R. 3:3-2, against any of the defendants named herein. According to Rules of the Court, R. 3:3-2 was deleted July 13, 1994, to be effective January 1, 1995 and is noted as (Reserved). It appears the Court cites a non-existent rule upon which to find no probable cause (attachment 39).  In fact, Rule 3:3-2, deleted as noted, addressed “Form and Contents of Warrant and Summons”, and has nothing to do with probable cause hearings. 

III.       CONCLUSION

1)      Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court cannot dismiss any of the 61 Criminal Complaints filed against twelve public servants and three others. 

2)      The Court must entertain a fair and impartial probable cause hearing in which Strouse is permitted to present all of his evidence. 

3)      The Court must also arrange for the signing of the four complaints yet to be assigned Summon Nos., as noted by the Sayreville Municipal Court (Ms. Lesinski) on June 2, 2010. 

4)      Judge Lawson finds no probable cause to issue summons or arrest warrants to any of  the 15 persons named, pursuant to R. 3:3-2.  According to Rules of the Court, R. 3:3-2 was deleted July 13, 1994 to be effective January 1, 1995 and is noted as (Reserved).  The Court cites a non-existent rule upon which to find no probable cause (attachment 38).

5)      Judge Lawson’s professional conduct in conducting this “non-evidentiary probable cause hearing” should be closely reviewed.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1.  Judge Lawson Letter of January 20, 2011

2.  Middlesex County Superior Court Naming the Case State v. Sauter et al

3.  Judge Lawson Letter of January 6, 2011 (state of NJ v. Strouse)

4.  Read the Court Transcript or listen to the 2-disk CD

5.  Sauter Complaints Pending Assignment of Summons Nos.

6.  Judge Lawson Letter of January 6, 2011

7.  Sayreville Police Supplemental Investigation Report dated 10/29/2005 and 12/22/2005

8.  External Examination Report

9.  Mrs. Sauter’s End of Life Directive

10. Judge Travis L. Francis Opinion (see ref 23 corrected)

11. SPD[8] Supplemental Investigation Report dated 10-30-2005

12. SPD Incident Report dated 10-29-2005

13. Aronowitz Motion Response to the Court September 29, 2006

14. N.J.A.C. Title 13, Chapter 49, and; State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86 et al

15. Kaplan and Lamb Letters

16. Hollingsworth Letter of June 9, 2008

17. Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death Amended January 27, 2006

18. Definition of proper forensic practice 52:17B-86

19. NJ State Toxicology Lab Report

20. Michael Berkland, DO, Letter

21. Mrs. Sauter Certificate of Death Dated 10/31/2005

22. Dr. DiCarlo Letter of 12/27/2007

23. Judge S.L. Reisner Opinion (see ref. 10 corrected)

24. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

25. Cremation Date and Time

26. SPD Supplemental Investigation Report Dated 12/22/2005

27. SPD Supplemental Investigation Report Dated 12/27/2005

28. SPD Bath Miranda Statement Dated 12/27/2005

29. Candice Boehler-Marquette Email of August 2, 2005

30. Ausley Attempt to Correct Mrs. Sauter’s Certificate of Death

31. Dr. Falzon’s Response To Ausley’s Attempt to Correct Mrs. Sauter’s Cert. Of Death

32. DiCarlo Summary

33. Jack Venturi Letter of January 6, 2005

34. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

35. SPD Summary

36. Prosecutor Summary

37. Aronowitz Summary

38. Hollingsworth Summary

39. NJ Law Network, Rules of the Court, R. 3:3-2

40.  Chief Justice Stuart Rabner’s ORDER

Criminal Division/Probable Cause Response to Lawson  02-05-11. whs

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 underlined numbers or letters located within the chapters.

UPDATES: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CHAPTER NARRATIVE IS DOWN BELOW THE 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.

March 29, 2013:  It is clear that the Newark FBI Field Office is not going to respond to our request for an investigation into the corruption surrounding the suspicious death/murder of our sister by a former police officer and the subsequent cover-up by public servants in Middlesex County, NJ, the judicial system in Middlesex County and Monmouth County, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of NJ, the Governor’s Office, Gov. Chris Christie, or the Office of the Attorney General.

September 5, 2013:  The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.  Our communications were referred to the FBI Newark Field Office by Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit, at the Washington, DC, Field Office.

March 7, 2013:  Gov. Christie continues to ignore this case of corruption by numerous publilc servants in Middlesex County, NJ, and in his cabinet.

April 7, 2012:  The OAG (R&I Section-Lt McGrath) wrote back saying the case (#2005 10192) was referred to the Division of Criminal Justice in the OAG.  Why has it taken, this iteration, 5 (five) months to figure out where to send it for action?

March 19, 2012:  Sent the OAG a letter on 3-18-12 asking for an update on the status of their review/investigation regarding Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., and the suspicious death/murder investigation of Joyce B. Sauter.

March 6, 2012:  Gov. Christie referred one or more of my requests for a special prosecutor to the OAG, Records and Identification section, Lt. McGrath.  OAG’s words were for a “review”.  Previously that meant the dead letter file, as the case has previously been sent to the OAG for review and nothing ever came of it.  Christie probably does not care except for the fact he may be interested in a VP nomination in the upcoming Presidential election.  Perhaps he wants to be able to say he did something.  So far, something is not much.  I sent Christie a thank you note and that, along with $1.79, will get me a cup of coffee at Bob Evans.

February 9, 2012;      COMING SOON A CHAPTER ON FORMER US ATTORNEY FOR NJ CHRIS CHRISTIE AND NOW GOVERNOR OF NJ, CHRIS CHRISTIE.  HOW ATTORNEY CHRISTIE AND GOV. CHRISTIE HAVE REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE THE OFFICIALS NAMED IN THIS SITE FOR THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF JOYCE B. SAUTER, WIFE OF THE ALLEGED MURDERER AND A FORMER DUNELLEN, NJ,  POLICE OFFICER, RAYMOND J. SAUTER.  MATERIAL EVIDENCE SHOWS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT CHRISTIE’S COMPLICITY IN THE CORRUPTION COVER-UP.  LOOK BACK HERE AROUND FEBRUARY 24TH, 2012.

GOVERNOR JON CORZINE’S EFFORTS 

To Assist in Corruption by State

And County Public Servants

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THIS CHAPTER IS NOW OBE DUE TO THE LOST ELECTION.

Though Gov Corzine lost the election, time will tell if the legacy of the office lives on in Gov Chris Christie.  Gov Christie will be given every opportunity to bring law and justice to the State government, the Attorney General’s Office, and Middlesex County.  Gov Christie can begin by ordering the investigation of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter’s suspicious death.

In reading the preceding five chapters you’ve noted that public servants have a vested interest in protecting themselves and each other.  The alleged murderer of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter is a former Dunellen Police officer who is being protected by those with the political power to do so—the Blue Wall.  You’ve also noted that the Superior Court in Middlesex County refused multiple times to explain to Ausley (the Plaintiff filing Pro Se in many motions) why they denied her motions for justice.   

This brief chapter is simply Ausley’s and Strouse’s documentation regarding their efforts to get help from the Governor’s Office regarding corruption in the New Jersey State Attorney General’s Office and Middlesex County, New Jersey.  Ausley and Strouse have followed all the legal requirements (no attorney would take the case) through the NJ court system and have three motions being considered before the NJ Supreme Court as of October 30, 2009.

Efforts involving the Governor’s Office go back almost 14 months.  Efforts with Governor Corzine involve filing a formal complaint against Deputy Attorney General Denise M. Hollingsworth:  Corzine ignored the request.  Efforts involve requesting the Governor to order a suspicious death investigation against a former police officer who we allege murdered our sister, Joyce:  Corzine ignored the request.

How is it that Governor Corzine can just look the other way when direct, relevant, and aggravating evidence is submitted to law enforcement officials in his administration, that shows that an alleged murderer remains free and has never been investigated for a documented suspicious death?

Linked to this chapter are several letters Ausley and Strouse have submitted to Governor Corzine over the past 14 months.  Governor Corzine has ignored every opportunity to assist in investigating corruption by public servants in Middlesex County and the Attorney General’s Office. (SEE Corzine)

US ATTORNEY CHRIS CHRISTIE

When Chris Christie was the U. S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, he constantly referred to himself as a man of law and order.  Christie was given an opportunity to prove that in 2006 when he received an evidentiary package of over 300 pages regarding Joyce’s suspicious death and the criminal involvement of numerous public servants, from Sayreville, and Middlesex County, up to the Attorney General’s Office.  US Attorney Christie ignored our concerns, the package of compelling, direct, and relevant evidence we sent him, and our request for an investigation into corruption in local and state government.

GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE

 Following Chris Christie’s election as the Governor of New Jersey, we continued to provide him with information regarding conducting an investigation into the corruption in local and State government, and Joyce’s suspicious death/murder.  When we did receive a response from Christie, it was to inform us that our correspondence was referred to the Office of the Attorney General for review.  There was never a single follow-up letter from Christie regarding the status or outcome of the review.  Responses from the Office of the Attorney General were incomplete and non-responsive to specific allegations.  When so informed, Christie continued to ignore us, as he has through May 2013.

LAST UPDATED:  Dec 28, 2016

Total Visits: 140,462

Total Hits: 6683,033

NAVIGATION NOTES

• The log-in at the top is for the site administrator.
• 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. 

UPDATES: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NARRATIVE BODY IS BELOW THE UPDATES.

While Ann Milgram may have moved on, the statute of limitations are on hold, as her crimes are related to a suspicious death/murder case.

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.  Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief, of the Washington, DC Field Office, forwarded our communications to the Newark FBI Field Office for action.

April 7, 2012:  According to correspondence from Lt. McGrath dated 3/26/12, the case (#2005 10192) was referred to the OAG’s Division of Criminal Justice for action.

January 26, 2012:  On this date I received a letter from Robert E. McGrath, Lt, Records and Identification, from the Office of the Attorney General (Paula T. Dow).  Lt. McGrath informed me that Gov Christie referred my correspondence to the OAG’s Division of Criminal Justice, “where it will be reviewed.”  Lt. McGrath’s letter to me is dated December 22, 2011, and is post-marked January 24, 2012.

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 23, 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 Funk and Wagnalls and Blacks 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 to come.

September 20, 2010: Frivolous action?  Harassment?  Fair hearing? The probable cause hearing set for 10/5/10 in Monroe Twp. under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same 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.

September 17, 2010: Sent to Judge Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review has been set for October 5, 2010.  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 municipal court 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 indictable 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 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:  Judge George M. Boyd canceled the probable cause hearing scheduled for August 17th, 2010 because of jurisdictional concerns.  The 61 criminal complaints have been referred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment to the proper jurisdiction for the probable cause hearing.  Court Administrators are refusing my request to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is set 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 Vicinage 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:  Citizens criminal complaints were filed on June 2, 2010, against Dep Attorney General Hollingsworth, in the Sayreville Municipal Court.

February 13, 2010 Update: Following a New Jersey Supreme Court ORDER issued by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner on November 2, 2009, we are preparing individual criminal complaints against each of the public servants involved in this case, to be submitted to the Sayreville Municipal Court, for legal action in a “trial court.”  Apparently the Superior Court, Appellate Division, for Middlesex County, didn’t realize that we were filing in the wrong court for over three years, as they never informed us our motions were being filed in the wrong court.  How is that possible?

SUMMARY:

Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth used her office to protect Middlesex County, NJ, public servants from being investigated for criminal events surrounding the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  In concluding that allegations against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo (Assistant County Medical Examiner), Eric M. Aronowtiz (First Deputy County Counsel), Bruce Kaplan and William Lamb (County Prosecutor’s Office), and Garbowski, Brennan, Sprague, and Nobles (Sayreville Police Department) had no merit, Hollingsworth ensured that the alleged murderer of Joyce would not be investigated for her suspicious death.  This chapter, as in the ones preceding this chapter, clearly show that allegations against Hollingsworth for Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct are well supported.  Other criminal charges that could be developed against Hollingsworth include hindering apprehension and hindering an investigation.  Despite numerous requests to Governor Jon Corzine to order an investigation of Hollingsworth, Governor Corzine has chosen to remain silent regarding this law and order issue.  Efforts will now be made with Gov Chris Christie, presuming the Governor’s Office does not remain corrupt, as well.

DISCUSSION:

CHARGES AGAINST DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DENISE HOLLINGSWORTH (Office of the Attorney General, NJ)

OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

(TITLE 2C:30-2)

NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

AND

 CRIME OF PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

(TITLE 2C:30-7)

NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

 Official Misconduct (Title 2C:30-2)

It is alleged in this writing that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth has committed the crime of OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT and PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. The statute upon which this crime is based, and Hollingsworth’s violations, reads, in part, as follows.  Please note that Hollingsworth may also be guilty of other criminal charges such as hindering apprehension, false swearing, and conspiracy, among others.

2C:30-2. Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

In this case, Hollingsworth’s action benefited, in a non-pecuniary manner (to our knowledge), the following individuals by ignoring direct and relevant evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was merit to the specific 2C charges submitted to the Office of the Attorney General in February and March 2008, by Carolyn Ausley (sister of the decedent) and Bill Strouse (brother of the decedent).  Further, Ausley and Strouse were injured and deprived of the benefit of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt the cause and manner of the death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, the decedent in this case, in accordance with New Jersey law.  The following public servants were charged in separate complaints submitted to the Attorney General.

Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Asst. Medical Examiner, Middlesex County, NJ

Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County, NJ

William Lamb, Assistant Prosecutor, Middlesex County, NJ

Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy Counsel, Middlesex County, NJ

Sayreville Police Department:

Det-Sgt Sprague, Middlesex County, NJ

Det Noble, Middlesex County, NJ

Lt. Brennan, Middlesex County, NJ

CAPT Garbowski, Middlesex County, NJ

b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Using her office and her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized, Hollingsworth knowingly and purposely ignored over 651 pages of relevant and direct evidence provided to her by Ausley and Strouse, with the intent to protect from investigation and prosecution, the above mentioned public servants, and in turn, protect the alleged murderer,  from being investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.   In this case, and based upon the complaints submitted by Ausley and Strouse in February and March 2008, she also refrained from performing her duty to objectively review the extensive direct and relevant evidence submitted to her.  Direct and relevant evidence reviewed by Hollingsworth clearly showed that the public servants charged above had violated numerous sections of the New Jersey Criminal Code of Justice 2C.

In order for Hollingsworth to be found guilty of official misconduct, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) That the defendant was a public servant at the times and dates alleged in the indictment, and

 (2) That the defendant committed an act relating to (his/her) office knowing that it was unauthorized, or committed the act in an unauthorized manner, or that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing an act which (he/she) was required to perform as part of (his/her) office.  The State must prove that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing a duty which was imposed upon (him/her) by law or was clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. This provision refers to a public servant who knowingly refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty which is imposed upon (him/her) by law, or which is clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. The duty to act must be so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that (he/she) must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. In addition, the State must prove that the defendant knew of the existence of (his/her) non-discretionary duty to act prior to the incident in question.3

 Hollingsworth knowingly and purposely refrained from conducting an objective review and analysis of over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against the Middlesex County public servants mentioned above were fully supported, with the intent and benefit of protecting those individuals from criminal investigation and prosecution.  This duty to provide an objective review and analysis was non-discretionary and was clearly imposed upon her by law and was also clearly inherent in the nature of her office.  There is no doubt that Hollingsworth clearly knew what the minimum standards were for conducting the four (4) reviews/investigations of public servants, and; the most egregious decision not to initiate necessary action to begin an investigation of Joyce’s alleged murderer for his role in the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

For example, Hollingsworth read that the Sayreville Police reported a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner’s Office.  She also read that the Sayreville Police reported a suspicious death to the County Prosecutor and she also read that no crime scene was established nor was there a crime scene investigation.  Hollingsworth also read that the Medical Examiner directed both the Sayreville Police and the County Prosecutor to conduct suspicious death investigations.  It is clear that Hollingsworth knew that there should have been a crime scene investigation conducted.

Hollingsworth reports she found no merit to that complaint/charge-in other words, it was okay with her that a crime scene was not established and that a crime scene investigation was not conducted in a suspicious death case by either the Sayreville Police or the County Prosecutor.  Also, direct evidence shows that the alleged murderer was never Mirandized, no less interviewed, and; neither Ausley or Strouse were interviewed.  As if that is not enough, the Sayreville police Hospice Death/Suspicious Death report does not question the fact that neither they, nor any medical help, were called to the scene for more than one hour after the alleged murderer admits Joyce died.  Why wait an hour to call for help?  To make sure she is dead, of course.  This was not an issue, reported Hollingsworth.

Hollingsworth overlooks falsification of official records and public documents.  For example, Dr. DiCarlo falsified public records.  Direct and relevant evidence, in the form of Certificates of Death and changes to the Certificates of Death on official county/state forms were provided to Hollingsworth for review.  In justifying the changes to the Certificates of Death, Dr. DiCarlo had to specify his justification for changing the manner and cause of death for Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  In the certificate submitted to Hollingsworth as relevant evidence, DiCarlo certifies that he made his decision based upon his conduct of an autopsy.  In other official documents provided by DiCarlo and submitted to Hollingsworth, DiCarlo admits he did not conduct the mandatory autopsy and only completed an External Examination, as you read in previous chapters.  Hollingsworth read the law, knew the requirements, knew that DiCarlo falsified the Certificate of Death, and yet ruled there was no merit to the complaint/charge of Falsification of Public Records or failure to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  A pattern is developing.

For example, the Prosecutor failed to conduct a mandatory investigation in compliance with the State Medical Examiner Act.  When Dr. DiCarlo learned of the suspicious death report directly from the Sayreville Police, he ordered an investigation be conducted by the County Prosecutor.  Two letters from Kaplan and William Lamb clearly state that the Prosecutor’s Office did not conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation ordered by Dr. DiCarlo.  As noted in Hollingsworth letter of June 9, 2008, the County Prosecutor waited 80 (eighty) days before deciding that he believed an investigation was unnecessary.  This 80-day period, said Hollingsworth, was based on the date that the Medical Examiner completed his investigation, such as it was, on January 16, 2006 (October 29, 2005 – January 16, 2006), as discussed in the chapter on the Medical Examiner.

The Medical Examiner Act requires the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation in all suspicious deaths.  Lamb asserts in both of his letters available to Hollingsworth, that no investigation was conducted.  According to Hollingsworth June 9, 2008, letter, per Lamb’s correspondence (the chapter on the County Prosecutor goes into great detail in this area), this was decided at the time the “autopsy” was completed (an External Exam was completed on October 31, 2005, per the Medical Examiner; an autopsy was never conducted).  Lamb is lying.  When Ausley and Strouse stated that no autopsy was conducted, why didn’t Hollingsworth ask the Medical Examiner for a copy of the official autopsy and dispel that allegation?  Again, Hollingsworth states in her letter of June 9, 2008, that the Prosecutor’s Office waited 80 days before deciding that an investigation was not necessary.  A pattern is becoming more clear.

For example, Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, swore or affirmed in New Jersey Superior Court that an autopsy had been conducted and all necessary toxicology tests had been conducted on the decedent, both contradicted by direct and relevant evidence from the NJ State Toxicology Lab and correspondence from Dr. DiCarlo.  Complaints/charges against Aronowitz included false swearing and the direct and relevant evidence to support those charges was available to Hollingsworth to review.

Such evidence was in the form of official county documents made available to Hollingsworth.  The chapter on Aronowitz goes into greater detail regarding Aronowitz’s false swearing and false affirmation.  In reviewing those documents, Hollingsworth concluded that the charges had no merit-that Mr. Aronowitz was not guilty of false swearing.  However, direct and relevant evidence reviewed by Hollingsworth tells a completely different story.  Hollingsworth’s investigation is “secret” so we cannot determine if she asked Aronowitz to explain his false swearing in court documents, documents we provided Hollingsworth to review.  A pattern is obvious.

(3) That the defendant’s purpose in (committing the act) (failing to perform the act) was to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of a benefit.  The law requires that (the act in question) (the defendant’s failure to perform a required act) be done either to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of the benefit.

It should be noted that the actions of these public servants directly benefited the alleged murderer who is a former Dunellen Police Officer who is alleged to be responsible for the suspicious death of Joyce, yet he was never investigated by law enforcement-something which Judge Travis L. Francis wondered about in his published opinion in the case to obtain Joyce’s specimens taken during the External Examination for independent laboratory testing by Ausley and Strouse (you may have read about his statement in an earlier chapter).

Benefits received by the alleged murderer by not being investigated include the following, among others:  his financial situation would remain undisturbed-he was deeply in debt and unemployed; he would not have to sell his house to pay for 24/7 care scheduled to begin what turned out to be the day after Joyce’s death, and could use that money for his own purposes; Joyce’s step-daughters both deny and acknowledge that the alleged murderer  abused one of them and Joyce as well; though Ausley and Strouse alleged that the care giver killed their sister, the care giver was never Mirandized; no one would learn that an “estate transfer” of the deed to the house from Joyce’s name to that of the care giver’s name occurred before Joyce’s death, thus raising the question of the legality of the transfer of the “estate” and the subsequent (future) benefiting of the proceeds of sale as the alleged murder; the crime of “negligence” committed by the alleged murderer, who was Joyce’s primary and legal care giver in that he had a legal duty to care for her, in accordance with the legal agreement, and he abandoned her and unreasonably neglected to care for her or failed to permit to be done any act necessary for the physical or mental health of Joyce, with the result being her intentional death.  Perhaps an investigation would conclude that the care giver caused Joyce’s premeditated death, as the care giver acknowledged that his plan for Joyce was to die.

Early on, the care giver’s plan was for Joyce to die.  At one point he commented to Strouse “The plan for Joyce is to die”.  As noted by Judge Travis L. Francis, New Jersey Superior Court, the alleged murderer did not show any interest whatsoever in the four specimens taken from Joyce until Ausley requested custody in the Appellate Division, for independent laboratory testing at her own expense.  The alleged murderer was the only one to object to the release of the specimens, as noted by the NJ Superior Court.  The alleged murderer clearly received these benefits from Hollingsworth with the intent to protect him from investigation and prosecution.  And to this day, all of these public servants have been successful.  Hollingsworth has been successful in using her office to aid these criminals.

Additionally, Hollingsworth knows that to find merit in one is to find merit in all.  And to find merit in one is to raise a question of integrity and forthrightness for all prior cases investigated by these public servants, as well as cases investigated since then-in other words, finding merit in any of these charges/complaints places the entire Middlesex County judicial system under suspicion for corruption.  And now, the Office of the Attorney General is involved in the cover-up and corruption as well, by the direct actions of Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, who, like the other public servants, should be investigated and prosecuted for Official Misconduct and any other applicable crime.  But who would investigate all of them?  Would there be another cover-up?

Irreparable harm not only befell Ausley and Strouse for the loss of their sister, but the same harm befell Joyce’s two daughters, Deby Bath and Candace Boehler (maiden name), who lost their mother.  Because an autopsy was never conducted, the family will never know the true cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  Ausley and Strouse also have to go through the rest of their lives knowing that a possible murderer walks free, simply because of public servants protecting a former police officer who called in a favor of the “blue wall”.

These public servants should be investigated.  Ausley and Strouse demand that these public servants, including Hollingsworth, be investigated and prosecuted for all crimes associated with the allegations made herein, and those identified in over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence submitted to the Office of Attorney General in February and March 2008.  If necessary, Ausley and Strouse can provide a complete copy of all material previously submitted.  It is perhaps timely, also, that Governor Corzine and Attorney General Milgram be investigated for ignoring Ausley and Strouse’s multiple pleas for help.

Ausley and Strouse demand, once again, that the State of New Jersey investigate Joyce’s care giver for the suspicious death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, who died a suspicious death on October 29, 2005.

1 Title 2C:27-1. Definitions. In chapters 27 through 30, unless a different meaning plainly is required: b.”Government” includes any branch, subdivision or agency of the government of the State or any locality within it; g. “Public servant” means any officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, and any person participating as juror, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses.

2 An “act” may be unauthorized because it is declared to be such by statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or otherwise.

3 The New Jersey Penal Code – Volume II: Commentary (2C:30-2). Subsection b, the “omission to act” phase of this offense, has reference to a public servant who consciously refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty, which duty is imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. In addition, the public servant must know of the existence of such non-discretionary duty to act. Thus, such duty must be either one that is imposed by law, or one that is unmistakably inherent in the nature of the public servant’s office, i.e., the duty to act is so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that he must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than mere breach of good judgment. In the absence of a duty to act, there can be no conviction.

In February and March 2008, Ausley and Strouse submitted four criminal complaints and charges (651 pages) to the Office of the Attorney General, against certain public servants in Middlesex County.  The submitted complaints and charges eventually ended up in the Office of Attorney General with Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth for review.  Regarding her letter of June 9, 2008, written under the “Division of Criminal Justice” letterhead, Hollingsworth, a Deputy Attorney General in the Prosecutors Supervision & Coordination Bureau, draws several conclusions.

Hollingsworth’s conclusions are based on the 651 pages of information Ausley and Strouse submitted to the Office of Attorney General in February and March 2008.  Hollingsworth also states that she contacted the Middlesex County public servants against whom the charges were made.  Hollingsworth concluded that she “… saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or other criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.”  Her conclusion of “no merit” is not supported by the direct evidence submitted for review.  One has to believe she knowingly and purposely ignored that evidence to enable her to draw the conclusions she did, with the intent of protecting the public servants charged.

In a subsequent letter dated July 28, 2008, writing under the auspices of the Office of the State Medical Examiner, Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth adds “… that based on our review of your allegations against Aronowitz, there is no actionable conduct that would warrant criminal prosecution.”  Mr. Aronowitz is the Attorney who represented the Medical Examiner’s Office and the County of Middlesex when Ausley petitioned for the release of the four specimens taken from Joyce during DiCarlo’s External Examination.  Hollingsworth also incorrectly concludes that she “saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or other criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.”  Hollingsworth is multi-talented and gets around quite a bit.  One has to believe she knowingly and purposely skipped over direct and relevant evidence to enable her to draw the erroneous conclusions she did, with the intent of protecting the public servants charged.

There is a glaring factual disagreement with the findings and conclusions drawn by Hollingsworth and the direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse.  Further, it is interesting to note that charges against the Sayreville Police Department were reviewed by Hollingsworth, as opposed to the NJ State Police;  it is interesting to note that charges against the Assistant Medical Examiner were reviewed by someone in the Prosecutors Supervision & Coordination Bureau, as opposed to the State Medical Examiner; it is also interesting to note that the charges against Eric M. Aronowitz, the First Deputy Counsel for Middlesex County, were reviewed under the auspices of someone from the Office of the State Medical Examiner.

While Ausley and Strouse remain utterly confused as to who should have reviewed whom regarding the criminal charges previously submitted, we are sure that the evidence we submitted was direct, relevant, and material to the charges.  Hollingsworth’s conclusion that “there was no evidence to support a finding of criminal wrongdoing” is simply wrong.  Each charge was matched to Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.

In response to Hollingsworth June 9, 2008, letter, we offer the following information and assessment from her prejudiced review of direct and relevant evidence.  It is quite clear from her conclusions that Hollingsworth’s intent is to protect the public servants from Middlesex County at the risk of her career.  We have to wonder why?  Well, one reason is, if you find culpability with one, you find it with all in this case.

Leading one astray is an art that Hollingsworth has perfected.  Hollingsworth’s reframing of our charges and complaints, intentional as it is, cannot hide the facts from a careful reader.  Unfortunately, no one else will read the material and it is therefore essential that Ausley and Strouse continue seeking an audience with those who will objectively assess the submitted information and render a fair conclusion based on the direct and relevant evidence provided.  Perhaps there is a reason why Hollingsworth failed to take the time to explain her rationale for her conclusions.

Hollingsworth mistakenly begins her response to our allegations and charges making reference to Ausley’s and Strouse’s concerns about how Bruce Kaplan, the Middlesex County Prosecutor “handling” of allegations of criminal conduct of Joyce’s care giver, the person we alleged to have killed our sister.  A review of our charges and complaints shows that four separate charges and complaints were submitted to the Office of the Attorney General, only “one” of which was against the Prosecutor’s Office for failing to conduct the mandatory investigation required whenever a suspicious death is reported and especially when directed to conduct such an investigation by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  Remember, the investigation Hollingsworth admits did not take place is MANDATORY under the NJ State Medical Examiner Act.  And Hollingsworth concludes failure to conduct this mandatory suspicious death investigation is not a violation of law?

For example, Ausley and Strouse were never interviewed by Hollingsworth, or anyone-regarding the complaints submitted to the Office of the Attorney General.  Ausley and Strouse were not informed as to the process any review would take, nor the timeframes involved.  Hollingsworth contacted neither Ausley nor Strouse after she spoke with persons against whom the criminal charges were made.  Ausley and Strouse never received any explanation as to why their charges lacked merit when the actions of the public servants were matched against the NJ Criminal Code of Justice violations.

In particular, Hollingsworth notes in her June 9^th letter that the Sayreville Police Department “conducted thorough interviews with all parties ….”  This is not true based upon the relevant and direct evidence available in the case.  For example, Ausley was not interviewed at all, and Strouse was not “thoroughly” interviewed-there was never a formal interview of Strouse.  Nowhere in the Sayreville Police Reports of Investigation is a record of a “thorough interview”, no less a Miranda interview, with Joyce’s care giver, the alleged murderer.  Further, as noted in the material reviewed by Hollingsworth, the Sayreville Police Department did not establish a crime scene nor did they conduct a crime scene investigation for a crime of suspicious death-amongst everything else documented in the charges submitted by Ausley and Strouse.  What Hollingsworth is saying is that it is not necessary to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation in the case of a suspicious death, contrary to what the State Medical Examiner act mandates and contrary, of course, to police investigative protocol.  Though Hollingsworth is familiar with the State Medical Examiner Act she chose to ignore its requirements.  Thorough interviews were not conducted with all parties and the record supports that interviews were not conducted with all parties.

Hollingsworth notes that the Sayreville Police Department even consulted with Dr. Frederick DiCarlo.  But Hollingsworth forgets to mention that Dr. DiCarlo directed the Sayreville Police Department to conduct an investigation of the suspicious death.  Hollingsworth also forgets to mention that on the evening of October 29, 2005, the evening of Joyce’s suspicious death, that the Medical Examiner’s Office also directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, mandated by the State Medical Examiner Act, which Hollingsworth is thoroughly familiar with.  Why would Hollingsworth forget to mention that little fact?  Well, such facts do not fit the outcome she is seeking, which is using her government position to protect the public servants from Middlesex County.

Hollingsworth comments that Dr. DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, “provided a very comprehensive External Examination Report supporting his findings on cause and manner of death.”  This is so far from the truth that Clarence Darrow is rolling in his grave.  The External Examination report referred to by Hollingsworth clearly does not support DiCarlo’s findings on cause and manner of death.  In fact, a certificate of death produced shortly after the completion of his final report indicates the manner and cause of death to be  “pending”.  That certificate of death was subsequently changed 3 more times by Dr. DiCarlo-one has to wonder why?  The State Medical Examiner Act requires that the only way to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt when a suspicious death is reported is to conduct an autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo admits he never conducted an autopsy; Hollingsworth confirms his statement, as does that of Ausley/Strouse attorney Jack Venturi.  Based on the four specimens taken during the External Exam by Dr. DiCarlo, Michael Berkland, D.O., an independent Forensic Pathologist, determined that at the time of Joyce’s death, she “was in a prolonged state of fasting and starvation and was dehydrated.”  Additionally, Dr. DiCarlo changed Joyce’s certificates of death several times, including at least one time wherein he falsified the certificate of death, as clearly demonstrated by the direct evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, and intentionally ignored by Hollingsworth.

Contrary to what Hollingsworth reports, Dr. DiCarlo did not consult with Joyce’s physicians on her medical history.  DiCarlo’s report indicates he reviewed Joyce’s treatment records made available to him by the alleged murderer.  In his report, DiCarlo does not provide any definitive conclusions which support his findings on the cause and manner of death of Joyce, again contrary to what Hollingsworth says in her letter of June 9, 2008.  Since no autopsy was conducted, DiCarlo has no direct or relevant evidence of his own to rely upon, as required by the NJ State Medical Examiner Act.

Not surprisingly at this point, Hollingsworth notes that the Prosecutor’s Office waited until the Medical Examiner and the Sayreville Police department completed their investigations (January 19, 2006) before “determining that there was no actionable criminal conduct to pursue.”  If we believe what Hollingsworth says, we note that the Prosecutors Office waited 80 days after the alleged suspicious death to decide if they would conduct an investigation of the suspicious death.  The Prosecutors Office has two crime units whose job it is to jump in up front and conduct a crime scene investigation.  What happened to those two units in this case?  And why would a prosecutor wait 80 days to make such a decision, when the crime scene is right before him?  What happened to the crime scene while he waits 80 days to hear from others?  The Prosecutor knowingly and purposely decided not to investigate the crime scene because doing so would in all likelihood expose the former Dunellen police officer to tight scrutiny in the case.

Contrary to what Hollingsworth reports the Prosecutor said during her review (such as it was), is a statement from the Prosecutor’s Office, regarding when they made the decision not to conduct an investigation.  William Lamb, an assistant prosecutor, wrote in a letter dated May 16, 2006 (read the chapter on the Prosecutor),  that the Prosecutors Office decided not to conduct an investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death “at the time of the Sauter autopsy”.  Of course, this is a lie, because no autopsy was ever conducted.  This Lamb statement also contradicts what Hollingsworth stated just above.  An external examination was conducted on October 31, 2005, by DiCarlo.  Prior to receiving the lab reports from the NJ State Toxicology Lab, DiCarlo knowingly and purposely released Joyce’s body to the care giver–the alleged murderer, who immediately had her cremated.  Why would DiCarlo release Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer?  Hollingsworth doesn’t even question some of these very obvious actions.  This is knowing and purposeful on her part.

Hollingsworth concludes that she “saw no merit in your allegations of a conspiracy or criminal misconduct involving local and county officials.”  Again, finding one culpable is to find all culpable, which now includes herself.  Ausley and Strouse provided significant direct and relevant evidence which supports the allegations of conspiracy and criminal misconduct.  The direct and relevant evidence, as you’ve read in the other chapters, is evidence produced by Middlesex County and NJ State employees.  How can such evidence not have merit?

Findings and conclusions on Aronowitz were missing from Hollingsworth’s review of June 9, 2008.  In response to a followup letter dated July 28, 2008, Hollingsworth provided the Aronowitz addendum. Hollingsworth notes that there is no actionable conduct warranting prosecution of Aronowitz-that is, Aronowitz’s false swearing in Superior Court is not “actionable conduct.”  The clearest of all direct and relevant evidence was ignored by Hollingsworth so as to support Aronowitz.  In supporting Aronowitz and the others, Hollingsworth benefits the public servants in Middlesex County and harms Ausley and Strouse.

CRIME OF PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

(N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7)

Ausley and Strouse allege in this case that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth committed the crime of PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.  This is in addition to a charge of Official Misconduct under 2C:30-2.  This charge reads very similar to the charge of Official Misconduct.  The statute upon which this crime is based reads as follows:

 2C:30-7. Crime of pattern of official misconduct. 

           3.a.  A person commits the crime of pattern of official misconduct if he commits two or more acts that violate the provisions of N.J.S.2C:30-2 or Section 2 of P.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6).  It shall not be a defense that the violations were not part of a common plan or scheme, or did not have similar methods of commission.

           b.  Pattern of official misconduct is a crime of the second degree if one of the acts committed by the defendant is a first or second degree crime; otherwise, it is a crime of the third degree, provided, however, that the presumption of nonimprisonment set forth in subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:44-1 for persons who have not previously been convicted of an offense shall not apply.  Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other law, a conviction of pattern of official misconduct shall not merge with a conviction of official misconduct, official deprivation of civil rights, or any other criminal offense, nor shall such other conviction merge with a conviction under this section, and the court shall impose separate sentences upon each violation of N.J.S.2C:30-2 and section 2 and 3 of P.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-6 and C.2C:30-7).

Denise Hollingsworth, Deputy Attorney General, employed as a public servant in the New Jersey Office of Attorney General at the relevant time, committed a pattern of official misconduct.  Hollingsworth committed at least four (4) acts that violate the provisions of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Title 2C:30-2, as documented in her hand, in official correspondence to Ausley and Strouse dated June 9, 2008.

Specifically, Hollingsworth committed an act relating to her office which constituted an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized or she is committed such act in an unauthorized manner; or she knowingly refrained from performing a duty which was imposed upon her by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of her office.

It is undisputed that Hollingsworth was a public servant employed in the Office of the Attorney General at the relevant time in which she committed the violation under this section.  It is also undisputed that she committed these acts relating to her office knowing that it was unauthorized, or committed the acts in an unauthorized manner, or that Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from performing an act which she was required to perform as part of her office, and that Hollingsworth’s purpose in committing the act and/or failing to perform the act was to benefit others, or to injure or deprive others of a benefit.

As a public servant in the Office of the Attorney General Hollingsworth was assigned to review criminal charges submitted in February and March 2008, by Ausley and Strouse.  The complaints she was assigned to review were made against (1) Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy Counsel, Middlesex County.  Mr. Aronowitz is charged with False Swearing and Official Misconduct, among others; (2) Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County; Dr. DiCarlo is charged with Falsification of Public Records and Official Misconduct, among others;  (3) four personnel from the Sayreville Police Department including Captain Garbowski, Lt. Brennan, DET-SGT Jeffrey Sprague, and DET Amy Noble, are charged with failure to establish and conduct a crime scene investigation in a suspicious death investigation case, and Official Misconduct, among others; and (4) Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County is charged with failure to conduct a mandatory suspicious death investigation and Official Misconduct, among others.  The fact that Hollingsworth conducted a review of sorts and drew conclusions over her signature as a representative and public servant employed by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General is undisputed.

The Office of the Attorney General was requested by Ausley and Strouse to initiate a suspicious death investigation against the alleged murderer, Joyce’s care giver, the former Dunellen police officer whom the aforementioned Middlesex County public servants protected in the course of committing numerous 2C and State Medical Examiner Act violations.  The Office of the Attorney General failed, despite repeated requests, to respond to any requests from Ausley, to conduct an investigation of the care giver for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

The four criminal charges were assigned to Hollingsworth by the Office of the Attorney General presumably on certain criteria, such as the nature of one or more of the criminal charges.  Though she should have recused herself because of prior involvement two years earlier in the same case, Hollingsworth accepted the assignment.  As such, it is undisputed that the violations committed by Hollingsworth were committed as acts directly relating to her office while constituting an unauthorized exercise of her official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized, or that she committed such act in an unauthorized manner.  The acts in question were incomplete, not at all objective,  and were completely biased reviews of direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse in support of their criminal charges against the Middlesex County public servants and others identified above.  Those charges now include Hollingsworth.

Hollingsworth’s conclusion that the charges had no merit are unfounded.  By concluding that none of the charges and allegations submitted by Ausley and Strouse had merit, Hollingsworth used her office to condone a validity of her conclusion that she cannot support based on over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence she had to review, much of which was documentation prepared by the Middlesex County public servants themselves, such as false Certificates of Death and False Swearing in NJ Superior Court, as recorded in Court transcripts and Judicial opinions, all of which she had to review.  Because she had all the direct and relevant evidence, and had an opportunity to interview Ausley and Strouse (which she did not do), by omission, she completed an unauthorized exercise of her official functions.  What is equally important is that Hollingsworth did so purposely and knowingly, and knew that the act she committed was unauthorized in line with her official functions.

Additionally, Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from drawing proper conclusions based upon over 651 pages of direct and relevant evidence she had before her.  This duty was imposed upon her by law and was clearly inherent in the nature of her office as an investigator. For example, Hollingsworth knowingly refrained from an objective review of Certificates of Death, an official non-discretionary duty which is imposed upon her by law, or which is clearly inherent in the nature of her office, in particular for this investigation.

For example, Hollingsworth had before her copies of Certificates of Death for Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, which were changed at least four times.  Pointed out to Hollingsworth in a conversation with Strouse was an official change to the manner and cause of death falsely certified by Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D.  Specifically, Dr. DiCarlo certified on official documents and public records that he changed the manner and cause of death of the decedent based on an autopsy he said he completed.  In fact, an autopsy was never completed on Joyce, as Dr. DiCarlo attests that he only completed an External Examination on Joyce.

Further, Hollingsworth notes that the Prosecutor’s office said they decided-80 days after Joyce’s death-not to conduct an investigation at the time of the autopsy, when in fact, they knew an autopsy had not been conducted.  Though Hollingsworth had all the documentation before her that undisputedly showed that an autopsy had not been conducted, she acts, in her conclusion, as if an autopsy had indeed been conducted, thus perpetuating another lie and fabrication.  All of this to protect the aforementioned Middlesex County public servants.

Hollingsworth’s duty to act was so clear in terms of how her investigation was to be conducted, that she was obviously on notice as to the standards that she must meet.  Based on her purposeful and knowing refraining from and omitting from her investigation direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, Hollingsworth exhibited a failure to act that was more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. These non-discretionary duties and responsibilities to conduct a complete, proper, objective investigation, within established criteria and protocol, were known by her, prior to the filing of these charges and complaints.  In other words, she knew the outcome she wanted to achieve, and as a result, she knowingly and purposely chose and interpreted available information to ensure she was successful.

As a direct result of Hollingsworth’s knowing and purposeful decision not to perform required acts, significant benefit was received by not only Middlesex County public officials, and not only the alleged murderer who was never investigated for Joyce’s suspicious death, but the entire judicial system from Middlesex County to the Office of the Attorney General-all cleared of any wrongdoing by Hollingsworth.  Each of the “entities” charged by Ausley and Strouse identified above all contributed individually and jointly at various times to benefit Joyce’s care giver.  Additionally, Hollingsworth’s actions also put the cap on the benefit, not only for the care giver, but also to protect Middlesex County public servants who put their careers on the line, risked jail time, loss of job and loss of pension, not to mention the integrity of the entire Middlesex County judicial system for cases tried prior to Joyce’s suspicious death, and since Joyce’s suspicious death.  Imagine what will happen when scores of attorneys and others learn of these criminal acts on the part of these public servants-they will want all their cases reviewed for obvious possible indiscretions.  And now, of course, the Office of the Attorney General is implicated as well.

Irreparable harm was caused to Ausley and Strouse, sister and brother of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, as well as to Deby and Candace (now has different last name) because they will never know the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death.  They will never know the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death because, in the State of New Jersey, whenever a suspicious death is reported, the only way to determine the manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt is by conducting an autopsy-which DiCarlo admits was not conducted and which the county has been unable to provide documentation for.  Irreparable harm has also befallen Ausley and Strouse in that throughout the four years since theirs sister’s death every effort they made to bring to justice the alleged killer has been turned back on them, as if they were common criminals themselves.  It seems no amount of evidence can be submitted in the NJ judicial system that can penetrate the blue wall, from Middlesex County to the Office of the Attorney General.  It is also very sad for Ausley and Strouse that possibly through threat and intimidation from the alleged murderer, both Deby and Candace have turned against their aunt and uncle and the family is now splintered.

Hollingsworth contributed directly to this harm by failing to use the direct and relevant evidence submitted to her to restore order and justice in the judicial system of the State of New Jersey.  By ignoring evidence Hollingsworth acted purposely with respect to the nature of her conduct because it was her conscious objective to exonerate all of the accused public servants.  She was successful, to date.

Hollingsworth knew that if she ignored the direct and relevant evidence submitted by Ausley and Strouse, and relied upon conversations with the accused public servants, she could shape the circumstances such that it would be practically certain that she would achieve the result she needed to achieve, which was the exoneration of all the public servants accused in this case by Ausley and Strouse.

Neither Ausley nor Strouse have any idea how much, if any, money changed hands regarding the corruption which has taken place in this case.  Ausley and Strouse can only suggest that Joyce’s alleged murderer’s relationship with identified public servants is based on his former employment with the Dunellen police department, which is a borough of Middlesex County.  The blue wall is alive and well in New Jersey.

Since September 2008, Ausley and Strouse have written Governor Jon Corzine’s office five (5) times asking for him to intervene in this case and order the suspicious death investigation to be initiated.  Ausley and Strouse also asked Gov Corzine to investigate Hollingsworth for official misconduct.  As of October 28, 2009, Gov Corzine has been non-responsive to their pleas for help.  What does this suggest?

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
• 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 OF INFORMATION IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES.

Summary

Though it appears that William Lamb retired from the Prosecutor’s Office, because this is a suspicious death/murder case, statutes of limitations do not apply to his breaking of the law.  This will be an albatross around his neck until the day he is no longer with us.

Dec 24, 2014:  It is reported by Charlie Kratovil that “On January 13, [2014,] State Senators on the Judiciary Committee narrowly approved Gov. Christie’s controversial nomination of Bruce Kaplan to become a Middlesex County Superior Court Judge.”

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 was contacted regarding this corruption.  We are pending a response from them at this time.  Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit in the Washington, DC Field Office, said he forwarded our complaint to the Newark FBI Field Office for action.

July 2, 2013:  It is reported on line that Bruce Kaplan resigned on/about May 8, 2013, to take a position with the State Attorney General’s Office.  Kaplan is moving to the Division of Criminal Justice in Trenton.  Kaplan’s term as prosecutor for Middlesex County expired on January 14, 2013.  Kaplan is being replaced by Andrew C. Carey.  Carey, acting, was nominated by Gov. Chris Christie in March to replace Kaplan.

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 23, 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 Funk and Wagnalls and Blacks 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 to come.

September 20, 2010: Frivolous action?  Harassment?  Fair Hearing?  The probable cause hearing previously set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. Municipal Court under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same 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.  Just cannot seem to get out of Middlesex County and avoid the appearance of bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest.

September 17, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review 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: I learned today that 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 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: On August 16, 2010, Judge George M. Boyd canceled the probable cause hearing scheduled for Aug 17, 2010, for jurisdictional reasons.  The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment to the proper jurisdictional level.  Court Administrators are thus far refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is set 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 Vicinage 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:  Criminal complaints were filed against Bruce Kaplan and William Lamb on June 2, 2010, in Sayreville Municipal Court.

February 13, 2010 Update:  Following an ORDER issued by NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, we are preparing individual criminal complaints against each of the public servants involved in this case.  Chief Justice Rabner stated that our filings should have been in a “trial court” and not in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, Middlesex County.  Why didn’t the Superior Court tell us that over three years ago?

PROSECUTORS OFFICE STEPS BACK

What better office to protect a conspiracy than the Prosecutor’s Office.  According to Deputy Attorney General Denise Holingsworth (one of Anne Milgram’s mouth-pieces), Prosecutor Kaplan waited 80 (yes eighty) days before he decided that he would not conduct an investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death; we suppose he went around the world in that time trying to make up his mind.  It is highly likely he knew the alleged murderer, professionally.  The NJ State Medical Examiner’s Act proscribed the actions required of Kaplan, actions which he knowingly and purposely chose to ignore, with the successful intent–to date–of protecting a fellow law enforcement officer.

Though directed by the ME’s Office on October 29, 2005, to begin the mandatory suspicious death investigation, Kaplan waited until the ME completed his suspicious death investigation in January 2006, to decide that he would not conduct his own investigation.  In deciding not to conduct his investigation, the SPD and the ME’s offices were free to make intentional and deliberate decisions that led to the alleged murderer being free without being Mirandized or otherwise investigated, even though Kaplan knew that the alleged murderer had previously been accused by one of Joyce’s daughters of physical, emtional, and mental abuse.

By these acts, Kaplan should be criminally charged with Official Misconduct, Pattern of Official Misconduct, Conspiracy, Hindering an Investigation, and Hindering Apprehension.  Read on for numerous and specific details.

CHAPTER IV

Criminal Allegations Against the Hon Bruce Kaplan,

Prosecutor for Middlesex County, N.J.

The Hon. Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County used his office with the intent to protect a fellow law enforcement colleague, by knowingly and purposely not initiating a mandatory investigation of a suspicious death reported to him on October 29, 2005.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17 and the New Jersey Administrative Code 13:49, requires that the County Prosecutor conduct an investigation in all suspicious deaths reported by either the County Medical Examiner or local police, among others.  Mr. Kaplan knowingly and purposely failed to investigate a death reported as suspicious by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner, by the Sayreville Police Department, and by the brother and sister of the decedent.

Standard protocols for conducting death investigations were ignored by the Prosecutor for Middlesex County.  The Hon. Bruce Kaplan, Prosecutor, Middlesex County, New Jersey, ignored the law and refused to conduct the required investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, a 61year old invalid confined to her home bed.  Such investigation is above, beyond, and in addition to investigations conducted by the Medical Examiner’s Office and the Sayreville Police, and is not subject to discretionary authority by Mr. Kaplan.

In addition to other reasons known only to Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Kaplan knowingly and purposely used his office to shield a fellow law enforcement officer accused of the suspicious death by not conducting the investigation.  William H. Strouse, brother of the decedent, initially reported the suspicious death to the NJ State Police, the South Amboy Police, and finally the Sayreville Police on October 29, 2005, claiming that Joyce’s caregiver, a former local police officer, murdered her through starvation, dehydration and/or over-medication.

As a result of Mr. Kaplan’s knowing and purposeful decision not to conduct the mandated investigation beginning immediately upon notification of a report of suspicious death, the body of the decedent was released to the alleged murderer, who within two days of her death, had her cremated before an autopsy could be conducted and the true cause of death determined.  Irreparable harm befell both Carolyn Ausley, sister of the decedent, and William H. Strouse, brother of the decedent, as a direct result of Mr. Kaplan’s deliberate, prejudicial, and unlawful actions.

Though Mr. Kaplan knew that the Sayreville Police Department and the County Medical Examiner’s Offices were conducting mandatory investigations regarding a suspicious death, and though Mr. Kaplan had been duly notified of a suspicious death and was required by law to conduct an investigation, he refused.

The following allegation was filed against Mr. Kaplan with the N.J. Governor’s Office and the N.J. Attorney General’s Office.  It is requested Mr. Kaplan be prosecuted to the fullest extent of any and all applicable laws, and professional codes of conduct that he may have also violated.  The authority for this complaint and these charges is found in the New Jersey Administrative Code 13:49 and the New Jersey Medical Examiner Act 52:17B.  New Jersey Criminal Code 2C violations may also include Official Misconduct, Pattern of Official Misconduct, and Hindering an Investigation.  Clearly Mr. Kaplan intentionally used the authority of his office to prevent the investigation from taking place.  The investigation has yet to be initiated.

Direct evidence was provided to the Office of the Attorney General with the intent that Mr. Kaplan and his office be held fully responsible and accountable for violations of these and any other laws that may be applicable.  The information was also provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, NJ, for investigation.  Please note that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth reported that she interviewed and investigated Mr. Kaplan’s actions in this case and Ms. Hollingsworth concluded that the allegations made against Mr. Kaplan had no merit.  Interesting, Ms. Hollingsworth reported that it took Mr. Kaplan almost 80 days after he was directed by the Medical Examiner’s Office to decide he was not going to conduct an investigation of a suspicious death ( SEE H1, H2  ).  What Prosecutor worth his salt leaves a crime scene unprotected for 80 days?  Again, Ms. Hollingsworth did not interview either Carolyn or Bill as part of her investigation and review.  Here is another example in support of Pattern of Official Misconduct allegations against Ms. Hollingsworth.

REPORT OF A SUSPICIOUS DEATH WELL DOCUMENTED

 When a report of suspicious death is made, the County Prosecutor must conduct an investigation.  In this case, a report of a suspicious death was immediately made to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with New Jersey law, by the County Medical Examiner ( SEE 86  ). However, the Prosecutor knowingly and purposely refused to conduct the mandatory investigation.

Both the Medical Examiner Act (52:17B) and the New Jersey Administrative Code (13:49) require that an investigation be conducted in all cases of all human deaths under suspicious or unusual circumstances.  In the case that went before the SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, DOCKET NO. A-2765-06T5, it was alleged that Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter died under suspicious circumstances ( SEE ).

The suspicious death was reported by William H. Strouse, brother of the decedent, to the NJ State Police, the South Amboy Police, and finally the Sayreville Police Department.  The Sayreville Police Department immediately reported their investigation of a HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH ( See 192 ), to the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, who likewise immediately reported the investigation of a suspicious death to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, directing Kaplan to conduct the mandatory suspicious death investigation (SEE 25 ).

The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, in accordance with the ME Act, directed the County Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an investigation ( SEE  ).  Additionally, both Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse each reported the suspicious death of their sister to the Prosecutor for investigation ( SEE   ).  A reasonable person could conclude that Mr. Kaplan did not conduct the mandatory investigation of the alleged murderer because he knew the alleged murderer was a former police officer in a local department.  Though Kaplan learned that the alleged murderer was never Mirandized, he took no action to correct this obvious wrong.  What does that make Mr. Kaplan?  Kaplan used his office to shield the alleged murderer, a former police officer.

Based on this direct and relevant evidence, there is no doubt that appropriate officials considered the death suspicious and, all offices–except for the Prosecutor’s Office, initiated investigations of sorts required by N.J. laws.

 CAUSE OF DEATH INITIALLY LISTED AS “PENDING INVESTIGATION”

When initially reported by the caregiver of the decedent at around 1700 hours on October 29, 2005, the cause of death (recorded officially at 1813 hours) was determined to be a “hospice death”.  As required under the Medical Examiner Act, a routine report was required to be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office.

At about 8:30 p.m. that night, following Bill’s notification of his sister’s death by one of Joyce’s daughters, Bill immediately reported a suspicious death to the Sayreville Police.  Bill alleged that Joyce’s death was suspicious and caused by starvation, dehydration, or over-medication at the hands of the decedents caregiver.  At that point, Joyce’s death was re-classified as suspicious by the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office (  SEE    ).

Once classified as a suspicious death, the Medical Examiner Act required that an autopsy be conducted.  This is not a discretionary decision on the part of the Medical Examiner, but a requirement of law.  Per the law, once the autopsy was completed, the Prosecutor was to receive a copy of the autopsy report for his investigation.  However, the Medical Examiner purposely and knowingly chose not to conduct the mandatory autopsy and immediately released the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer right after the completion of an External Examination.  Mr. Kaplan knowingly and purposely chose not to followup with the Medical Examiner to determine why the mandatory autopsy was not completed thus making it impossible to determine the true manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  Mr. Kaplan never questioned the Medical Examiner regarding the release of the decedent’s body to the alleged murderer, for cremation on November 1, 2005.

NEW JERSEY STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER ACT 52:17B

The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act mandates that the County Prosecutor take certain actions when a report of suspicious death is received.  The Prosecutor has no discretionary authority to decline to conduct an investigation.  He cannot decide to not conduct an investigation reported by the Medical Examiner and/or the Police Department.

The following lays out the legal authority for the conduct of the Prosecutor’s mandatory investigation and provides the direct evidence in support of Mr. Kaplan’s knowingly and purposely deciding not to follow the law.

This section of the Act requires the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation in all reported cases of suspicious death.  Ref  letter “c.” just below.

52:17B-86. INVESTIGATION OF DEATHS; CAUSES

An investigation shall be conducted in the manner hereinafter described in the case of all human deaths from the following causes:

a. Violent deaths, whether apparently homicidal, suicidal or accidental, including but not limited to death due to thermal, chemical, electrical or radiation injury and deaths due to criminal abortion, whether apparently self-induced or not;

c. Deaths under suspicious or unusual circumstances;

The New Jersey Administrative Code  (13:49) also requires similar, non-discretionary actions be taken by the Prosecutor when cases of suspicious death are reported.

 13:49-5.1 Death investigations; conduct

(c) The duty medical examiner shall take complete charge of every body whose death is reported to the office, and shall not release it to the next of kin or authorized representative for burial or cremation until sufficient information has been accumulated, proper specimens and evidence have been collected as needed, and appropriate examinations have been conducted to establish the cause and manner of death and the identity of the decedent.

1. In cases of suspected criminal homicide, the medical examiner shall coordinate with the county Prosecutor or Attorney General the removal of the body from the scene of death and shall not order the removal of the body from said scene until such coordination has been accomplished.

(d) It shall be the responsibility of the physician medical examiner to require and obtain all pertinent information from the scene of violent, suspicious, unexpected, and unusual deaths, regardless of personal visitations, in every such death investigation conducted by the office, and to incorporate that information citing the source into the permanent records of the Office.

1. The physician medical examiner shall not refuse to inspect the scene when requested by the State Medical Examiner or by the county Prosecutor or assistant Prosecutor.

iv. Recovery of physical evidence from the scene of suspected criminal homicides shall be the responsibility of the Prosecutor.

(f) It shall be the responsibility of the medical examiner to obtain information from first hand witnesses whenever possible, taking the names of these sources and recording the information in a report filed with the office.

1. Police reports and other agency reports may supplement the medical examiner’s own investigation, and shall be obtained whenever necessary to complete the case interpretation.

2. Subsequent additional information shall be recorded with date and time and filed with the case record.

3. In criminal homicide investigations, witnesses and potential suspects shall be interviewed by law enforcement personnel, and the medical examiner shall coordinate with the Prosecutor to obtain the information that is required as part of the medical death investigation.

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

 1. Knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory investigation (52:17B-86c.).

2.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to coordinate with the County Medical Examiner for the removal and safekeeping of the body of the decedent once notified that the death was suspicious; the body of the decedent was moved by the suspected murderer earlier in the evening to a private funeral home for cremation the next morning (13:49-5.1(c)1.).

3.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to direct the County Medical Examiner to inspect the alleged crime scene after the report of a suspicious death; based on the allegations made by William H. Strouse, it would be clear to the Medical Examiner what kinds of evidence needed to be obtained (13:49-5.1(c)1.iv).

4.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to recover physical evidence from the crime scene appropriate for the crime reported, such as nutrition directions, medication bottles or prescriptions; food appropriate for someone in the decedent’s condition.

5.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to interview witnesses such as Bill Strouse; Carolyn Ausley, Joyce’s daughters, friends, physicians, other family, among others.

6.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to Mirandize the person alleged to have murdered Joyce.

52:17B-87. Notification of county medical examiner and Prosecutor

Upon the death of any person from any of the causes mentioned in section 9 of this act [FN1] it shall be the duty of the physician in attendance, any law enforcement officer having knowledge of such death, the funeral director, or any other person present, to notify immediately the county medical examiner and the county Prosecutor of the county wherein the death occurred of the known facts concerning the time, place, manner and circumstances of such death. Immediately upon receipt of such notification, the said medical examiner or his deputy or assistant shall go to the dead body and take charge of the same. He shall fully investigate the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death and take the names and addresses of as many witnesses thereto as may be practicable to obtain, and, before leaving the premises shall reduce such facts, as he may deem necessary to writing and file the same in his office and which shall be made available to the county Prosecutor at his request. The police officer present at such investigation, or if no officer be present, then the medical examiner shall, in the absence of the next of kin of the deceased person, take possession of all property of value found on such person, make an exact inventory thereof on his report and deliver such property to the police department of the municipality wherein the death occurred, which shall surrender the same to the person entitled to its custody or possession. The medical examiner shall take possession of any objects or articles, which, in his opinion, may be useful in establishing the cause of death, and deliver them to the county Prosecutor.

[FN1] N.J.S.A. § 52:17B-86.

 NOTIFICATION OF SUSPICIOUS DEATH

WAS MADE BY APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL

             As previously noted (52:17B-86. Investigation of deaths; causes), a suspicious death was reported to the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office and the Sayreville Police Department.  As previously noted (52:17B-86. Investigation of deaths; causes), the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office directed the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office to conduct the mandatory investigation.  The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office provided the County Prosecutor with the known facts concerning the time, place, manner and circumstances of such death.  All appropriate county offices were notified that a suspicious death occurred and that an investigation was mandatory.

Under this statute and this section, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office is to receive from the Medical Examiner “the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death and take the names and addresses of as many witnesses thereto as may be practicable to obtain, and, before leaving the premises shall reduce such facts, as he may deem necessary to writing and file the same in his office….”  This same paragraph requires that this information   “…shall be made available to the county Prosecutor at his request.”  The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely violated this section of the Medical Examiner Act and did not request the Medical Examiner’s Office to provide this information.

Also required under this section, the County Prosecutor is to receive from the Medical Examiner “any objects or articles which, in his opinion, may be useful in establishing the cause of death, and deliver them to the county Prosecutor.” The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely violated this section of the Medical Examiner Act and did not pursue receipt of this information.

 HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

 1.  Though notified of a suspicious death by the County Medical Examiner, the County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely chose not to initiate the mandatory investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

2.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain from the County Medical Examiner any information regarding the cause of death obtained from the scene, including names and addresses of witnesses or family members who may have information regarding the suspicious death.  In this case, such names would have included Joyce’s daughters and or their spouses, physicians who treated Joyce, and Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse, among others.

3.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain any information from the Medical Examiner about the alleged murderer, the caregiver, who Kaplan knew to be a former police officer.

4.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain any and all evidence from the Medical Examiner, which he may have found useful in establishing the cause of death.

52:17B-88. Findings; report; autopsy; conclusions; copy to closest surviving relative; transportation of body

If the cause of such death shall be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the county medical examiner shall reduce his findings to writing and promptly make a full report thereof to the State Medical Examiner and to the county Prosecutor on forms to be prescribed by the State Medical Examiner for such purpose. If, however, in the opinion of the county medical examiner, the State Medical Examiner, an assignment judge of the Superior Court, the county Prosecutor or the Attorney General, an autopsy is necessary, or if, in cases where the suspected cause of death of a child under one year of age is sudden infant death syndrome or the child is between one and three years of age and the death is sudden and unexpected, and an investigation has been conducted under the provisions of section 9 of P.L.1967, c. 234 (C.52:17B-86), and the parent, parents or legal guardian of the child request an autopsy, the same shall be performed, by

(1) the State Medical Examiner, or an assistant designated by him or by

(2) the county medical examiner or a deputy or assistant county medical examiner provided either has the recognized training or experience in forensic pathology or by

(3) . . . such competent forensic pathologists as may be authorized by the State Medical Examiner; . . .  A detailed description of the findings written during the progress of such autopsy and the conclusions drawn therefrom shall thereupon be filed in the offices of the State Medical Examiner, the county medical examiner and the county Prosecutor. The county medical examiner shall make available a copy of these findings and conclusions to the closest surviving relative of the decedent within 90 days of the receipt of a request therefor, unless the death is under active investigation by a law enforcement agency. It shall be the duty of any county medical examiner to call upon the State Medical Examiner or an assistant State medical examiner, or other person authorized and designated by the State Medical Examiner, to make an  examination or perform an autopsy whenever he deems it necessary or desirable, and it shall be the duty of the State Medical Examiner or assistant State medical examiner to perform such examination, except in such cases as a competent pathologist is so authorized by the State Medical Examiner to perform such autopsy.

 CAUSE OF DEATH INITIALLY LISTED

AS ‘PENDING INVESTIGATION’

             When Joyce’s death was initially noted by her care provider at around 1700 hours on October 29, 2005, the cause of death (recorded officially at 1813 hours) was determined to be a hospice death.  As required under the Medical Examiner Act, a routine report was required to be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office.

About 2 ½ hours later (approximately 8:30 P.M.), following Bill Strouse’s notification of his sister’s death by one of Joyce’s daughters, Bill immediately reported a suspicious death to the Sayreville Police.  Bill alleged Joyce’s death was suspicious and caused by starvation or over-medication at the hands of the decedent’s caregiver.  At that point, Joyce’s death was re-classified as suspicious by the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.

Once classified as a suspicious death, the Medical Examiner Act required that an autopsy be completed.  This is not a discretionary decision on the part of the Medical Examiner, but a requirement of the law.  Per the law, once the autopsy was completed, the Prosecutor was to receive a copy of the report for his investigation.  However, the mandatory autopsy was not completed by the Medical Examiner’s Office and the body of the decedent was released for cremation to the alleged murderer.  The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely never followed up with the Medical Examiner to determine why the mandatory autopsy was not completed regarding this report of a suspicious death.  The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely then permitted the decedent’s body to be released by Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, the responsible County Medical Examiner, to the alleged murderer, for immediate cremation on November 1, 2005.

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

1.  Upon learning that the cause of death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was no longer certain beyond a reasonable doubt, the Prosecutor knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain a copy of the full report of the Medical Examiner regarding the suspicious death.

2.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to receive a copy of the autopsy report from the Medical Examiner as part of the Prosecutor’s ongoing investigation required by law, either immediately after completion or not to exceed the 90 days permitted in the law.

3. Knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure the decedent’s body was immediately secured for autopsy so as to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.

52:17B-90. Co-operation in investigation and autopsy

All law enforcement officers, county Prosecutors, and other officials shall co-operate fully with the offices of the State Medical Examiner and of the county medical examiners in making the investigations and conducting the autopsies herein provided.  Such officials and all physicians, funeral directors, embalmers and other persons shall assist in making dead bodies and related evidence available to such medical examiners for investigations and autopsies.  In cases of apparent homicide or suicide, or of accidental death the cause of which is obscure, the scene of the event shall not be disturbed until authorization by the medical examiner in charge is given.

Any physician, funeral director, embalmer or other person who willfully fails to comply with this section or with section 10 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

 1.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to cooperate with the offices of the State Medical Examiner and the County Medical Examiner.

2.  Following a report of a suspicious death, in which the cause of death was obscure, Kaplan knowingly and purposely chose not to secure the scene of the event, and failed to prevent it from being disturbed until authorization was given by the Medical Examiner.

3.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the required investigations.

4.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to insure that the mandatory autopsy was completed as required.

5.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to follow-up on determining why the mandatory autopsy was not completed as required by law.

6.  As noted in the last paragraph, because he knowingly and purposely failed to comply with the section, the Prosecutor should be charged with a misdemeanor, at a minimum.

7.  Mr. Kaplan should also be charged with Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct, among others.

52.17B-92. Records of medical examiners, use as evidence, right to copies

It shall be the duty of the State Medical Examiner, and the county medical examiners, to keep full and complete records in their respective offices, properly indexed, giving the name, if known, of every such person, the place where the body was found, date and cause of death, and all other available information relating thereto.  The original report of the State Medical Examiner, assistant State medical examiners, or county medical examiners, and the detailed findings of the autopsy, if any, shall be attached to the record of each case.  The State Medical Examiner, or in case of his absence or inability, an assistant State medical examiner, and the county medical examiners, shall promptly deliver to the county Prosecutor of the county wherein the death occurred copies of all records relating to every death in which, in the judgment of such medical examiner, further investigation may be deemed advisable.  The county Prosecutor may obtain from the office of the State Medical Examiner, or of the county medical examiners, as the case may be copies of such records or other information, which he may deem necessary.  The records of the office of the State Medical Examiner, and of the county medical examiners, made by themselves or by anyone under their direction or supervision, or transcripts thereof certified by such medical examiner, shall be received as competent evidence in any court in this State of the matters and facts therein contained.  A reasonable fee may be charged to private persons for copies of such records and upon such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Medical Examiner; provided, however, that no person with a proper interest in such records shall be denied access thereto.  The records which shall be admissible as evidence under this section shall be records of the results of views and examinations of or autopsies upon the bodies of deceased persons such by medical examiner, or by anyone under his direct supervision or control, and shall not include statements made by witnesses or other persons.

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

 1.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain the detailed records noted above from the County Medical Examiner for use in conducting his mandatory investigation.

2.  Knowingly and purposely failed to ask the medical examiner for the records he knew the medical examiner was required to prepare regarding the suspicious death investigation, so as to aid him in his own investigation.

NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER 49. STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER

SUBCHAPTER 1. AUTOPSIES

 13:49-1.1 Mandatory autopsies

(a) In the absence of an objection based on the religious beliefs of the decedent, autopsies shall be performed in all cases of human death occurring in the following circumstances; however, the autopsy should be the least intrusive procedure consistent with proper forensic practice (as defined in N.J.A.C. 13:49-1.8) and the duty to preserve organs for transplant:

1. All cases of apparent homicidal deaths;

2. All deaths occurring under suspicious or unusual circumstances;

6. In all cases wherein the State Medical Examiner, the Attorney General, any assignment judge of the Superior Court, or the county Prosecutor (of the county wherein the injury occurred or where the decedent expired) requests an autopsy;

As documented earlier, a suspicious death was reported by appropriate county authorities to Mr. Kaplan’s Office.  The County Prosecutor was notified of the need to conduct a mandatory investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter by the County Medical Examiner.  Additionally, the Prosecutor had a responsibility to ensure that an autopsy was conducted on the decedent so as to establish the cause of death, as part of his mandated investigation.

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

 1.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure that an autopsy was conducted by the Medical Examiner’s Office, thus permitting the destruction of physical evidence (the decedent’s body) that could be used in the investigatory process to help determine the cause of death.

2.  The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure that the body of the decedent was preserved until all mandatory testing, exams, and autopsy was complete.

3.  The Middlesex County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely permitted the body of the decedent to be released to the person alleged to have murdered Joyce; immediately Joyce’s body was cremated by the alleged murderer.

NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER 49. STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER

SUBCHAPTER 3. REPORTS AND RECORDS

13:49-3.3 Filing of Reports

(a) It shall be the responsibility of the county medical examiner and the State Medical Examiner to maintain on permanent file, full and complete records of every death investigation conducted by their respective offices, indexed by date of report of death, name of decedent, and sequential case number.

(b) The standard “Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner” shall be filed in the office within one working day on every death reported to the county medical examiner’s office.

1. These reports shall be forwarded to the State Medical Examiner and the county Prosecutor twice monthly on the first and 15th day of the month.

2. The medical examiner on duty shall personally sign the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner and shall be responsible for the information therein contained.

(c) It shall be the responsibility of the physician who performs a medical examiner autopsy to write, dictate, or otherwise record a detailed description of the observations and findings resulting from the necroscopic dissection and examination within 24 hours of the completion of the dissection, and to make this available to a typist for transcription within two working days following the dissection. Each page of every autopsy shall include the decedent’s name and identifying county medical examiner case number.

(d) The description and report of gross autopsy findings shall be completed, signed by the physician, and delivered to the county Prosecutor and the State Medical Examiner within 30 days of completion of gross dissection.

(e) The county medical examiners shall be responsible to provide all administrative reports and data requested by the State Medical Examiner.

(f) It shall be the responsibility of the county medical examiners and the State Medical Examiner to maintain sufficient clerical and administrative personnel to prepare the required investigative, technical, and administrative reports in a timely manner; and to maintain the public records in an orderly acceptable fashion.

NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER 49. STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER

SUBCHAPTER 3. REPORTS AND RECORDS

(g) All original signed documents to include the Report of Investigation by Medical Examiner, supplemental investigative reports, autopsy reports and amendments thereto, shall be maintained a minimum of five years as paper documents and on microfilm permanently thereafter. Any photographing, microphotographing and microfilming shall be in accord with N.J.S.A. 47:3- 26. 

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE

MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOWS

1.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to follow-up when the County Medical Examiner did not send him copies of required investigative reports on November 1, 2005, or November 15, 2005, and twice per month thereafter, per the law, until such time as the investigation was complete.

2.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to inquire about or follow-up with the County Medical Examiner regarding the description and report of gross autopsy findings completed and signed by the Medical Examiner’s Office as part of their investigation into the suspicious death.

3.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to confirm that an autopsy was completed as required by law.

NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER 49. STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER

SUBCHAPTER 4. MORGUES AND LABORATORIES

Current through May 16, 2005; 37 N.J. Reg. No. 10

13:49-4.1 Morgue storage; facilities

(b) The county medical examiner shall be responsible for maintaining a regular and continuous access to facilities for the examination, dissection, and storage of dead bodies under investigation, and for such histologic, radiographic, toxicologic, microbiologic, dental, photographic, and anthropologic examinations, and other studies as may be required to establish and document the cause and manner of death, to establish the identity of the deceased, or to further the investigation of events contributing to the death. 

HON BRUCE KAPLAN FAILED TO TAKE THE MANDATORY ACTIONS AS FOLLOW

1.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure that the decedent’s body, physical evidence in the case, was properly stored in the County Morgue, for the purposes noted in (b).

SUMMARY OF FAILURES OF THE HON BRUCE KAPLAN

1.      Knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory investigation of a suspicious death.

2.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to coordinate with the County Medical Examiner for the removal and safekeeping of the body of the decedent once notified that the death was suspicious; the body of the decedent was moved by the suspected killer earlier in the evening to a private funeral home for cremation the next morning.

3.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to direct the County Medical Examiner to inspect the alleged crime scene after the report of a suspicious death; based on the allegations made by William H. Strouse, it would be clear to the Medical Examiner what kinds of evidence needed to be obtained.

4.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to recover physical evidence from the crime scene appropriate for the crime reported, such as nutrition directions, medication bottles or prescriptions; food appropriate for someone in the decedent’s condition, and so on.

5.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to interview witnesses such as Joyce’s daughters, William H. Strouse and Carolyn Ausley, among others.

6.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to interview or Mirandize the person alleged to have murdered Joyce.

7.  Though notified of a suspicious death by the County Medical Examiner, the County Prosecutor knowingly and purposely chose not to initiate the mandated investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

8.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain from the County Medical Examiner any information regarding the cause or manner of death obtained from the scene, including names and addresses of witnesses or family members who may have information regarding the suspicious death.  In this case, such names would have included Joyce’s daughters, Carolyn Ausley, and William H. Strouse.

9.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain any information from the Medical Examiner about the alleged suspect or target of the crime, Joyce’s care provider, who is also a former police officer in Middlesex County.

10.  Though learning that the cause of death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was no longer certain beyond a reasonable doubt, the Prosecutor knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain a copy of the full report of the Medical Examiner regarding the suspicious death.

11.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to receive a copy of the autopsy report from the Medical Examiner as part of the Prosecutor’s ongoing investigation required by law, either immediately after completion or not to exceed the 90 days permitted in the law.

12.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to cooperate with the offices of the State Medical Examiner and the County Medical Examiner.

13.  Following a report of a suspicious death, in which the cause of death was obscure, Kaplan knowingly and purposely chose not to secure the scene of the event, and failed to prevent it from being disturbed until authorization was given by the Medical Examiner.

14.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the required investigations.

15.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to insure that the mandatory autopsy was completed as required.

16.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to follow-up on determining why the mandatory autopsy was not completed as required by law.

17.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain the detailed records noted above from the County Medical Examiner for use in conducting his mandatory investigation; knowingly and purposely failed to ask the medical examiner for the records he knew the medical examiner was required to prepare regarding the suspicious death investigation.

18.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure that an autopsy was conducted by the Medical Examiner’s Office, thus permitting the destruction of physical evidence (the decedent’s body) that could be used in the investigatory process to help determine the cause and manner of death.

19. Knowingly and purposely chose not to follow-up when the County Medical Examiner did not send him copies of required investigative reports on November 1, 2005, or November 15, 2005, and twice per month thereafter, per the law, until such time as the investigation was complete.

20. Knowingly and purposely chose not to inquire about or follow-up with the County Medical Examiner regarding the description and report of gross autopsy findings completed and signed by the Medical Examiner’s Office as part of their investigation into the suspicious death.

21. Knowingly and purposely chose not to ensure that the decedent’s body, physical evidence in the case, was properly stored in the County Morgue, for evidentiary purposes.

22.  Knowingly and purposely chose not to obtain any and all evidence from the Medical Examiner that could have been useful in establishing the cause of death.

23  Knowingly and purposely chose not to file in the Prosecutor’s case files the detailed descriptions of the autopsy made by the Medical Examiner.

IRREPARABLE HARM

Irreparable harm was caused to the siblings (Carolyn Ausley and William H. Strouse) of the decedent, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  Because Mr. Kaplan failed to properly carry out the sworn duties and responsibilities of his office, and in particular when he returned the primary physical evidence (the body of the decedent) to the alleged murderer for immediate cremation, he forever precluded the siblings from forever knowing the cause and manner of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt (there are three separate certificates of death for Joyce).  There is no closure for Carolyn and Bill, and other family members, including Joyce’s daughters.

Additionally, because Mr. Kaplan chose not to carry out his sworn duties as a public servant and chose instead to protect a former police officer, Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse had to initiate litigation in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, for almost two years and at a personal cost of almost $15,000.  This litigation was necessary to obtain the four specimens taken from the body of the decedent during an external examination, for additional testing at their own expense.  This litigation was necessary because the alleged murderer, a former police officer, who was shielded by Mr. Kaplan, did not want Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse to obtain custody of the specimens.  Motions for attorney fees were denied by the Superior Court.  The litigation in this case continues well into 2009.

MATERIALITY

Mr. Kaplan’s knowing and purposeful decision to not conduct the mandatory investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was material to the case in terms of helping to establish the cause of death of the decedent beyond a reasonable doubt.  His failure to protect the most significant physical evidence-the  decedent’s body-in addition to all the evidence at the crime scene, goes directly to his shielding the alleged murderer as part of the blue wall.

Mr. Kaplan’s knowing and purposeful decision to permit the alleged murderer obtain custody of the decedent clearly jeopardized a murder investigation.  Mr. Kaplan’s decision not to initiate the investigation permitted the alleged murderer to receive her body and cremate the decedent prior to all evidence being collected that could have lead to the clear and unequivocal establishment of cause and manner of her death.  Mr. Kaplan’s decision not to be involved contributed to the failure of the county to conduct the mandatory autopsy in this suspicious death.  Kaplan’s intent was clear.

The Prosecutor’s knowing and purposeful decision to not initiate the mandatory investigation was noted by Judge Travis L. Francis in his opinion in the docketed case.  In his opinion, Judge Francis opined for the record “… and it’s also interesting that the – that law enforcement has consistently failed to take any action, notwithstanding the allegations of — of the — plaintiff in this matter.”

Bruce Kaplan had numerous opportunities to begin his investigation even after his first decision to cover for his fellow law enforcement officer by releasing the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer of the decedent.  Mr. Kaplan knew that investigations were being conducted by the Medical Examiner’s Office (at one point the Medical Examiner stated that the Medical Examiner’s investigation was being monitored by the Prosecutor’s Office) and the Sayreville Police, and at any point for several months he could have initiated his mandated investigation, even as Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse were pleading with him and his various divisions to do so, yet he refused.

As you read in previous chapters, Mr. Kaplan was in receipt of an email sent from one of Joyce’s daughters to Carolyn Ausley documenting the physical and emotional abuse she and the decedent suffered at the hands of the alleged murderer.  Mr. Kaplan was not even curious to act on this possible lead.  Had he pursued this lead, he would have discovered that the Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely never developed the lead as an aggravating factor in the case against the alleged murderer.

Finally, had Mr. Kaplan conducted the mandatory investigation required of him, the cause and manner of death of the decedent would have been established beyond a reasonable doubt and any and all litigation, and collateral representation and expenditure of resources, both personal and on behalf of Middlesex County and the State of New Jersey, would have been completely unnecessary.  Moreover, it is possible an alleged murderer would have been brought to justice.  Mr. Kaplan, to date, has succeeded in his intent to keep the alleged murderer, a former police officer, free from investigation for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

Charges of Official Misconduct, Pattern of Official Misconduct, Conspiracy, Hindering Apprehension, and Hindering an Investigation, among others, are for consideration regarding Mr. Kaplan’s actions in this case.

  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 NARRATIVE INFORMATION IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES

Summary

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.  Our complaint and over 100 pages of evidence, were sent by Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Public Corruption Unit at the Washington, DC Field Office, to the FBI Newark Field Office.

March 18, 2013:  A complaint recently filed against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., with the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (Mr. Paul J. Fishman), will bring into focus Mr. Aronowitz’s involvement in the criminal actions involving DiCarlo and all the other public servants, including Judges and Prosecutors.  Dr. DiCarlo was moved from being the assistant ME in Middlesex County, and appointed as the Bergen County Medical Examiner.  The Bergen County, County Executive (Kathleen Donovan) is aware of the allegations against DiCarlo.  So is the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders.  Dr. DiCarlo can run, but he cannot hide.  Because their crimes are part of a suspicious death/murder investigation, there is no statute of limitation for either Aronowitz or DiCarlo.  Nor Ms. Donovan.

March 10, 2012:  See also the chapter on Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., of the Medical Examiner’s Office, and Chapter 6 on the Governors.  Dr. DiCarlo is now the Medical Examiner in Bergen County, NJ. (Kathleen Donovan is the County Executive).  Why is that?

As you know is probably likely, as goes Dr. DiCarlo, so goes Eric M. Aronowitz, who hindered DiCarlo’s apprenhension by providing false information to law enforcement, including Middlesex County Superior Court, and Denise Hollingsworth , a Dep. AG (of the OAG), in this case.  The case against Dr. DiCarlo, in the Office of the Attorney Genral (OAG) is case # 2005-10192.  Write them and ask for the status of their review or investigation.  Let us know what response you get, if any.  Gov. Chris Christie may just be blowing smoke this time, or maybe it is because he is considering accepting someone’s vice-presidential offer, but I can assure you Christie has not acted out of the goodness of his heart in this suspicious death/murder case, in referring my letter to the OAG at this time.  You tell me.

At any rate, Mr. Aronowitz has much to be concerned about because if DiCarlo is invvestigated, charged, tried and convicted, Aronowitz is his co-conspirator, and down he goes as well.  The rest of the house of cards for all the others falls as well.

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 Funk and Wagnalls and Blacks 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 to come.

September 20, 2010: Frivolous action?  Harassment? Fair hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. 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.

September 17, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review has been set.  Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints.  The 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 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: On August 16, 2010, Judge George M. Boyd canceled the probable cause hearing scheduled for Aug 17, 2010, for jurisdictional concerns.  Judge Boyd transferred the 61 criminal complaints to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment at the correct level.  Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints filed by me.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is set for August 17, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.,  in the Monroe Twp. Nunicipal 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: Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against Mr. Aronowitz on June 2, 2010, in the Sayreville Municipal Court.

February 13, 2010 Update:  On November 2, 2009, NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an ORDER stating that we were filing in the wrong court for the past 3 years, and specifically stated that our actions should have been filed in a “trial court”.  Following directions from the Sayreville Municipal Court, we are preparing to submit individual criminal complaints against all of the public servants involved in this case.

Mr. Aronowitz is as sharp as they come when it pertains to false swearing in NJ Superior Court.  In representing a public servant, he swore in NJ Superior Court that the ME (DiCarlo) conducted an autopsy on our sister Joyce.  At the time he made this false affirmation, he knew that only an External Examination had been conducted.  He also swore in court that all toxicology testing had been completed, as well.  Again he lied, as in reading the reports, he knew that not all testing was conducted that was required to be conducted in a suspicious death investigation.

Intentionally ignoring direct, relevant, and aggravating evidence, Mr. Aronowitz  caused irreparable harm to Carolyn and Bill.  His efforts were material to helping deflect the mandatory investigation of a corrupt Dr. DiCarlo, among others.  At  no time has Mr. Aronowitz retracted his false swearing and false affirmations, and he continues to represent his office and corrupt public servants, despite a motion to the Superior Court of New Jersey to have him and the Middlesex County Counsel’s office “disqualififed” from so doing.

Contrary to NJ law, he required that a court order was mandatory prior to the release of Joyce’s specimens; this, too, was a false affirmation on his part.  All of his decisions have been planned to help Dr. DiCarlo and the alleged murderer.  His actions are also designed to shield the Sayreville Police Department’s deliberate misleading investigation.  Mr. Aronowitz clearly should be charged criminally with False Swearing, Official Misconduct, Hindering Apprehension, Pattern of Official Misconduct, and Conspiracy, at a minimum.  Likewise, the Middlesex County Counsel’s Office should be disqualified from responding further in this case, with subsequent activity assigned to public servants in another county, or at the State level.

CHAPTER III

Complaint Against Mr. Eric M. Aronowitz,

First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, NJ

for FALSE SWEARING

BACKGROUND

There is neither justice nor integrity in Middlesex County.  And that includes the office of the County Counsel.  Mr. Aronowitz is the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, NJ.  Based on his false submissions and affirmations before the Superior Court of New Jersey, which continue to this day, a reasonable person can only conclude that the office of the County Counsel is as equally corrupt as Mr. Aronowitz.  After all, Mr. Aronowitz’s immediate supervisor surely must be well-read into these allegations and must have spent sufficient time reading and analyzing the direct and relevant evidence in support thereof.  He is likewise culpable, wouldn’t you say?

Mr. Aronowitz Falsely Swore before Judge Travis L. Francis, P.J.Ch., in the New Jersey Superior Court, in a sworn statement dated September 29, 2006 ( See 19–20 ) .  As you know from reading the Site Introduction, and Chapters I and II, the Middlesex County Counsel’s Office played a critical role in the defense of Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office. 

Specifically, Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing in Judge Travis L. Francis’ Superior Court set the stage for subsequent court actions on behalf of all the defendants in the case before the Superior Court of New Jersey.  Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing before Judge Francis ensured that Carolyn Ausley would not be believed by the court, and sure enough, the court did not believe Carolyn Ausley when she indicated that an autopsy had not been conducted by Dr. DiCarlo, and that Mr. Aronowitz lied about an autopsy being conducted in his letter of September 29, 2006.  Aronowitz’s False Swearing caused irreparable harm to Carolyn, as the Plaintiff in the case.

Mr. Aronowitz also lied about all tests being conducted that could be and that all information was reviewed.  Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, following her review of more than 669 pages of direct and relevant evidence submitted to her by Bill and Carolyn, concluded that allegations against Aronowitz had no merit ( See H1, H2 ).  We have already shown you Hollingsworth’s conclusions are not supported by direct and relevant evidence and that her conclusions are, in fact, false as well.  Such conclusions on Ms. Hollingsworth part continue to provide direct and relevant evidence against her for allegations of Official Misconduct and Pattern of Official Misconduct, among others.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED BY ARONOWITZ

The basis or foundation of this Chapter is supported by direct and relevant evidence provided by Mr. Aronowitz and Dr. DiCarlo, evidence you’ve seen previously in Chapter I regarding Dr. DiCarlo and Chapter II regarding the Sayreville Police Department.  Mr. Aronowitz’s first entered the suspicious death case ( See 19 ) when Carolyn requested that specimen’s ( See 70, 47 )   taken from Joyce during Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination ( See 134-135 ) be released to her for testing at an independent laboratory, at her own expense        ( See 141, 353-354, 355-356, 364-365, 369, 370-371, 372, 380, 382, 605, 606, 621, 656-657 ). 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, when a person who is eligible to receive the requested records makes such a request, the county is required to provide those records in a timely manner.  Carolyn, an adult sibling of Joyce, met all requirements to receive the requested records without hindrance, delay, or harassment ( See 16–17, A-1 ).  

Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, had other ideas.  You will recall that Dr. DiCarlo first received the suspicious death report from the Sayreville Police on the evening of October 29, 2005 ( See 71-73 ).  Though Dr. DiCarlo neither immediately took charge of Joyce’s body, nor did he conduct a crime scene investigation as was required by the State Medical Examiner Act, he did direct the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an investigation and he did direct the Sayreville Police Department to conduct an investigation. 

However, Dr. DiCarlo chose not to conduct a mandatory autopsy so as to protect a former police officer whom he knew had been alleged to have caused the suspicious death of Joyce.  Without an autopsy, DiCarlo knew, in the State of New Jersey, in a suspicious death case, you cannot state the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  As you read in Chapter I, however, that did not stop Dr. DiCarlo from falsifying Joyce’s Certificate of Death.

DICARLO ACKNOWLEDGED HE BROKE THE LAW

As you also read in Chapter I, Dr. DiCarlo admitted he conducted only an External Examination of Joyce’s body, and admitted he did not conduct an autopsy, though required to do so by law.  He removed four (4) specimens from Joyce and requested two of those four be tested by the New Jersey State Toxicology Lab.  There is absolutely no mention of cancer as a cause of death in the report from the N.J. State Toxicology Laboratory results ( See 70 ).  In fact, there is no mention of any cause of death in the Toxicology Report from the NJ State Lab.  Because Carolyn and Bill observed that Joyce was being starved, dehydrated, and over-medicated, and that she had lost what appeared to be 30-40 pounds, they knew in their hearts that she was slowly being murdered.  After learning that Joyce had been cremated before all testing and analysis had been completed, Carolyn and Bill knew that the answer, if anywhere, was solely in these four specimens.  Remember, Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth concluded that Falsifying Public Records is not an offense and perfectly acceptable in New Jersey. 

REQUEST FOR THE SPECIMENS DENIED

Carolyn and Bill hired a Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Michael O. Berkland, D.O., to coordinate the conduct of independent testing of the four specimens to determine the true cause of Joyce’s suspicious death.  When Dr. Berkland requested release of the specimens under OPRA for independent testing ( See 353, 369, 605, 606, 621 ), Middlesex County refused, stating that a court order was necessary.  Mr. Aronowitz’s justifications for requiring a court order were totally outside the bounds of the law and completely unnecessary ( See 354, 16, 17 ) .  As a result, a long and expensive legal process began, one subsequently won by Carolyn in New Jersey Superior Court, and affirmed on appeal.  Not surprisingly, Aronowitz used his position in the County Counsel’s office to ensure that Carolyn did not receive the specimens without a court fight and to ensure that Carolyn did not received reimbursement for reasonable attorney fees she was entitled to under the law.

The following format is somewhat different than you’ve seen before.  As to the 2C criminal charge, we chose to present what a charge would look like as shown in the law, and plug in the direct and relevant information where it is applicable.  How Ms. Hollingsworth could conclude these facts and evidence are without merit is a wonderment for you to ponder.

FALSE SWEARING
(N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2a)

Our complaint charges Eric M. Aronowitz, First Deputy County Counsel of Middlesex County, with various counts of False Swearing in violation of 2C:28-2a, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

A person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

In the State of New Jersey, the offense of False Swearing has been defined as follows:

False Swearing is the assertion, under oath [or equivalent affirmation], of a false statement, or the swearing or affirming under oath [or equivalent affirmation] as to the truth of a previously made statement, when the person making the statement does not believe that the statement is true.

Aronowitz may well have committed other offenses that the Office of the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney’s Office will discover in their investigation.  In considering the charges of the complaint, we allege that Eric M. Aronowitz committed the offense of False Swearing, at a minimum, by virtue of having made and/or affirmed or sworn to the truth of the following statements in evidence submitted by him to the SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APELLATE DIVISION, DOCKET NO. A-2765-06T5:

The Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office conducted an autopsy on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter

AND

“Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.”

AND

“The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.”

ARONOWITZ’ COURT AFFIRMATIONS ARE RED HERRINGS

Mr. Aronowitz never saw an Autopsy Report.  Despite having full knowledge that the Middlesex County Medical Examiner certified to only completing an External Examination, Mr. Aronowitz ignored such evidence and still swore or affirmed in the Superior Court Of New Jersey, Appellate Division, that an autopsy had been completed on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter (age 61).  In fact, no autopsy was ever conducted on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

New Jersey law further requires that proof be provided beyond a reasonable doubt as follows.  Eric M. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made a false statement when he did not believe it to be true.  As noted above, and the following, Mr. Aronowitz’s belief that the statement was not true is established by direct evidence prepared by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office and submitted in Superior Court by Carolyn Ausley (Plaintiff in the above-referenced docketed case).  That proof is a copy of the External Examination Report certified by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office (Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner) and provided to Ms. Ausley under OPRA in lieu of an autopsy report.  Mr. Aronowitz read and reviewed the External Examination Report, as certified by Dr. DiCarlo, and thus knew that an autopsy had not been conducted, and yet swore before Judge Francis that one had been conducted. 

From his very first affirmation through today, though requested to produce the Autopsy Report, Mr. Aronowitz has been unable to provide a copy of the “Autopsy Report” he asserts exists.   (It is also interesting to note that the court system has yet to ask Mr. Aronowitz for a copy of the contested autopsy report.  What’s up with that?)  As provided in this law, such knowledge was established by proof (as shown above) on the part of Mr. Aronowitz that he knew the statement was untrue; or from proof of such facts from which it might reasonably be inferred that Mr. Aronowitz did not believe that the statement was true. 

Additionally, a reasonable person would conclude that when affirmed in court by Ms. Ausley that an autopsy was not completed, that only an External Examination was completed, Mr. Aronowitz would have requested the Medical Examiner to provide him a copy of the autopsy report to validate its existence.  It is not a defense for Mr. Aronowitz to “presume” that one was completed.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Aronowitz knew or should have known that an autopsy was not completed on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter and thus, an autopsy report did not exist.  Since Mr. Aronowitz read the Toxicology Report, and read that Dr. DiCarlo certified that only an External Examination was conducted on Joyce, Mr. Aronowitz knew that his swearing in NJ Superior Court before Judge Francis, and subsequently Judge Susan L. Reisner, was false.

Based on the submissions to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, by Ms. Ausley, and the direct evidence provided by the Medical Examiner’s Office, it is clear that there were no misstatements of question or fact which are inadvertent in the sense that Mr. Aronowitz misunderstood what was requested or performed (autopsy v. external examination) or told to him, or that there was an unconsciously made slip of the tongue from the Medical Examiner’s Office, or Carolyn Ausley, or William H. Strouse, in Superior Court, for Mr. Aronowitz’s to affirm his statement.

The statement given by Mr. Aronowitz was given under oath or equivalent affirmation.  It must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was given under oath or equivalent affirmation by Mr. Aronowitz, or swore to the truth of the previously made statement while under oath or equivalent affirmation. Under this element, any device employed to demonstrate the special importance of the declaration, that is, the seriousness of the demand for honesty, constitutes an oath or equivalent affirmation. Mr. Aronowitz made his statements to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, before two Judges:  Judge Travis L. Francis and Judge Susan L. Reisner, on at least two separate occasions, in response to several motions made by the Plaintiff in the case, Carolyn Ausley.  In reading the opinions of the judges (Judge Francis and Judge S.L. Reisner) in the case, one sees how the judges continued to repeat Mr. Aronowitz’s FALSE claim that an autopsy was completed.  Because the Honorable Judges believed Mr. Aronowitz, perhaps this explinas why Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded that such false statements in the Superior Court of New Jersey had no merit.

New Jersey notes that a document that purports to be made under oath or affirmation shall be considered as under oath if it is subsequently presented as being so verified regardless of any technical irregularities in the effectiveness of the oath for legal purposes.  The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, accepted Mr. Aronowitz’s written affirmations without question. Mr. Aronowitz’s affirmations to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, satisfy this requirement to the fullest.

ARONOWITZ’ STATEMENTS CONTRADICT RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made statements inconsistent with direct and relevant evidence, evidence which he knew existed.  In this case, Mr. Aronowitz made statements which are proven inconsistent with the facts, statements which were made under oath or equivalent affirmation.  Mr. Aronowitz knew his statements were not true because he never saw the autopsy report which he could not produce.  What is even more pertinent is that Mr. Aronowitz, as Counsel for the County, would have read each and every submission, and equally important, would have validated every statement made by the Medical Examiner’s Office and the Plaintiff.  Such submissions included only the External Examination Report and confirmed that an autopsy was not performed.

ARONOWITZ UNABLE TO PRODUCE AUTOPSY REPORT

The fact that Mr. Aronowitz is unable to produce a copy of the Autopsy Report he swore exists is evidence of False Swearing and the making of inconsistent statements. The fact that the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., certified that he only completed an External Examination on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter is evidence of False Swearing on the part of Mr. Aronowitz.  The fact that when Ms. Ausley requested a copy of the autopsy report, under OPRA, she was only provided a copy of the certified External Examination Report—and so swore and affirmed in NJ Superior Court, is evidence in support of False Swearing on the part of Mr. Aronowitz.  And finally, Attorney Jack Venturi reported to Bill and Carolyn that his personal and professional friend, Dr. DiCarlo, in an extensive telephone conversation, told him that he—Dr. DiCarlo—did not conduct an autopsy ( See 648-649 ). 

ARONOWITZ COURT AFFIRMATION CONTRADICTS NJ STATE LABORATORY TESTING

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely also falsely swore that “Complete available toxicology testing was performed by Dr. DiCarlo.” Direct evidence provided by Dr. DiCarlo of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office clearly shows that complete available toxicology testing was not/not performed by Dr. DiCarlo. 

The direct evidence shows that of the four specimens taken from the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter during the External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo only requested that two of the specimens be tested (blood and urine).  The two specimens not tested (liver and vitreous) were the two specimens that could have confirmed or denied the cause of suspicious death of the decedent.  Had those two specimens been tested in accordance with the Medical Examiner Act, the resultant reports would have been available to the Plaintiff under OPRA and the two years of litigation and harassment would have been unnecessary.

ARONOWITZ COURT AFFIRMATION CONTRADICTS SAYREVILLE POLICE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINER’S CERTIFICATION

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely also falsely swore that “The fact is that the Sayreville Police Report did not report Ms. Sauter’s death as suspicious.”  This is a blatant false statement as supported by the Sayreville Police report available to Mr. Aronowitz upon initial filing by Carolyn Ausley in the docketed case ( See 71, 72, 73 ). 

Initial filings by the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley and reviewed by Mr. Aronowitz, clearly show that the Sayreville Police Department immediately initiated an investigation of SUSPICIOUS DEATH, on October 29, 2005—the date of Joyce’s suspicious death, when William H. Strouse reported the suspicious death to Lt. Brennan and SGT Sprague of the Sayreville Police Department.  Not only is the Sayreville Police report titled “HOSPICE DEATH/SUSPICIOUS DEATH”, but the report contents clearly indicate that a suspicious death was under investigation by the Sayreville Police and the County Medical Examiner’s Office.  This same report also shows that the Prosecutor’s Office had been informed of a report of a suspicious death (for example, see page 2 of the report included as item 14) and was directed to conduct the mandatory investigation required under the Medical Examiner Act—though the Prosecutor failed to do so.

We submit that these allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing.

Though not developed here, there is sufficient direct and relevant evidence to charge Mr. Aronowitz with the following:

Conspiracy    2C:5-2

False Reports to Law Enforcement    2C:28-4a

Official Misconduct     2C:30-2

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution    2C:29-3a

Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution        2C:29-3b

What would it take to charge Mr. Aronowitz with any criminal code violations?  A county prosecutor, or a Deputy Attorney General, among others, would have to be willing to take the “case.”  Though all 21 New Jersey county prosecutors are aware of the direct and relevant evidence in this case, not one has stepped forward.  What does that suggest to anyone about the integrity of law enforcement in the entire state of New Jersey?  And remember, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, after reviewing all of the direct and relevant evidence and interviewing the county public servants, including Mr. Aronowitz, concluded that the allegations had no merit.

MATERIALITY

Mr. Aronowitz’s False Swearing was material to the case in which he knowingly and purposely made his false statements.  Throughout the litigation the Court referred to the lack of findings of foul play based on the autopsy that Mr. Aronowitz, serving as the legal representative for the County Medical Examiner, said was conducted.  Though Mr. Aronowitz was never able to produce such report of autopsy, the Court accepted his sworn affirmations as truthful, while ignoring direct evidence to the contrary, submitted by Carolyn Ausley, the Plaintiff in the case. 

Because of Mr. Aronowitz False Swearing, the Court made light of the statement of the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley that an autopsy had not been completed on the decedent, in violation of the Medical Examiner Act.  The court, following the lead of Mr. Aronowitz as County Counsel, discounted the multiple statements by the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley, who stated that an autopsy had not been performed.  Ms. Ausley  supported such statement by providing a certified statement from the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, who certified that only an “External Examination” had been completed on the decedent, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

The autopsy report claimed to exist by Mr. Aronowitz was never produced.  The fact that the Court did not ask Mr. Aronowitz to submit direct evidence in support of his statement is not a defense in this case.  Since the Court made reference to the autopsy report as a reason not supportive of foul play, it is highly likely that if the Court knew that no such autopsy was conducted and no such report prepared, that their review, consideration, and conclusions—no less their effect on final opinions, it is reasonable that such false affirmations and swearing before the Court “… could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding or the disposition of the matter ….” (2C:28-1.b.), and is considered perjury.

Likewise, Mr. Aronowitz succeeded in mis-leading the court by falsely swearing that all toxicology tests were completed that needed to be completed, and that the police department were not investigating a suspicious death—both statements proven false with direct evidence available to the Office of Attorney General and contained herein.  A reading of the Motions and Appeals in the case clearly show the reliance placed by the Court on the false statements of Mr. Aronowitz.

RETRACTION

At no time did Mr. Aronowitz retract any of his false statements in the course of the legal proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey.  The time to do that ended with the final order of the Superior Court in the case.  The fact of the matter is that Mr. Aronowitz continued his False Swearing post-litigation, through Ms. Ausley’s motion in Superior Court to recoup attorney fees, still asserting that an autopsy had been completed on Ms. Ausley’s sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

To retract means to take back or recant. According to 2C:28-1.d., the retraction must be “…made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter without having caused irreparable harm to any party.”  There is no evidence that Mr. Aronowitz attempted to retract his falsification. The proceeding in Superior Court, including appeals and motions for attorney fees, is terminated.  There was no retraction of False Swearing on Mr. Aronowitz’s part in the course of the proceeding or matter in which it was made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter.  As recently as March 2009, Mr. Aronowitz continues to falsely swear and affirm to the above statements in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Under OPRA, Carolyn Ausley or William H. Strouse (as sister and brother of the decedent) are entitled to receive a copy of an autopsy report.  Middlesex County has yet to produce a copy of the autopsy report though it has been requested several times.  If an autopsy report exists, Mr. Aronowitz withheld a critical piece of direct evidence in the litigation brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  If the autopsy report does not exist, then clearly Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing.  The report does not exist.

IRREPARABLE HARM

Irreparable harm was done to Carolyn Ausley and William H. Strouse in that 1) without the results of the autopsy it was not possible to prove the cause of SUSPICIOUS OR UNUSUAL death of their sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter—there is no peace of mind and no closure 2) the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in believing Mr. Aronowitz, discounted the various affirmations of Carolyn Ausley throughout the entire litigation over a period of almost two years, in essence calling her a liar—at no time did the court ask to see a copy of the autopsy report, and 3) Ms. Ausley and Mr. Strouse incurred expenses of almost $15,000 for attorney fees that would not have otherwise been incurred had Mr. Aronowitz produced the autopsy report two years ago that he still says exists.  Neither Mr. Strouse nor Ms. Ausley can ever be made whole.

CONCLUSION

It is clear by these facts in evidence that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that  Mr. Aronowitz knowingly, purposely, and falsely swore before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division in that:

Mr. Aronowitz knowingly and purposely made false statements and affirmations before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on several occasions,

Mr. Aronowitz did not retract his false statements and affirmations within the timeframes allowed by New Jersey Statute, and continued them through March 2009,

Irreparable harm was done to both Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse as a result of these false statements and affirmations made by Mr. Aronowitz, and Direct evidence used in support of these charges comes directly from Middlesex County Counsel and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.

It is clear that Mr. Aronowitz is guilty of False Swearing, at a minimum, before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  Mr. Aronowitz should be punished to the fullest extent allowable under False Swearing, and all other applicable laws.

2C:28-1.  Perjury

      a.  Offense defined.    A person is guilty of perjury, a crime of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true.

      b.  Materiality.    Falsification is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the proceeding or the disposition of the matter.  It is no defense that the declarant mistakenly believed the falsification to be immaterial.  Whether a falsification is material is a question of law.

      c.  Irregularities no defense.    It is not a defense to prosecution under  this section that the oath or affirmation was administered or taken in an  irregular manner.  A document purporting to be made upon oath or affirmation at  any time when the actor presents it as being so verified shall be deemed to  have been duly sworn or affirmed.

      d.  Retraction.    It is an affirmative defense under this section that the actor retracted the falsification in the course of the proceeding or matter  in which it was made prior to the termination of the proceeding or matter  without having caused irreparable harm to any party.

e.  Corroboration.    No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant.

 
2C:28-2.  False Swearing

      a.  False Swearing.    A person who makes a false statement under oath or  equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

      b.  Perjury provisions applicable.    Subsections c. and d. of section 2C:28-1 apply to the present section.

c.  Inconsistent statements.    Where the defendant made inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.

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

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.

LAST UPDATED:  Dec 28, 2016

Total Visits:  140,462

Total Hits: 683,033

NAVIGATION NOTES

Please see the actual INTRODUCTION down below the top-most updates.  Thanks.

• The log-in at the top is for the site administrator
• 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.

INTRODUCTION      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.

MARCH 19, 2014:  ATTEMPTS TO INVOLVE LAW ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING THE FBI, IN CONDUCTING THE MANDATORY SUSPICIOUS DEATH INVESTIGATION, FAILED.  HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE STORY.  WE ARE EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF DRAFTING A MEMOIR, A TRUE CRIME MEMOIR, DETAILING ALL OF OUR EFFORTS SINCE JOYCE’S SUSPICIOUS DEATH IN OCTOBER OF 2005.  THE LEAD CHARACTERS IN THE BOOK WILL BE THOSE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST WHOM WE FILED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, IN PARTICULAR FREDERICK J. DICARLO, M.D., WHO IS THE CURRENT MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR BERGEN COUNTY, IN NEW JERSEY.  LOOK HERE FOR PERIODIC UPDATES.  THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST AND SUPPORT.

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

June 12, 2013:  We were informed by Candice Boehler (formerly Candice Marquette) that Raymond J. Sauter died on December 5, 2011.  However, Candice would not provide us the cause and manner of death.  Even though Sauter is former family, the NJ Bureau of Vital Statistics will not provide us a copy of his certificate of death, with cause and manner on it, because we are not his blood family.  We cannot confirm his death at this time.  Sauter’s alleged death, however, does not alter the criminal actions and charges against the public officials, as described in this web site.  Laws were broken and those determined to be guilty must pay in accordance with “NJ law.”

April 29, 2013:  The FBI is reviewing the criminal complaint against Dr. DiCarlo, of falsifying government records, regarding Joyce’s multiple Certificates of Death, completed by DiCarlo.  Because this is a suspicious death/murder case, there are no statutes of limitations.

March 7, 2012:  It is clear that NJ wants nothing to do with investigating any of these public servants for their part in Joyce’s suspicious death.  That includes Gov Christie, AG Chiesa, Director Taylor, US Attorney Fishman, and all those that went before them.  The case against DiCarlo is compelling and is supported by direct, relevant, and material evidence that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

February 22, 2013:  Wrote the FBI in DC a short letter reminding them of my 331 pages of criminal evidence that the USPS is trying to deliver.

February 19, 2013:  Fishman did not respond to my letter of January 2, 2013.  So I sent 331 pages of criminal evidence against DiCarlo to the FBI, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC20535-0001.

February 4, 2013:  Will give Fishman until Feb 16, 2012 to respond; then contact the FBI.

January 2, 2013:  On this date I sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, asking for an investigation:  Paul J. Fishman, US Attorney for the District of NJ, 970 Broad Street, 7th Floor, Newark, NJ  07102.

November 18, 2012:  Taylor refused to investigate allegations against DiCarlo citing a Dep AG Denise Hollingsworth conclusion that an investigation found no basis to prosecute, from June 9, 2008.  He accepted this response knowing full well that charges were filed by me against Holingsworth in this matter.

September 22, 2012:  Sent letters to Candice and Deby asking them one final time if they wanted to say anything regarding their perjury and reporting of false information to law enforcement.  Neither responded.

September 10, 2012:  USPS confirms letters to Chiesa, Taylor, and Christie were delivered on Sept 7, 2012.

September 4, 2012:  Sent letter to Taylor at Div of Criminal Justice seeking status report on his investigation of DiCarlo

August 25 and 27, 2012:  Candice Boehler enters comments on this blog site.

August 2, 2012:  received return receipt confirming Candice Boehler’s new address.

July 30, 2012:  confirmed correct address for Deby via return receipt with USPS

July 26, 2012:  sent certified letter to Deby Bath in Cliffwood NJ

July 21, 2012:  certified letter delivered to Taylor, Dir of Fivision of Criminal Justice, POB 080, Trenton, NJ 08625.

July 21, 2012:  confirmed Boehler’s new address

July 19, 2012:  certififed letters delivered to Gov Christie and AG Chiesa, regarding the investigation of DiCarlo.

July 16, 2012:  sent a letter to Candiec Boehler, Joyce’s daughter, to see if she wanted to discuss her official comments and how she perjured herself during the investigation of Joyce’s suspiciious death

July 16, 2012:  Sent a letter to AG J.S. Chiesa asking for a status report on the criminal investigation of DiCarlo

July 16, 2012:  sent a letter to S.J. Taylor, Director for the Division of Criminal Justic, asking for a status report re:  DiCarlo complaint

July 16, 2012:  Sent letter to Gov Christie asking for a status update on the DiCarlo investigation.

April 5, 2012:  wrote Chiesa asking him for an update

April 5, 2012: McGrath responds in his letter of 3-26-12 that the case has been referred by AG Chiesa to the Div of Criminal Justice.

March 18, 2012:  wrote McGrath asking for a status report on the specific complaint against DiCarlo

March 5, 2012:  confirmed delivery of the pkg sent on March 3, 2012, to the OAG.

March 4, 2012:  Sent a letter to Gov Christie regarding his referral of the case to the OAG for investigation.

March 3, 2012:  Sent a 331-page pkg of criminal evidence on DiCarlo to the OAG, Div of Criminal Justic, Dept of Law and Public Safety (LT McGrath) POB 85, Trenton, NJ  08625-6500.

February 19, 2012:  On January 26, 2012, we received another letter from the OAG, R&I Section informing us that Gov. Christie asked Lt. McGrath to review our correspondence.  This OAG letter was dated December 22, 2011, and post-marked January 24, 2012.

September 21, 2011:  DiCarlo is appointed the Bergen County, NJ Medical Examiner

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 to come.

September 20, 2010: Frivoulous Action?  Harassment?  Fair Hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10/5/10 in Monroe Twp. under Judge Boyd was canceled for a second time, citing the same 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.

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 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 cancled by Judge George M. Boyd on August 16, 2010, because of jurisdictional concerns.  The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for assignment.  Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints in hand.

July 28, 2010:  A probable cause hearing is scheduled for August 28, 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, 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:  Following a decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner that charges should have been filed in a trial court, Citizen Criminal Complaints were filed against 15 persons, including all of those in this blog site, on June 2, 2010, in the Sayreville Municipal Court.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The purpose of this website is to raise a consciousness in New Jersey and obtain justice for our sister.  Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  Joyce died a suspicious death on October 29, 2005.  Though she had terminal cancer, the date of her death could not be predicted with any accuracy.  Joyce’s husband at the time, Raymond J. Sauter (we are unable to confirm Sauter’s alleged death on December 5, 2011), stated that the plan for Joyce was to die.  Joyce’s two daughters supported his decision for unknown reasons.  Other family members, specifically her sister and brother, fought unsuccessfully for Joyce to live the life she wanted, until death came for her in it’s own time.  What transpired leading up to and after Joyce’s suspicious death transcends the tragedy of her death.

Following her untimely and suspicious death, the Sayreville, NJ Police Department and Middlesex County law enforcement public servants knowingly and purposely refused to investigate her suspicious death because, we believe, the person we allege singularly contributed to her untimely death was a former police officer and colleague, if not personal friend, of those same public servants.  Our attempts to obtain justice through county law enforcement were to no avail; thus our efforts were elevated above the county. 

After struggling with Middlesex County public servants for over 30 months, including a court fight for specimens taken from Joyce during her post mortem External Examination, we decided the direct evidence we had was ripe enough for intervention and investigation by the NJ Attorney General’s Office.  We quickly learned that the cover-up extended from Middlesex County to a Deputy Attorney General and we concluded that obtaining justice in that office was futile.  In hopes of creating some kind of leverage, we advised the local Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of our allegations and asked them to monitor the case.  The agent we spoke to on the telephone informed us that not only would the FBI probably not act, but they would not even acknowledge receipt of our allegations in writing.  The agent insisted that the FBI does not investigate county or state corruption by public servants.  So where did we turn?

Working through the NJ government, such as it was, we filed additional allegations with Gov Corzine’s office in early September 2008, apprising him of our unsuccessful attempts to have a law enforcement organization investigate the suspicious death of Joyce.  Though United States Postal Service records indicate the Governor’s office received our extensive allegations (362 pages) no acknowledgement was ever returned to us from Gov Corzine’s office. 

We also sent a copy of the 362-page allegation, filled with direct evidence, to the U.S. Attorney’s office (Mr. Chris Christie, who is now running for Governor), with the same result.  Despite repeated follow-ups with both Gov. Corzine’s office and the US Attorney’s office, no acknowledgment was ever received.  No response does not necessarily mean they are not investigating; however, it is not encouraging.  What do you do when law enforcement turns their back on you and refuses to restore the order of law?

To our knowledge, the only recourses we had left was to generate some kind of awareness across the state, in whatever venue was available to us.  We advised both the Governor’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s office in late November 2008, that if we did not hear from them by December 31, 2008, some four months after initial contact, we would conclude they planned to do nothing regarding an investigation into the suspicious death of our sister.  Likewise, we advised them of the same conclusion regarding their decision not to investigate the corruption by public servants in Middlesex County. 

As a result, on or about January 5, 2009, we sent letters to a number of attorneys, judges, prosecutors, and medical examiners throughout NJ’s 21 counties.  We put together this website, beginning with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s office.  This chapter will be followed by separate chapters addressing the actions of other public servants involved in this case since October 29, 2005.

We would like to emphasize that the direct and relevant evidence we have to support all of our allegations was generated by Middlesex County and state public servants.  Wherein any public official, especially in the NJ Attorney General’s Office states the allegations have no merit, the direct and relevant evidence we have clearly and directly contradicts such conclusions.  Public servants have been unwilling to sit down with us to discuss their findings and instead, have cloaked the justification for their conclusions behind the curtain of privileged investigative information.  This site will put the direct evidence we have out for all to see and judge independently.  The fig leaves are coming off.  The naked truth will be shown.

My sister, Carolyn Ausley, and I, Bill Strouse, understand that this website falls into a long line of other websites and blogs from people who are aggrieved and who believe they are the victims of corruption and injustice in New Jersey.  It is a sad commentary to note that though NJ was not “voted” the most corrupt state in the Union in 2008, it is still not far from being number one.

This is a true story about corrupt public servants in New Jersey: Middlesex County, The Sayreville Police Department, the Attorney General’s Office, the Office of the Governor, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.  The direct and relevant evidence speaks for itself. 

Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as eyewitness testimony or documents presented in lieu of testimony; we have documents to verify our stated facts.  Relevant evidence “means evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.  Circumstantial evidence is based upon deductions or logical conclusions reached from direct evidence. 

There have been no retractions of testimony or evidentiary submissions on the part of any of the public servants and irreparable harm was caused to members of the family presenting this information, Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse, sister and brother of the deceased, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, who died under suspicious circumstances on October 29, 2005.

NOTE OF JUNE 9, 2009

Of note are 2 motions we submitted several weeks ago to the NJ Superior Court.  One motion was to TOLL the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on the criminal allegations we made against the public servants involved in the blue-wall coverup until such time as the investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death is completed (filed Pro Se 03/20/09).  You will read about the allegations in the following chapters.  The second motion submitted was for the purpose of correcting Joyce’s official certificate of death, which as you will read, was falsified by the Medical Examiner’s Office (filed Pro Se 04-03-09).

Previous motions were returned “denied” without explanation within 30 days.  It has now been more then two months since the first filing and we are pending a decision from the court.  We are not sure what this means, other than maybe the court decided it is time to conduct the suspicious death investigation and begin an investigation into the criminal allegations made herein.  Afterall, how long can the Superior Court of NJ ignore criminal allegations against public servants for not investigating a suspicious death, and maintain its integrity and morality?

If an investigation is ongoing, neither Carolyn nor I have yet to be contacted.

NOTE OF AUGUST 3, 2009

No investigation to our knowledge.  Most recent motions denied without explanation; clarification and reconsideration motions submitted and pending court response–denial expected.  We have one more motion to file and then hope to be able to get the case before the NJ Supreme Court.  We are on a time deadline with write-up and then filing, so have fallen behind.  We will publish the complaint on the NJ Attorney General’s Office, Ms. Denise Hollingsworth in particular, with 45 days, we hope.  Please check  back then, if not sooner.

NOTE OF OCTOBER 13, 2009

No investigation was conducted.  All motions in the Superior Court were denied without explanation.  Three (3) motions are now filed with the NJ Supreme Court, pending review for denial or argument.  More to come.

NOTE OF DECEMBER 1, 2009

Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, in his ORDER dated November 2, 2009, granted and denied several of our motions.  He also stated that we should have filed in a “trial court” to achieve the relief we sought, in the first instance.

In speaking with a Criminal Division Manager in the Superior Court, we were told to get our case in a “trial court” we had to complete complaint forms available from the Sayreville Police Department to file “complaints” against the public servants alleged to have broken the law.

On November 30, 2009, contrary to what the Superior Court Criminal Division Manager told us, the Secretary to the Chief of the Sayreville Police Department refused our request for complaint forms to file complaints against the public servants identified in these chapters, stating the forms must be obtained from the Superior Court and filed with the Superior Court.

JANUARY 2, 2010:  We are now completing the Citizen Complaint forms to be initially filed in the Sayreville Municipal Court, for disposition.  There will be close to 64 criminal complaints filed against publilc servants and others involved in the case.  We will seek a change in venue for complaint review.

NAVIGATION NOTES

• 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.

We thank you for your time, patience, and comments as we build and improve upon this site in a heart-felt effort to raise the consciousness in New Jersey and obtain justice for our sister. Please feel free to pass this website along to all you know.Thank you again for taking the time to read this and we hope to see your comments.

CONTENTS

Introduction  (Updated 04/06/2009)

Chapter 1 – Middlesex Co. Medical Examiner (Updated 02/18/2009)

Chapter 2 – Sayreville Police Department (Posted 02/18/2009)

Chapter 3 – Middlesex Co. Counsel (Posted 03/22/2009)

Chapter 4 – Middlesex CountyProsecutor (Posted 07/19/2009)

Chapter 5 – Attorney General Under Construction

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 30^th 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 30^th, 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 29^th, 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 29^th 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 29^th 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.

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 let the site administrator know of any broken links by leaving a comment.  Thanks.

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

Summary

Although Dr. Natarajan retired as County Medical Examiner several years ago, she is not protected by expiration of statutes of limiation.  She is not protected for her crimes because this is a suspicious death/murder case that has yet to be investigated by NJ authorities, and statute of limitations for her related crimes are not applicable.  The same goes for her replacement, Dr. Andrew Falzon, who is also the Medical Examiner for Monmouth County.

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.  Brian J. Nadeau, Unit Chief of the Pubic Corruption Unit, at the Washington, DC, FBI Field Office, reports that he forwarded our complaint and more than 100 pages of evidence to the FBI Field Office in Newark, NJ, (Claremont Tower Bldg., 11 Centre Place, Newark, NJ  07102) for action.

June 5, 2013:  The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Washington, D.C., has the case against Dr. DiCarlo and we await their status report as of this date.  It is not known if the case was transferred to N.J. or remains in Washington, D.C.  We hope to be able to provide more information within the next few weeks.  As you may recall, Dr. DiCarlo was appointed the Medical Examiner for Bergen County.  Imagine having someone who falsifies certificates of death working in your county.  One can only wonder why they moved him out of Middlesex County to Bergen County.

March 11, 2013:  Over the past year, a specific complaint filed solely against Dr. DiCarlo was submitted to Gov. Christie, Attorney General Chiesa, and Director Taylor, regarding tampering and falsification of government records, specifically Joyce’s certificate of death.  None of the 3  responded regarding conducting an investigation of DiCarlo regarding the specific criminal charge.  Following this non-response, the same complaint against Dr. DiCarlo was submitted to Mr. Fishman, the US Attorney for the District of NJ.  Mr. Fishman, like the rest, did not respond to the complaint against Dr. DiCarlo (after 45 days of waiting), and/or investigate why the aforementioned public servants refused to investigate or comment regarding the criminal complaint against DiCarlo.  As a reuslt, the same criminal complaint against Dr. DiCarlo was filed in early March with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC  20535.

March 10, 2012:  On March 5, 2012, the Office of Attorney General (OAG)received a 331-page material evidence package from me concerning Dr. DiCarlo’s criminal activity (this is at least the third time they received this information over the past few years).  Specifically, Lt. McGrath in Records and Identification (R&I) received direct, relevant, and material evidence which shows beyond a reasonable doubt, that DiCarlo falsified more than one certificate of death for Joyce.

The documents in support of that criminal charge (2C:21-4.a.  Falsifying or Tampering With Records) include actual certificates of death and official changes to Joyce’s certificates of death, along with official correspondence from DiCarlo himself, wherein he admits, by ommision, that he falsified and tampered with Joyce’s certificates of death.

Now with that kind of evidence, why wouldn’t the Attorney General open an investigation and assign a special prosecutor?  The case number for this complaint in the OAG is:  #2005 10192.  Write the OAG a letter and ask about the status of their investigation.  Here is the address for the OAG:  Office of Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, POB 080, Trenton, NJ  08625-0080.  Reference case # 2005 10192.  Let us know of any response you may receive.  Thanks.

February 19, 2012:  On February 17, 2012, Ms. Kathleen Donovon, the County Executive for Bergen County, NJ, received the “DiCarlo Package” listing all of DiCarlo’s criminal acts regarding this case, but specifically direct, relevant, and material evidence (almost 300 pages) in support of the criminal charge of falsifying government records (2C-21-4.a.).  DiCarlo can run but he cannot hide.  You can write to Ms. Donovan at:  Kathleen A. Donovan, County Executive, Bergen County, One Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ  07601.

On February 17, 2012, John Mitchell (Cliffside Park), Chairman of the Freeholders (John A. Felice River Edge; Maura DDeNicola Franklin Lakes; John Driscoll, Jr. Paramus; David L. Ganz Fairlawn; Robert G. Hermansen, Mahwah; and, Joan M. Voss Fort Lee) for Bergen County, also received the same package of information–the criminal complaint against DiCarlo, that the County Executive received.  It is presumed that both the County Executive and all of the Freeholders were aware of DiCarlo’s past criminal accusations, and in all probability, that was the reason for his transfer from the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  One has to wonder why DiCarlo would receive what one would consider a promotion?  You can write to Mr. Mitchell and the other Freeholders at:  Board of Chosen Freeholders, County of Bergen, Administration Bldg., One Bergen County Plaza, Hackensack, NJ  07601.

September 21, 2011:  DiCarlo is appointed the Bergen County Medical Examiner.

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 to come.

September 20, 2010:  Frivolous action?  Harassment?  Fair hearing?  The probable cause hearing set for 10-5-10 in Monroe Twp. MunicipalCourt 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.

September 19, 2010: Sent to Judges Herman and Francis as noted below, a new probable cause hearing/review 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 MunicipalCourt, 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 Aug 17, 2010, was canceled on Aug 16, 2010, by Judge George M. Boyd, for jurisdictional reasons.  The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts.  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 complaints down the chain to Judge George Boyd in Monroe Twp., still in Middlsex County. 

July 2, 2010, Update:  On June 2, 2010, Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against 15 personnel, including Dr. DiCarlo.  The complaints were filed in the Sayreville Municipal Court.  We await a decision as to “who” will investigate the complaints, when considering who the Criminal complaints are against.

On November 2, 2009, Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued an ORDER denying most of our motions and directing us to file our case in a “trial court.”  In December 2009, we were advised by the Sayreville MuncipalCourt that individual criminal complaints needed to be filed against each person involved in our case; shortly thereafter, the MunicipalCourt sent us copies of the correct forms to complete.  Work continues at this time (February 13, 2010) writing each individual complaint.

Interesting Note:  In 2009 Monmouth County contracted with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office to handle their medical examiner require ments, as a cost-savings measure.  When I informed Monmouth County of the allegations against the Middlesex County ME’s Office, and Dr. DiCarlo in particular, they simply said they would pass the information along to the correct personnel.

ON SEPT 8, 2009, A MOTION WAS FILED WITH THE NJ SUPREME COURT AGAINST DICARLO FOR FALSIFYING A CERTIFICATE OF DEATH.

Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D. does not know what “proper forensic practice” is, or he is protecting someone.  DiCarlo, the Assistant Medical Examiner handling our sister’s suspicious death, violated the law when he refused to conduct the mandatory autopsy. Immediately after completing an External Examination, he released Joyce’s body to the person alleged to have murdered her; he did not wait for specimen test results to be returned from the State Lab before permitting all evidence to be destroyed.

Though directing the SayrevillePolice and the County Prosecutor to conduct suspicious death investigations, he never followed up to ensure the completeness and thoroughness of their efforts.  Tests requested by DiCarlowere not conducted to rule out starvation and dehydration.  Subsequent, independent testing of the specimens concluded that at the time of her death, Joyce was dehydrated and starving.  DiCarlo did not order these tests because he knew the results would support the alleged murder allegations.

DiCarlo also falsified a public record.  Subsequent to Joyce’s death, DiCarlo prepared several certificates of death, changing them as the “situation” changed.  The final certificate was changed by Dr. DiCarlo based on his swearing that he conducted an autopsy, that histology supported his opinion, and toxicology results.

Plain and simple, DiCarlo is a liar.  He never conducted an autopsy.  He took no specimens from Joyce to make a determination that histology had anything to do with her death.  Finally, he did not request the two tests from the State Lab confirming that toxicology supported his justification for the change.  Dr. Dicarlo should be charged, criminally, with Official Misconduct, Falsification of Public Records, Hindering Apprehension, Conspiracy, and Pattern of Official Misconduct, among others.  Why does Dr. DiCarlo still have his license to practice in New Jersey?

MEDICAL EXAMINER

The actions described herein, taken by the alleged murderer and the identified public servants, were planned and intentional, as the direct and relevant evidence shows.  Please note that NJ law enforcement has refused to complete a suspicious death investigation of Joyce B (Strouse) Sauter, and that offices previously mentioned have taken actions which have protected the alleged murderer-and themselves-from investigation and criminal charges under the NJ Code of Criminal Justice (2C).  As you know, all parties are innocent until convicted by a jury of their peers.

New Jersey public servants acted deliberately.  Actions taken by NJ public servants were knowing and purposeful, withthe intent to protect an alleged murderer, who is also a former police officer.  Following an administrative (we requested a criminal investigation) review of 669 pages of documentation of direct and circumstantial evidence, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth of the New Jersey Attorney Generals Office chose not to initiate a criminal investigation into these charges, declaring the charges were without merit.  Direct evidence submitted to Ms. Hollingsworth, however, shows the guilt of all beyond a reasonable doubt.

The NJ Attorney Generals Office covered for public servants.  Ms. Hollingsworth’s conclusion is a fabrication.  As the evidence shows, Ms. Hollingsworth is now considered part of the NJ State government cover-up and corruption extending from Middlesex County, New Jersey, through Anne Milgram’soffice, that of the New Jersey Attorney General, to the Governor’s Office and on into that of Mr. Marra’s office, that of the Acting U.S. Attorney for NJ.  Though we requested several times to meet with Ms. Milgram, Ms. Milgram declined.  Though given four months to restore the order of law, Governor Jon S. Corzine declined our request to intervene, and referred our allegations back to the Attorney Generals Office.  Though aware of our plight since September 8, 2008, the U. S. Attorney’s Office( under Chris Christie), as recently as December 22, 2008, had no comment.

CHAPTER I – MEDICAL EXAMINER

FREDERICK J. DICARLO, M.D.

ASSISTANT MEDICAL EXAMINER, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, N.J.

Our first effort at restoring the order of law centers on the Middlesex County Medical Examiners Office.  This chapter is a story about Frederick J. DiCarlo (last known address in Watchung, NJ).  Some of you reading this know Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D.  Fred is a 1965 graduate of Mountain Lakes High School. Dr. DiCarlo’s credentials are impressive and include Diplomate, American Board of Pathology, with specialties in Anatomic and Forensic Pathology.  In his high school web site he notes his many achievements over the years including his current employment as an Assistant Medical Examiner in the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  How sad for our sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, that their paths crossed.  Sad because Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely used his position as a public servant to help shield the alleged murderer of our sister. 

Dr. DiCarlo made a deliberate choice to break the law.  One has to wonder why Dr. DiCarlo would break the law, specifically, certain sections of the New Jersey Medical Examiner Act  thus leading to criminal violations under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (2C), as well.  Because of Dr. DiCarlo’s successful efforts, the alleged murderer of our sister walks free today. Could it be that Dr. DiCarlo cooperated because he was involved in other irregularities that are now hanging over his head?  Perhaps he protected others through his office in the past 11 years of forensic practice?  Perhaps simply protecting a friend or colleague is his motive?  The benefit Dr. DiCarlo received from protecting the alleged murderer could be as simple as protecting a colleague and friend from investigation and prosecution, and the reason could become clearer once a thorough investigation is completed-presuming some law enforcement agency steps up to initiate the investigation of our sister’s suspicious death.  The benefit received by the alleged murderer is that he is still a free man today.

Dr. DiCarlo is a law breaker.  Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely violated many sections in the New Jersey State Medical Examiners Act (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, 52:17B)  and the New Jersey Administrative Code (Title 13. Law and Public Safety Chapter 49. State Medical Examiner),  in the course of conducting a limited and incomplete investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, our sister, with the intent to protect our sister’s alleged murderer.  Two sections violated by Dr. DiCarlo include failure to conduct a crime scene investigation (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86, c.) and failure to conduct a mandatory autopsy following report of a suspicious death (NJAC 13:49-1.1.(a) 2.).  Interesting, apparently the New Jersey State MedicalExaminer’s Office found nothing wrong with the actions about to be attributed to Dr. DiCarlo, actions well documented with direct evidence, some by his own hand.  According to information provided by Ms. Denise Hollingsworthof the Office of Attorney General, the NJ State Medical Examiner reviewed the allegations we submitted, though we were not made privy to any comments for the record. (Hollingsworth Documents 219–220 and 252).  Ms. Hollingsworth’s efforts at protecting Dr. DiCarlo et al will be discussed in a separate chapter.

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST

Dr. DiCarlo violated the public trust.  He also broke the following laws in Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.   For example, Dr. DiCarlo falsified at least one certificate of death for our sister (Falsifying or Tampering with Records 2C:21-4a); Dr. Di Carlo hindered a suspicious death investigation (2C:29-3b); Dr. DiCarlo tampered with physical evidence and public records (Tampering With Public Records or Information [False Entry or Alteration] 2C:28-7a (1));and Dr. DiCarlo hindered apprehension or prosecution (Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution of Another 2C:29-3a), among others.  As a result of these actions, Dr.  DiCarlo made it possible for the alleged murderer not to be investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauterby committing Official Misconduct (Official Misconduct  2C:30-2), as well as a Pattern of Official Misconduct.  Direct, relevant, and circumstantial evidence, in the form of correspondence documentation produced by Middlesex County public servants and the NJ Attorney Generals Office, supports these allegations. 

Joyce’s death went unreported to authorities for over an hour (See Supplemental Investigation Report, Hospice Death/Suspicious Death at 68).  Though Joyce is first reported to have died at 1700 hours on October 29, 2005, according to police reports (See 68, 69, 70 and 440–441), the alleged murderer waited until 1810 hours before contacting anyone (localHospice) for help.  There is no evidence or statement in any officialcounty report indicating that the alleged murderer tried CPR or any other kind of life saving or restoration actions upon finding Joyce dead.  Additionally, the alleged murderer did not call the police until 18:22:00 hours, according to police records.  Why would the alleged murderer wait so long to seek help?  At this point in time, Joyce’s deathis considered “natural” by authorities present at the scene.  Some 3 ½ hours after her death, Joyce’s oldest daughter telephoned Bill Strouse (Joyce’s brother) and informed him of Joyce’s death.  Why wait 3 ½ hours to notify family? 

A SUSPICIOUS DEATH IS REPORTED

Joyce’s death  was untimely.  Joyce’s death was immediately reported as suspicious by Bill Strouse to the N.J. State Police, who referred Bill to the South Amboy Police, who referred Bill to the Sayreville Police Department.  Bill reported Joyce’s suspicious death to the Sayreville Police Department who (See 68, 69, 70), in turn, reported the “suspicious death” of our sister to the Middlesex County Medical Examiners Office (Medical Examiner) at 2208 hours, as required by the NJ State Medical Examiner Act (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86).  The Sayreville Police Department also spoke with the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office at 2218 hours that evening regarding the suspicious death of our sister, as required by law (52:17B-87).  And, as required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, the Medical Examiner’s Office spoke with the Prosecutors Office that night as well (See 68, 69, 70 and 74 and 78–79), and directed the Prosecutor to conduct an investigation (See 78) into the suspicious death of Joyce (52:17B-87); such an investigation by the Prosecutor is mandatory when a suspicious death is reported (52:17B-86, 87, 88).  So far, so good.  These facts are documented in the Sayreville Police Department’s report, and the Medical Examiner’s Report of External Examination.  Here is where things take a strange turn.

MANDATORY INVESTIGATIONS NOT CONDUCTED

Required investigations were not conducted.  Neither the Medical Examiner’s office nor the SayrevillePolice Department conducted mandatory investigations in accordance with the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act and standard Sayreville Police Department investigative protocol.  When a suspicious death is reported, as it was  by Bill around 2030 hours on the evening of October 29, 2005, in addition to the Sayreville Police Department being required to conduct a crime scene investigation, the MedicalExaminer’s Office was also required to conduct a crime scene investigation, along with the Prosecutor’s Office (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86.c. Investigation of deaths; causes).  You guessed it.  Neither the Sayreville Police Department nor the Medical Examiner’s Office nor the Prosecutors Office established a crime scene nor conducted a crime scene investigation (See 68, 69, 70 and 78 and 129–130).  Let’s keep the focus on the Medical Examiner’s Office for now.  A look-see at the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutor is down the road a ways yet.  Be patient.  Back to Fred. 

Following the report of a suspicious death by the Sayreville Police Department to the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Medical Examiner’s office failed to take immediate control of the deceased’s body (52:17B-87).  Specifically, the law states that upon notification of a “suspicious death” (52:17B-86. c.),

“Immediately upon receipt of such notification, the said medical examiner or his deputy or assistant shall go to the dead body and take charge of the same.” 

Although notified by the SayrevillePolice Department that a suspicious death had been reported (See 78–79), the Medical Examiner did not “immediately” take charge of Joyce’s body.  In fact, according to Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination, certified by Dr. DiCarlo, he did not take charge of Joyce’s body until October 31, 2005, some two days after her suspicious death report was received by him and his office (See 74).

Dr. DiCarlo’s decision not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body on October 29, 2005, was deliberate.  In addition to violating the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo’s decision not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body is suspicious in and of itself.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo wait two days?  Did someone prompt Dr. DiCarlo to wait two days?  Did someone tell Dr. DiCarlo to wait two days?  Did Dr. DiCarlodecide on his own volition to wait two days to take charge of the deceased who remained in the private funeral home of the alleged murderer?  Was Dr. DiCarlo ignorant of the law?  And what happens to the evidence, Joyce’s body, over that two day period?  Does the deterioration and breakdown of the body make it less possible to determine if strangulation occurred?  Do drugs break down in the body rendering toxicology examination less accurate?  Do other tissues and chemicals break down in the body making it impossible to conclude what may have happened?  Why wait two days?  There is no explanation in any of Dr. DiCarlo’s records why he failed to immediately take charge of Joyce’s body.

Dr. DiCarlo decided to wait to take charge of Joyce’s body for a reason.  Did Dr. DiCarlo decide to wait two days because the alleged murderer, a former police officer, was known to him?  Did Dr. DiCarlo wait because the alleged murderer was a personal or professional friend or colleague of his, one withwhom he routinely worked withon other criminal cases?  Did Dr. DiCarlo wait because, according the Sayreville Police Department Supplemental Investigation Report dated October 30, 2005, the alleged murderer told the Sayreville Police Department he was going to speak to DiCarlo on October 30, 2005, stating “he would be contacting the Medical Examiner’s Office for any further information that they may need.” (emphasis added) (See 450) Hmmmmm.  Is this where the cover-up begins?  Or did it begin on the evening of the 29^th of October 2005?

DICARLO KNOWINGLY AND PURPOSELY DOES NOT FOLLOW PROPER FORENSIC PRACTICE

DiCarlo offers no justification or explanation as to why he violated New Jersey law.  In Dr. DiCarlo’s breaking of the law, both Title 2C The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, and the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo does not explain why he broke the law.  For example, there is no explanation in any report produced by the Dr. DiCarlo and released to Carolyn or Bill under N.J. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) that explains why Dr. DiCarlo waited two days to “take charge” of Joyce’s body.  Carolyn and Bill were told by Dr. DiCarlo that they had the complete report-the Report of External Examination, that DiCarlo conducted on Joyce’s body.  Without a formal investigation by Dr. DiCarlo or the Sayreville Police Department-law enforcement, you will have to draw your own conclusions.  However, if Dr. DiCarlo is supposed to be conducting an investigation (read autopsy) of a suspicious death, what would a reasonable person conclude is suspicious here?  What other sections of the law or laws did Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely violate?  Read on.

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION NOT CONDUCTED

Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct a crime scene investigation.  The  New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52:17B-87. Notification of county medical examiner and prosecutor) requires that when a suspicious death is reported, as it was in this case, the Medical Examiner is required to conduct a crime scene investigation and to immediately take control of the deceased’s body.  Regarding actions at the crime scene, it states,

 “He shall fully investigate the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death and take the names and addresses of as many witnesses thereto as may be practicable to obtain, and, before leaving the premises shall reduce such facts, as he may deem necessary to writing and files the same in his office and which shall be made available to the county prosecutor at his request.” 

No one from the Medical Examiner’s office went to the crime scene.  Dr. DiCarlo did not fully investigate the essential facts concerning the medical causes of death.  Dr. DiCarlo did not take the names and addresses of any witnesses before leaving the premises since neither he nor a representative from his office went to the premises.  According to his own report, Dr. DiCarlo only interviewed one person regarding Joyce’s suspicious death; the rest of his information was derived from medical records received from Joyce’s family, and the Sayreville Police Department Report of Investigation, of various dates.  Dr. DiCarlo never interviewed either Carolyn Ausley or Bill Strouse, who were the individuals whom Dr. DiCarlo knew filed the suspicious death complaint/charge.  Dr. DiCarlo’s “Summary of the Case”, completed in January 2006, makes a reference to the Sayreville Police Department Report indicating that there was no report of abuse on file with, you guessed, the Sayreville Police Department.  While this may be true, Dr. DiCarlo had in his possession at this time, as did the Sayreville Police Department, an August 2, 2005, email from one of Joyce’s daughters emphatically stating that both she and Joyce “were abused by him mentally, physically and emotionally.” (See 267) So here again Dr. DiCarlo deliberately excludes information that could be harmful to the alleged murderer.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo slant the information in a certain direction?  According to his own Report of External Examination, though he requested the Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an investigation, Dr. DiCarlo never questioned why such investigation-required by (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-86.c. Investigation of deaths; causes), was never conducted by the Honorable Bruce Kaplan.  Now isn’t that strange?

Some background.  According to Sayreville Police Department reports, Joyce was officially pronounced dead by a Hospice Nurse who, after receiving a call from the alleged murderer, arrived at the scene, at 1813 hours on the evening of October 29, 2005.  The alleged murderer reported Joyce’s death occurred sometime between 1615-1700 hours, that evening.  According to their report of investigation, the Sayreville Police Department was called around 1822 hours.  We’ll get into why the alleged murderer waited more than an hour to call for help a little later.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Regarding the Medical Examiner’s failure to conduct a crime scene investigation.  As required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act section cited above, the Medical Examiner’s Office must conduct a crime scene investigation whenever a suspicious death is reported.  When the death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was initially and officially reported by her primary care-giver, over 60 minutes after she died, it was recorded as “no foul play” by the Sayreville Police Department (Initial Incident Report 5021782 18:22:00) October 29, 2008), and her body was subsequently released to family, who had Joyce’s body transferred to a funeral home for immediate cremation the next morning.  As you can read, there is no indication in that police incident report that the Sayreville Police Department even inquired why there was over an hours delay in reporting the death of Joyce.  What would a reasonable person think as to why an alleged murderer waited an hour before he reported her death to anyone?

A significant and suspicious delay occurred in advising family members of their sister’s death.  Approximately 2 ½ hours after Joyce’s official death pronouncement (3 ½ hours after her actual death), Joyce’s brother Bill was notified by his niece, that his sister had died earlier in the evening.  When asked, Bill’s niece had no explanation as to why she waited from 1700 hours until 2030 hours to notify family of Joyce’s death.  Why wait that long to notify the family?  Did the alleged murderer tell her when to make the call?  Was she afraid of the questions that might be asked, ones she would have difficulty answering?  Did she anticipate that a call would be made to law enforcement authorities regarding Joyce’s death?  Guess what?  Bill immediately reported a suspicious death to law enforcement authorities.  When notified by the Sayreville Police Department that the death was now considered “suspicious”, the Medical Examiners Office followed the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act by contacting the Prosecutor’s Office and telling the Prosecutors Office that the Prosecutors Office must conduct a mandatory investigation and telling the Sayreville Police Department to secure Joyce’s body (New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act 52:17B-87), and conduct and investigation (again, see 78).  The investigation by both the Medical Examiner’s Office (Dr. DiCarlo) and the Prosecutor (Bruce Kaplan) at this point is mandatory, not discretionary.  See the section on Bruce Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, who refused to conduct the mandatory investigation, a critical and deliberate decision to violate the law.  . 

The Medical Examiner’s Office failed to follow the law once a suspicious death was reported.  Following the report of a suspicious death by Bill to the Sayreville Police Department and by the Sayreville Police Department to the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Medical Examiner’s Office needed to know where Joyce’s body was and asked the Sayreville Police Department to locate it. 

According to the Sayreville Police Department’s Report of Investigation dated October 29, 2005, two officers, Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski, returned to the place of Joyce’s suspicious death on the evening of her death, at 2313 hours, to ask family where Joyce’s body was taken.  After awakening Raymond J. Sauter, Joyce’s husband and the alleged murderer, Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski obtained the name and address of the funeral home and left.  There is no indication in official police reports that any attempt was made to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation.  Why is that?  At this point, the Sayreville Police Department knows they are investigating a suspicious death.  Why would they purposely and knowingly not initiate a crime scene investigation?  More to come on that in a future installment, regarding the Sayreville Police Department.

POSSIBLE BLUE WALL CONNECTION

Because the alleged murderer, a former police officer, previously worked in Middlesex County witha local Police Department, it is highly probable that he knew Det Jeffrey Sprague and PTL Jamie Sztukowski, and they must have extended the alleged murderer some professional, blue wall courtesy, and declined to establish a crime scene and conduct a crime scene investigation.  Likewise, according to their Report of Investigation (see 70) dated 10-29-05, they deliberately did not ask the alleged murderer any questions regarding the allegations against him.  Yet how else would a reasonable person explain why a crime scene was not established and a crime scene investigation not begun?  How convenient for the alleged murderer and the Sayreville Police Department.  One wonders how that conversation went, blue wall and all?  What about police protocol? 

The Sayreville Police Department would have us believe that the alleged murderer simply gave them the name and address of the funeral home and then went back to bed.  Surely the alleged murderer would have asked some questions and not simply given the name and address of the funeral home where Joyce was transferred.  Wouldn’t the alleged murderer have a few questions as to why the police are back out at such a late hour making this inquiry?  Isn’t the alleged murderer at all curious about what is the need to know and why?  Oh, that’s right, the alleged murderer, you might recall, is a former Police Officer.  Do you think they knew each other?  Do you think they had a conversation that is not recorded in the police report?  More on this when we visit the Sayreville Police Department’s investigation reports’ chapter down the road.  And where was Bruce Kaplan’s office, the County Prosecutor, who had been notified earlier by the County Medical Examiner’s Office, of a suspicious death?  And where was a representative of the Medical Examiners Office?  Back to Dr. DiCarlo and the County Medical Examiner’s Office’s decision not to conduct a crime scene investigation where a suspicious death was alleged to have occurred.

What would a crime scene investigator look for at Joyce’s residence, the location where Joyce died a suspicious death?  The allegation made against the alleged murderer to the New Jersey State Police, the South Amboy Police, and finally the Sayreville Police Department, and subsequently to the Medical Examiner’s Office and the Prosecutors Office, was that Joyce was starved, dehydrated and/or over-medicated to death; suffocation was added a short while later.  Following a long, drawn out court fight in the NJ Superior Court, custody of Joyce’s four specimens taken by Dr. DiCarlo during the External Examination were awarded to Carolyn Ausley.  An independent analysis of the specimens by an accredited lab and reviewed by a Forensic Pathologist concluded that :

 “Based on the additional testing performed at my request on the very specimens that Dr. DiCarlo obtained but never tested, indicates that Joyce was dehydrated and was in a prolonged fasting and or starvation condition at the time of her death. How these additional findings impact her cause and manner of death rulings is unknown to the extent that a complete autopsy, toxicology workup, and investigation was not performed by Dr. DiCarlo prior to his rulings in this case.  These additional findings certainly call into question the thoroughness of Dr. DiCarlo’s work product and determinations he subsequently makes on cases within his jurisdiction.” —Michael J. Berkland, D.O.,  Forensic Pathologist, March 4, 2008

ALLEGED MURDERER OBJECTS TO RELEASE OF FOUR SPECIMENS

Only one person objected to the release of the four specimens taken from Joyce’s body during Dr. DiCarlo’s External Examination.  That person was the alleged murderer.  In NJ Superior Court, the alleged murderer was the only one who objected to the release and complete testing of the specimens.  One wonders why he would object if he had nothing to hide? As noted by NJ Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis in his official opinion (Docket NO.: C-223-06 and A-2765-06-T5) the alleged murderer indicated absolutely no interest in the specimens until the Plaintiff, Carolyn Ausley, requested legal custody for additional testing.  It is interesting to note that the First Deputy Counsel for Middlesex County deliberately “mis-interpreted” their legal justification for not releasing the specimens, thus forcing Carolyn to obtain a court order when one was unnecessary.  This action now goes to covering the actions of Dr. DiCarlo by his Middlesex County legal representative, Mr. Aronowitz.  County public servants were now committed to their course of action-a course of action that would lead  Mr. Eric Aronowitz, the Middlesex County First Deputy Counsel to falsely swear (False Swearing 2C:28-2a) in the NJ Superior Court that an autopsy had been completed by Dr. DiCarlo and all necessary testing had been conducted by Dr. DiCarlo on the specimens he removed from Joyce’s body during an External Examination-when he knew that was untrue.  More to come in a later chapter about Mr. Eric M. Aronowitz, the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, and his violations of criminal law.

The mandatory crime scene investigation, required by law, was not performed by law enforcement nor medical examiner nor prosecutor personnel.  Of course, the Sayreville Police Department and the Medical Examiner and the Prosecutor, being the experienced crime solvers they are, under these particular circumstances, would have known what to look for at a suspicious death crime scene.  For example, the Medical Examiner representative (as well as other investigative personnel) would look for food in the form of special diets for cancer patients from her doctor, her dietitian, or her nutritionist-maybe even something from the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society.  They would have looked for energy drinks used to keep fluids in Joyce’s body; they would have looked for a written pain medication management program prescribed by her doctor, the hospital, or the Hospice Team, so that she was not medicated to the point of hallucinating and disorientation, as in fact, she was.  They might even have looked for a pillow that could have been used to smother Joyce.  Certainly if the Medical Examiner’s Office conducted the mandatory crime scene investigation they would have known what to look for, based on the allegations made.  And the same goes for the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutor’s Office.  But that’s only if they had conducted a crime scene investigation-which they did not.  A crime scene investigation was knowingly and purposely not conducted, with the intent to protect the alleged murderer.  As a result, any evidence that could have implicated the alleged murderer, or even exonerated the alleged murderer, was “lost”.

STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER ACT VIOLATIONS BY DICARLO

Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not comply with NJ State requirements. Dr. DiCarlo failed in his efforts to maintain “proper forensic practice”.  The New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 13. Law and Public Safety Chapter 49 State Medical Examiner Subchapter 1. Autopsies, defines proper forensic practice. 

 “Proper Forensic Practice” consists of those procedures which are required to perform the mandated role of the medical examiner, which is to determine the cause and manner of death within a reasonable degree of medical probability; to identify and analyze evidence in criminal matters; to preserve organs for transplant and to otherwise preserve the public health.” (13:49-1.8 Definitions)

As already supported by direct and relevant evidence in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination (See 74: Certification), Dr. DiCarlo waited two days before taking charge of Joyce’s body.  Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo, per statute, was required to perform a mandatory autopsy-which he decided not to do.  Had he completed the mandatory autopsy, the cause and manner of Joyce’s death would have been known beyond a reasonable doubt and almost the two years of subsequent litigation in Superior Court would have been unnecessary.  Dr. DiCarlo was required, by the Medical Examiner Act, to conduct a crime scene investigation following receipt of a report of a suspicious death.  Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not conduct a crime scene investigation.  Why?

DICARLO KNOWINGLY RELEASES JOYCE’S BODY TO THE PERSON ALLEGED TO HAVE MURDERED HER

Dr. DiCarlo also permitted direct and relevant evidence to be destroyed prior to completion of his investigation.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act required the Medical Examiner’s Office to conduct a crime scene investigation.  As a result of not conducting a crime scene investigation, significant evidence was lost, and an alleged murderer walks free today.  By releasing Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer, Dr. DiCarlo made it impossible to determine the manner and cause of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52:17B-88 findings; report; autopsy; conclusions; copy to closest surviving relative; transportation of body) requires that whenever a suspicious death is reported, the cause and manner of death can only be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt by conducting an autopsy.  In violation of the Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo deliberately did not conduct the mandatory autopsy.

In this particular case, a Medical Examiner autopsy was required but not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo.  The NJ Administrative Code (NJAC) 13:49-1.5, Medical examiner autopsies, states

“(a) Medical examiner autopsies shall be performed only in conjunction with investigations of reportable deaths in order to establish the cause of death; to provide medical facts upon which to base a determination of the manner of death ….” 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, a suspicious death, which this is, is a reportable death.  Unlike an External Examination, which Dr. DiCarlo performed,

 “the  autopsy standard for …suspicious deaths and deaths with no visible anatomic cause shall include complete inspection, removal and dissection of the cranial compartment and contents, the neck viscera and tongue, the thoracic, abdominal and pelvic compartments and viscera, and any additional dissections which may be indicated by the circumstances of death; and shall include the collection and preservation of body tissues for toxicological and microscopic examination and any additional examinations which may be required by the nature of the circumstances.”

Dr. DiCarlo did not want to know the true manner and cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no doubt that had Dr. DiCarlo conducted the mandatory autopsy, he would have determined the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is no doubt that if Dr. DiCarlo kept custody of Joyce’s body until all questions were answered, he would have determined the cause and manner of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt had Dr. DiCarlo conducted the mandatory autopsy he would have been able to support or reject the allegations against the alleged murderer, Raymond J. Sauter. 

What would a reasonable person conclude that Dr. DiCarlo was afraid he would discover and determine?  What is it that Dr. DiCarlo did not want to know for sure?  Is it reasonable to wonder why Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct an autopsy when he knew it was mandatory following a report of suspicious death?  It is also important to note that Dr. DiCarlo released Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer within hours of completing his External Examination and long before he had the toxicology results back from the NJ State Toxicology Lab and noted he received them on November 29, 2005 (See 82).  What would have happened if testing came back in support of foul play, and more evidence was needed?  Dr. DiCarlo did not worry about what the tests would show, because he knew what the outcome of the testing would be based upon the tests he requested be completed on just two of the four specimens.  A reasonable person would easily conclude that Dr. DiCarlo used his office to prevent the autopsy from taking place, after all, he is the one who knowingly released Joyce’s body to the alleged murderer.  In addition to everything else, this is Official Misconduct.

WHAT DOES THE NJ STATE MEDICAL EXAMINER SAY ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS?

Let’s go back to the crime scene and Dr. DiCarlo’s failure to establish and investigate the crime scene.  We find this statement by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner, in his web site,

 “Tremendous importance should be placed in the proper steps and procedures taken at the scene of a death.  How a death investigation is handled at these crucial initial stages, may later affect the administration of justice and future criminal proceedings, the adjudication of estates, and certification of death.” 

Using his public office, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely mishandled Joyce’s suspicious death investigation, with the intent of protecting the alleged murderer and to hinder his own prosecution .  This entire situation reads like something out of Crime Scene Basics 101.  Joyce had cancer, diagnosed in February 2005.  Joyce’s legally designated care giver was the alleged murderer.  Sometime after June 24, 2005, Joyce began losing weight.  It is estimated that just before her death in October Joyce may have weighed as little as 70-75 pounds, down from 120-125 the end of June.  According to Dr. DiCarlo’s “Summary of Case”, on November 2, 2005,  one of Joyce’s doctors gave her six months to live “Based on my clinical expertise and in consultation with the Central New Jersey hospice  Interdisciplinary Team, I certify that the above-named patient (Joyce) has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six month or less if the illness runs its course.” (See 24) Joyce had previously been given eight months to live and beat that.  How did Joyce become so emaciated?  So thin?  So dehydrated?  Why was she disoriented to time, place, and person, hallucinating and unable to speak?

Dr. DiCarlo would have discovered, had he properly handled Joyce’s death investigation which mandated an autopsy, that the care she had received was negligent if not criminal.  Joyce was being cared for by the alleged murderer, who at one point told Bill Strouse:

“The plan for Joyce is to die.” 

Who was responsible for Joyce’s care?  At another point, the alleged murderer commented to several family members that, “Once this is over with, I’m selling the house and getting out of here.”  Joyce’s Living Will instructed the alleged murderer to provide her with all the care necessary to sustain her life as long as it did not involve extraordinary measures such as “tubes” and “wires”.  Joyce’s expectation, according to that official, legal document, was to live as long as she could.  Joyce also made it clear to Carolyn Ausley, her younger sister, that she wanted to live as long as possible.

Back to taking immediate control of the deceased’s body.  So, a suspicious death was reported to the Sayreville Police Department around 2030 hours, by the decedents brother, Bill; the Sayreville Police Department reported the suspicious death shortly thereafter to the Medical Examiner and Prosecutors Office; and the Medical Examiner’s Office reported the suspicious death of Joyce to the Prosecutors Office a short while after that, directing the Prosecutor to conduct a suspicious death investigation.  All this on the evening of October 29, 2005.  All of this documented in the Sayreville Police Department’s Reports of Investigation and in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination, previously cited.

Dr. DiCarlo failed to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body.  What does “immediate” mean and what would a reasonable person think immediate meant?  A reasonable person would conclude that the word “immediate”, which is the word used in the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, means “right away” or “right now”, or “instantly” or “without an interval of time”.  Remember, the Medical Examiner’s Office, in violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, did not conduct a crime scene investigation and did not send anyone out to the residence where Joyce died once a suspicious death was reported.  Following her death, Joyce’s body was moved to a local funeral home by the alleged murderer for cremation the very next morning.   A suspicious death was reported at 2030 hours when Joyce’s brother, Bill Strouse, was informed of his sister’s suspicious death by his niece.  If the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act requires the Medical Examiner to immediately take control of the deceased’s body, a reasonable person would conclude this would happen within the hour or so following the report of a suspicious death, if not right away.  After all, the decedent is now the main body of evidence.  Why belabor this point?  Joyce died on the evening of October 29, 2005.  In violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, the Medical Examiner’s Office did not take custody of her body until October 31, 2005, almost two days later.  Why wait two days?  Why knowingly and purposely break the law?  Initiating and completing the investigation would answer that question.

MANDATORY AUTOPSY NOT CONDUCTED BY DICARLO

Dr. DiCarlo failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy following the report of a suspicious death.  In addition to his own admission, the fact that Dr. DiCarlo did not conduct the mandatory autopsy is also supported by attorney Jack Venturi in his letter of  January 5, 2006 ( See 648-649 ).  In this letter Mr. Venturi reports that in an extensive conversation he had with Dr. DiCarlo, Dr. DiCarlo informed him that an autopsy was not conducted on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, even though one was required by law.  The New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act requires that when a suspicious death is reported, an autopsy is mandatory.  For example, a number of autopsies were conducted by the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office for a variety of reasons, including one suspicious death (SEE  A, B, C, D, E, F ).    If Middlesex County can conduct autopsies for car wreck, multiple gunshot wounds to the head, and drownings, why can’t they conduct an autopsy when the suspicious death of Joyce was reported?  The purpose of the autopsy in a suspicious death case is to “determine the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt”.  The Medical Examiner does not have discretionary authority to change the law; an autopsy must be conducted.  At this point, by his own admission and documentation, Dr. DiCarlo only conducted what is known as an “External Examination”.  Included in the External Examination was the removal of four specimens, which later became the center of a NJ Superior Court custody decision and subsequent toxicology testing.  So why did Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely choose to violate the law and not conduct the mandatory autopsy?

Let’s examine in greater detail the Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice violations committed by Dr. DiCarlo.  Remember now, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth said these alleged violations had no merit (See 219–220 and 252).  Ms. Hollingsworth reviewed several hundred (669) pages of direct evidence submitted in support of our allegations and still concluded Dr. DiCarlo did nothing wrong.  If the law says you must conduct an autopsy when a suspicious death is reported, and by your own hand you provide direct and relevant evidence that you failed to conduct an autopsy in accordance with the law, doesn’t that have merit under the law? 

Several of these violations were specified earlier, and though there are others that are applicable, we’ll focus only on those previously noted.  One of the critical 2C Criminal Code violations committed by Dr. DiCarlo pertains directly to his Falsifying or Tampering with Records 2C:21-4a.  This is a critical violation for several reasons.  First, Dr. DiCarlo acknowledges that he broke the law by admitting that he completed only an External Examination on the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, denying that he completed an autopsy.  As recently as December 27, 2007, in response to another request for a copy of the autopsy report by Carolyn Ausley, Dr. DiCarlo states that only an External Examination was completed. (See 6–7; 34–35; 32–33) This direct evidence of admission is in addition to the direct evidence of the External Examination Reportitself.  So no autopsy was completed.  Dr. DiCarlo thus acknowledges he knowingly and purposely violated the NJ Medical Examiner Act and he acknowledges he violated Title 13 of the New Jersey Administrative Code.  This is some of the direct evidence that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded had “no merit”.

Circumstantial evidence suggests Dr. DiCarlo only conducted an External Examination to protect the alleged murderer from being investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce.  Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth claims to have reported our allegations to the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners.  They too, according to Hollingsworth, chose not to take any action against Dr. DiCarlo.  According to the State Board of Medical Directors website, when a complaint is filed, it is always acknowledged and an outcome, however brief, is always reported to the complainant.  No such correspondence was ever received by Carolyn Ausley or Bill Strouse.  One may guess that there is plenty of corruption to go around New Jersey government.  But we digress.  Dr. DiCarlo put his career on the line for the alleged murderer, a former police officer, it appears, with this action.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo do that?

Some background.  As we already know, Joyce’s reported suspicious death went uninvestigated, in violation of the law, by Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. DiCarlo; he also failed to conduct a crime scene investigation; he failed to conduct the mandatory autopsy; he failed to ensure that the Sayreville Police Department and the Prosecutors Office conducted and completed suspicious death investigations; he released the main source of evidence (Joyce’s body), based on the allegations, to the person alleged to have murdered her; he released the evidence prior to receiving a return lab report from the NJ State Toxicology Lab; in providing justification for changing the manner and the cause of death for certificates of death for Joyce, Dr. DiCarlo certified false information; he completed only an External Examination; and, he requested testing of only two of four specimens taken from Joyce’s body during his External Examination, leading to a long and drawn out civil case in the New Jersey Superior Court for specimen custody and complete testing.  All of this is supported by direct and relevant evidence provided in the form of correspondence by Middlesex County public servants.  Remember, though all these violations occurred and are well-documented, Dep Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth said they had no merit.

DICARLO FALSIFIED JOYCE’S CERTIFICATES OF DEATH

What does 2C:21-4a require?  What records were falsified?  It is alleged that Dr. DiCarlo falsified information on a certificate of death applicable to Joyce, with the intent of showing a manner and cause of death that would support the alleged murderer’s defense and appeal in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, that Joyce’s death was caused by cancer and nothing more.  Signed and certified by Dr. DiCarlo, with a witness to his signature, Dr. DiCarlo purposely and knowingly falsely certified information on a public record.  This is direct evidence and is uncontestable.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions were material and he accomplished what he intended to accomplish.  Dr. DiCarlo made no attempt to retract any of his actions or certifications.  As a direct result of Dr. DiCarlo actions, Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse suffered irreparable harm.

What does it take to change the manner and cause of death on a certificate of death?  The appropriate official, in this case Dr. DiCarlo, must certify that certain actions, or results, or tests conducted subsequent to the issuance of the initial certificate of death, now enable the Medical Examiner to conclude what the “true” cause or manner of death is, beyond a reasonable doubt.  In January 2006, the manner of death was reported to be “pending investigation”.  In January 2006, the same certificate of death shows a blank (no cause of death listed) on the certificate for cause of death.  On January 27, 2006, the manner of death was changed to “natural”.  (This too, is false because toxicology results were received from the NJ State Tox Lab by Dr. DiCarlo on November 29, 2005.)  In other words, the toxicology investigation was completed at the time Dr. DiCarlo reported them to be “pending”.  On January 27, 2006, the cause of death was changed to “bi-lateral, non-small cell carcinoma of lungs with lymph node involvement and metastases”. 

Please remember that to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt in a suspicious death case, an autopsy is MANDATORY.  And Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely chose not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Back to the certificate of death falsification. 

DICARLO FALSIFIES THE FORM

In order to make the change official, to change the public record on Joyce’s certificate of death, Dr. DiCarlo now had to certify the new manner and cause, and he also had to state what the basis was for his new conclusion.  New Jersey has a form for this purpose.  The form is REG-42A.  In this particular case, the form appears to be properly completed and is certified by Dr. DiCarlo and a witness.  Here’s the clincher.  Section 2 on the form provides space for Dr. DiCarlo to list the specific reasons justifying his changing this public record. 

In this block Dr. DiCarlo lists three reasons as his justification for changing the manner and cause of death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  First, Dr. DiCarlo certifies that evidence taken from the (non-existent) autopsy of Joyce led him to change the manner and cause of death (See 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88; especially 88, Section 2).  Second, Dr. DiCarlo also certifies that toxicology results also led him to change the manner and cause of death for Joyce (See 88, Section 2).  Finally, Dr. DiCarlo indicates that histology (a study of tissue specimens, usually on a glass slide) led him to change the manner and cause of death; it is true that Joyce’s medical records showed a history of cancer treatment.  Two out of three certifications are false.  Please remember, however, that when a suspicious death is reported, the cause and manner of death can only be determined by conducting an autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo lied.  As we know, Dr. DiCarlo admitted he did not conduct an autopsy, only an External Examination (See 34 – 35 and 74).  And as the NJ State Toxicology Lab results show, there is no reference or conclusion that supports changing the manner or cause of death from pending toxicology to cancer (See 82).  Big time lies.  What has to be proved, as far as 2C:21-4a is concerned?

CRIMINAL ALLEGATION AGAINST DR. DICARLO

FALSIFICATION OF CERTIFICATE OF DEATH

 “A person commits a crime if he falsifies, destroys, removes, conceals any writing or record, or utters any writing or record knowing that it contains a false statement or information, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing.”

Two elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be indicted for this crime.  First, it must be proven that Dr. DiCarlo falsified any writing or record or uttered any writing or record knowing it contained a false statement or information.  Second, it must be proven that Dr. DiCarlo acted with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone or conceal any wrongdoing.

The statute defines writing as including printing or any other method of recording information.  In this case, the certificate of death and the change to the certificate of death are both writings and are both used to record information.  Dr. DiCarlo took information he previously provided for the certificate of death and, based on other information he fabricated, made significant written changes to the certificate of death.

According to the statute, a writing or record is uttered when it is offered, provided, or displayed to another without regard to whether it is accepted, with the knowledge that it contained a false statement or information.  Even though Dr. DiCarlo knew he had not conducted an autopsy, he certified he did.  Even though Dr. DiCarlo knew that the Toxicology results from the NJ State Toxicology Lab did not confirm cancer in any of specimens, Dr. DiCarlo certified they did.  Once certified by DiCarlo, the certificate of death was changed to reflect a new manner and cause of death.  The purpose of this action by DiCarlo was to help protect the alleged murderer from investigation and to help justify his knowing and purposeful decision not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo’s action was intended to conceal wrongdoing on the alleged murderer’s part, which was the planned murder of Joyce.

Dr. DiCarlo knew that his certifications were false at the time he made them.  Clearly, since Dr. DiCarlo knew that no autopsy had been conducted and since Dr. DiCarlo knew that the results of the toxicology report did not reflect cancer as a cause or manner of death before he certified the certificate of death, he was knowledgeable that such certifications were false at the time he made them.

Dr. DiCarlo, using the authority of his public office, knowingly and purposely took this action.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that if he made these false statements that his action would mean that the cause and manner of death on the certificates of death would be changed.  Likewise, he knew that making these specific changes would support the alleged murderer’s defense that the cause of death was cancer and therefore, the alleged murderer would not be a suspect in Joyce’s suspicious death.  DiCarlo also knew that if the manner and cause of death were listed as cancer, this would add considerable weight and support to justify his deliberate decision not to conduct the mandatory autopsy.  Using his office, DiCarlo was in a prime position of power to aid law enforcement in the broadening deception.  He succeeded.  Dr. DiCarlo obviously knew that the law enforcement community would circle the wagons and protect all involved-which is what they have done to date.

The alleged murderer’s attorneys used the falsified certificate of death (one of three by the time the case was heard in Superior Court, Appellate Division), even though two others were available.  As noted in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, this falsified certificate of death, now altered by Dr. DiCarlo’s actions, was used by the alleged murderer’s attorney in the case (though other certificates of death were and are available) as support for his defense not to release the specimens for independent testing and analysis.  Dr. DiCarlo is protecting not only the alleged murderer but also himself.  Why else would Dr. DiCarlo falsify this public record, a certificate of death, when he had previously gone on record as certifying that no autopsy had been conducted on Joyce?  Remember that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, who had all of this direct evidence, knowingly and purposely concluded that there was no merit to this charge, with the intent to protect the public servants involved in this case (See 219–220 and 252).  Why would Hollingsworth do that?  There is more than an appearance of the blue wall at work here.

TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

DiCarlo also tampered with physical evidence. The next Title 2C New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice violated by Dr. DiCarlo involves tampering with physical evidence:  Tampering With Physical Evidence 2C:28-6(2).  The statute reads as follows:

 “A person commits a crime . . . if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be instituted, he: (1) Makes, devises, prepares, presents, offers or uses any article, object, record, document or thing of physical substance knowing it to be false, and with purpose to mislead a public servant who is engaged in such proceeding or investigation.”

The three elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt include (1) that Dr. DiCarlo believed that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or about to be instituted; (2) that Dr. DiCarlo purposely made, devised, prepared, offered, or used an article, object, record, document or thing of physical substance, knowing it to be false; (3)  that Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in making, devising, preparing, presenting, offering or using the falsely certified certificates of death was to mislead a public servant who was engaged in such proceeding or investigation.

Dr. DiCarlo falsified a certificate of death, as documented above with considerable direct evidence. Regarding element one, Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse had been closely following the activities of the Sayreville Police Department, the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office, and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office, as documented via numerous phone calls and letters written by them over the several months between Joyce’s death and the falsification of the certificate of death.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn and Bill alleged that their sister Joyce had been killed by starvation, dehydration, over-medication and/or suffocation.  You will note that there is no mention of an interview with either Carolyn or Bill in Dr. DiCarlo’s Report of External Examination.

Dr. DiCarlo ignored numerous attempts by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse to discuss the case.  DiCarlo was also aware that both had left a number of phone messages and written a number of letters seeking information regarding the suspicious death investigation, which seemed to be going nowhere.  Dr. DiCarlo is also aware that the attorney Carolyn and Bill hired to seek information (Jack Venturi) turned out to be a personal and professional friend of Dr. DiCarlo’s; Jack Venturi is now implicated as well.  When reported by the Sayreville Police Department that a suspicious death was being investigated, Dr. DiCarlo’s office knew that his office had directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a mandatory suspicious death investigation.  Thus, he knew that an official proceeding or investigation was not only pending but was ongoing.  Likewise, with all the questions being asked by Carolyn and Bill, and all the letters being sent throughout the law enforcement community by Carolyn and Bill, Dr. DiCarlo knew or should have known that an investigation of the investigative process of county public servants would be pursued by Carolyn and Bill.  Dr. DiCarlo never interviewed with Bill Strouse or Carolyn Ausley as part of his investigation, even though it was made clear by the Sayreville Police Department that they alleged a suspicious death of their sister.  Why would Dr. DiCarlo not interview Carolyn and Bill?

Regarding element two, Dr. DiCarlo purposely altered the certificate of death, a public record (See 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88), for the express purpose of having it used in defense of alleged murderer, and to provide support for not conducting the mandatory autopsy.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that Carolyn and Bill contended that Joyce’s cause and manner of deathhad nothing to do with cancer.  Dr. DiCarlo knew that without conducting the mandatory autopsy, he could not, beyond a reasonable doubt, certify the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death.  Though he did not have an autopsy report, a certificate of death could suffice in a court of law to act as a buffer or reasonable substitute when coupled with the credibility of the Medical Examiner’s Office behind him.  Dr. DiCarlo took a great risk betting that neither Carolyn or Bill would obtain a copy of his false justification and certification document. 

Regarding element three.  As it turned out, the certificate of death DiCarlo tampered with was used by the alleged murderer in NJ Superior Court Appellate Division, as an exhibit for the Defense.  Though a more recent one was available at the time of the court appearance, it is interesting that DiCarlo would select this particular certificate of death to provide for the alleged murderer’s defense.  The credibility of the Office of the Medical Examiner, offering a certified document for evidence, was overwhelming in court, leading the court to discount claims by Carolyn and Bill that an autopsy had not been completed.  DiCarlo knew he had falsified the justification for the change to the manner and cause of death; he knew that the manner and cause of death on the certificate of death releasable to authorized personnel would reflect exactly what he wanted it to reflect, thus offering protection for the alleged murderer and himself. 

Clearly, Dr. DiCarlo knew and believed that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or underway.  And Dr. DiCarlo knew the document he tampered with would be used in NJ Superior Court by the alleged murderer, a defendant, in the case to obtain Joyce’s specimens for examination.  Truly, Dr. DiCarlo’ s intent was to mislead the court and all others into believing that the certificate of death he tampered with was legitimate and provided the protection for him and the alleged murderer that he desired; he succeeded.  Neither Dr. DiCarlo nor the Middlesex County Counsel, Eric M. Aronowitz, ever produced an autopsy report.  The fact that he was successful in his efforts is evidenced by the need to present this information in this venue, as Dr. DiCarlo was not charged individually or as part of a corruption investigation or cover-up, neither was the alleged murderer.  Remember that Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth, having all of this direct evidence, concluded that there was no merit to this charge.  How is that possible?  There is more than an appearance of the blue wall at work here. 

DICARLO COMMITS OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

Dr. DiCarlo is also alleged to have committed OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, a crime of the second degree, as a public servant in his official capacity as an Assistant Medical Examiner with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides in Official Misconduct 2C:30-2 that a public servant is guilty of misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

 “a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or”

 “b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

 As an Assistant Medical Examiner, it is inherent in the nature of his office that he must conduct autopsies under certain circumstances.  These duties are imposed upon him by law.  The law imposing these duties upon Dr. DiCarlo is the New Jersey Medical Examiner Act, 52:17B and the New Jersey Administrative Code 13:49.

For Dr. DiCarlo to be guilty of Official Misconduct, the following three elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  First, Dr. DiCarlo must have been a public servant at the relevant time.  Second, he must have knowingly refrained from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.  Third, Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in so acting was to benefit himself or another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit.

Regarding the first element, that Dr. DiCarlo was a public servant during the relevant time is uncontested and uncontestable.  Dr. DiCarlo was employed as the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, NJ, for a number of years prior to October 29, 2005, and since then.  Dr. DiCarlo has, through his signature, certified many official documents on behalf of the Medical Examiner’s Office, Middlesex County, NJ.

Regarding the second element, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly refrained from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.  As an Assistant Medical Examiner, it is inherent in the nature of his office that Dr. DiCarlo conducts autopsies and medicolegal death investigations when necessary in accordance with the NJ State Medical Examiner Act.  Dr. DiCarlo has conducted numerous autopsies as an inherent part of his job.  In this particular case, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely refused to conduct the mandatory autopsy on a person whose death was determined to be suspicious by the Sayreville Police Department and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office. As noted by the New Jersey Office of the State Medical Examiner, in their web site, wherein deaths occur “under suspicious or unusual circumstances;” a medicolegal investigation must be conducted.  This means an autopsy.  The law does not permit a discretionary decision by the Medical Examiner’s office to not conduct an autopsy when the death is reported as suspicious.

Dr. DiCarlo also deliberately decided not to take immediate charge of the deceased’s body as required by the NJ State Medical Examiners Act, leaving her body in a private funeral home for two days.  Dr. DiCarlo did not establish a crime scene, nor did he conduct a crime scene investigation at the site where the suspicious death occurred.  Though directing the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely did not follow-up to ensure that the Prosecutors Office conducted and completed a criminal investigation into the suspicious death of Joyce-again, a mandatory initiative.  Dr. DiCarlo states on page #6 of his “Summary of Case”

“Investigator Ivan Scott of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office monitored and reviewed the investigation of the death of Joyce Sauter.”

According to correspondence received by Carolyn Ausley from William Lamb of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office denies any such monitoring or reviewing took place regarding the investigation of the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.  So is DiCarlo lying or is Lamb lying.  Only one of them is telling the truth.

Dr. DiCarlo also failed to perform proper forensic practice, by releasing the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer prior to completing his investigation, thus permitting the destruction (Joyce’s body was immediately cremated by the alleged murderer) of valuable evidence critical to determining the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. DiCarlo also released Joyce’s body prior to the receipt of the lab results (See 82) of the specimens sent to the NJ Toxicology Lab for testing and analysis.   Dr. DiCarlo also requested the testing of just two of the four specimens (See 82) he removed from Joyce, neither of which could have indicated if Joyce was starved or dehydrated—two of the allegations made by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse (See 656–657).

Dr. DiCarlo refused to right an obvious wrong; his actions were intentional.  Though he had numerous opportunities to correctly and completely test all of the specimens over almost two years, he refused to do so.  Dr. DiCarlo never retracted his findings or conclusions.  Direct evidence shows that Dr. DiCarlo tampered with public records and falsely certified the manner and cause of death on certificates of death.  Through his legal representative, Dr. DiCarlo swore in NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, that he conducted an autopsy (See 6–7).  In correspondence with Carolyn Ausley, he denied conducting an autopsy, admitting that he completed only an External Examination (See 34).  All of these duties were imposed upon him by law or were inherent in the nature of his office.

Regarding the third element, Dr. DiCarlo’s purpose in refraining from conducting the mandatory autopsy on Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was to benefit himself and another–the alleged murderer, who was alleged to have murdered Joyce, an elderly invalid, through starvation, dehydration, over-medication, and/or suffocation.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions led to no autopsy being conducted on Joyce, thus the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt could not be determined.  Dr. DiCarlo’s actions also aided himself in that he has not been prosecuted for his participation, and thus retains his job, income, family, and status in the community.  This may or may not have also been a pecuniary benefit of fostering and maintaining their close personal and/or professional relationship in the law enforcement community. 

According to the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, by not conducting the mandatory autopsy, it is impossible to determine the cause of death of Joyce beyond a reasonable doubt.  Dr. DiCarlo’s efforts also protect and benefit himself from criminal prosecution or professional administrative action from the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners or the National Association of Medical Examiners, and other professional certification organizations.  Also, by not conducting the autopsy and falsifying the certificate of death, Dr. DiCarlo deprived Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse-and the rest of the family-of the benefit of peace of mind of knowing the true cause and manner of Joyce’s death.

DICARLO HINDERS OWN APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION

Dr. DiCarlo took knowing and purposeful action that resulted in him hindering his own apprehension or prosecution.  According to the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:29-3b, Hindering One’s Own Apprehension or Prosecution, a person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct or a result thereof if it his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.  Purpose is a condition of the mind that can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words, or acts.  Dr. DiCarlo is charged (by Carolyn and Bill) with the offense of hindering his own apprehension or prosecution in that he is alleged to have refrained from fully carrying out his duties and responsibilities as the Assistant Medical Examiner for Middlesex County regarding the suspicious death investigation of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter. 

In violation of the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act, Dr. DiCarlo decided not to take immediate charge of Joyce’s body following her death; Dr. DiCarlo did not complete the mandatory autopsy required when a suspicious death was reported; in completing only an External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo failed to request testing and analysis of all specimens taken from the decedent.  Dr. DiCarlo also failed to interview the siblings of the deceased as required by the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act; Dr. DiCarlo released the decedent for cremation immediately after completing his External Examination, thus making it impossible to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt; Dr. DiCarlo falsified a public document-a certificate of death.  Finally, Dr. DiCarlo failed to ensure that both the Prosecutor and the Sayreville Police Department conducted thorough and complete investigations of the suspicious death of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.

This charge is based upon the statute which provides that:

“A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder his own apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for murder or criminal negligence.”

Each of the following elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to find Dr. DiCarlo guilty.  The first element that must be proven is that Dr. DiCarlo knew that he had been or was likely to be charged.

The second element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Dr. DiCarlo suppressed, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime OR tampered with a document or other source of information, which evidence or document might aid in his discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against him

The third element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that Dr. DiCarlo acted with the purpose of  hindering apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment.

Regarding the first element, because Dr. DiCarlo was quite familiar with the New Jersey State Medical Examiner Act (52-17B) and the NJ Administrative Code (13:49)and he knew he was violating sections within each, for example, failure to conduct an autopsy and failure to conduct a crime scene investigation, and; because the siblings of the deceased kept calling, providing information regarding a suspicious death, and kept inquiring about a criminal investigation, and; because Dr. DiCarlo knew he falsified a certificate of death, which is a 2C Criminal Code of Justice law violation.  Thus, Dr. DiCarlo knew or should have known, that he was likely to be charged at some point.

Regarding the second element, by his direct action, Dr. DiCarlo released the main body of evidence, the body of the deceased, to the alleged murderer prior to completion of his investigation.  Though required to conduct an autopsy, he conducted only an External Examination on October 31, 2005, according to his certified report.  He released the body of the decedent to the alleged murderer, on November 1, 2005, and within a matter of hours, Joyce’s body was cremated.  With the cremation, all evidence was lost that could be used to determine the cause and manner of death beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, Dr. DiCarlo released Joyce’s body long before he received the lab results from the NJ State Toxicology Lab in Trenton, as already proven.  Dr. DiCarlo also falsified a public record, Joyce’s certificate of death. 

Regarding the third element, Dr. DiCarlo’s efforts of hindering were two-fold and successful.  First, by taking the action previously discussed, he ensured that the alleged murderer would be protected from investigation or prosecution.  In fact, as of this date, the alleged murderer has yet to be investigated for the suspicious death of Joyce. Second, by not conducting the autopsy, and only conducting an External Examination, Dr. DiCarlo ensured that there would be no evidence available upon which to determine the true cause and manner of death and that the results of his External Examination specimen analysis, and Joyce’s recent medical history, would make it appear that his conclusion that cancer killed Joyce was indeed accurate; this action was intended to protect himself, as well.  Additionally, though Dr. DiCarlo directed the Prosecutors Office to conduct a suspicious death investigation, Dr. DiCarlo knowingly and purposely never followed up with the Prosecutors Office to determine why they were not investigating the suspicious death and to determine why they did not complete an investigation at all. 

If Dr. DiCarlo had contacted the Prosecutors Office for an update shortly after the suspicious death investigation was ordered (the night of Joyce’s suspicious death), Dr. DiCarlo would have learned that the Prosecutors Office was doing nothing.  A reasonable person would believe that if the Prosecutors Office immediately began conducting an investigation as directed by Dr. DiCarlo, Dr. DiCarlo would never had been able to release the decedent to the person alleged to have murdered her.  It is obvious that Dr. DiCarlo’s intent was to have as little evidence and investigative activity in this case as possible-and he succeeded.  As noted by Deputy Attorney General Hollingsworth, the Prosecutor waited 80 (eighty) days after he was told to conduct an investigation, to decide not/not to conduct an investigation.

With this in mind, it is easy to conclude that it was Dr. DiCarlo’s knowing and purposeful intent to engage in conduct of that nature, to cause the result it did; that is to say, the actions he took kept him from being investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or punished.  And when Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse filed allegations/charges and complaints against Dr. DiCarlo with the NJ Office of Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth concluded the allegations/charges had no merit.  You’ve just read something that contradicts that conclusion; you also had the opportunity to read direct and relevant evidence that contradicts Ms. Hollingsworth’s conclusion. 

Something stinks in the Office of the Attorney General and Middlesex County, NJ, still.  Though apprised of these developments in early September 2008, and provided extensive direct and relevant evidence in support of their allegations, neither Carolyn Ausley nor Bill Strouse have ever received an acknowledgement of receipt from either Governor Corzine’s Office or the office of the U. S. Attorney, Ralph J. Marra, Acting U. S. Attorney, as of January 5^th, 2009, the date of this writing.

Please remember that none of the public servants mentioned in this chapter have been charged by any law enforcement with breaking any laws.  They are, by law, considered innocent until proven guilty.  Also remember that any allegations made herein are fully supportable by direct evidence which, ironically, was produced by the public servants themselves, in response to concerns raised by Carolyn Ausley and Bill Strouse.  Carolyn and Bill seek a full and open investigation into the suspicious death of their sister Joyce. 

Carolyn and Bill also seek required legal action against the public servants who used their public offices to shield themselves and their colleagues from investigation and possible prosecution.  

Any investigative files and information prepared by the NJ Office of Attorney General were not made available to either Carolyn or Bill.  Our allegations will be proven once the investigation of Joyce’s suspicious death-and subsequent cover-up-is completed. 

ADDENDUM DATED 02-10-2009

MIDDLESEX COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER FALZON REFUSES TO CORRECT CERTIFICATE OF DEATH (Posted 2-10-09)

Laws continue to be violated in the Middlesex County Medical Examiner’s Office.  In a letter dated February 5, 2009, Andrew L. Falzon, M.D., County Medical Examiner for Middlesex County, states his refusal to correct the certificate of death for Joyce ( See G ).  According to the official NJ state form to make corrections to the certificate of death, only the physician who initially completed and certified the cause and manner of death has the authority to correct the certificate of death.  In this case, Dr. Falzon abused his public office by not having Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, the certifying medical examiner, render a decision documented by his signature, to review our request for a corrected certificate.  Dr. Falzon’s letter also falls short by not stating that Dr. DiCarlo, the certifying physician on the certificate of death would not authorize the correction as requested.  Since only the certifying official can make such a decision, a reasonable person may conclude by default or omission, that Dr. DiCarlo informed Dr. Falzon that he refused to correct the certificate of death.

FALZON AS CULPABLE AS THE REST OF THE PUBLIC SERVANTS

Dr. Falzon cannot plead ignorance to the direct and relevant evidence in this case and is fully aware of the complaints and criminal allegations against Mr. Aronowitz, the First Deputy County Counsel for Middlesex County, against Dr. Dicarlo, and thus, against his office.  As a result, Dr. Falzon could be charged with a number of 2C criminal code violations, such as:

Conspiracy 2C:5-2

False Swearing 2C:28-2A

Official Misconduct 2C:30-2

Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution 2C:29-3a or 3b

Tampering With Physical Evidence 2C:28-6(1) and (2)

Tampering With Public Records or Information (Making, Presenting or Filing a False Document, Record, or Thing) 2C28:-7a(2)

Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Functions 2C:29-1

Dr. Falzon’s decision to cover for and protect Dr. DiCarlo now brings Dr. Falzon into the fray of knowing, purposeful, and deliberate actions to protect (intent) not only his office and Dr. DiCarlo, but also the person alleged to have murdered our sister.  The harm continues to befall Carolyn and Bill by not having closure surrounding the suspicious death of our sister.  This act by Dr. Falzon amounts to, at a minimum, Official Misconduct on his part.  As we have laid out for your review by posting direct and relevant evidence, it is clear that the “case” has not been thoroughly investigated nor has all the material been reviewed.  Remember that our legal justification for requesting a correction to the certificate of death is based upon the New Jersey law that says an autopsy is MANDATORY in all suspicious death cases; an autopsy is the only way to determine the true manner and cause of death.  Since an autopsy was not conducted by Dr. DiCarlo, the current certificate of death must be corrected by him, in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey.

FALZON GIVEN CHANCE TO RETRACT HIS STATEMENT

On February 10, 2009, we decided to give the Middlesex County Medical Examiner one more chance to set the record straight.  Our letter of February 10, 2009, ( See H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10, H11, H12, H13, H14, H15, H16, H17, H18, H19, H20, H21, H22) once again lays out the case for correcting the false certificate of death filed by Dr. DiCarlo.  Specifically, we cite the appropriate sections of the NJ State Medical Examiner Act that were violated by Dr. DiCarlo and now by Dr. Falzon, including the fact that his office never conducted a crime scene investigation nor did they conduct the mandatory autopsy, among others.  In his letter, Dr. Falzon states that “the case has been thoroughly investigated and all the material has been reviewed.”  This of course, is a lie, and Dr. Falzon knows it is a lie–this lie amounts to “False Swearing”; it also meets the 2C criteria for Official Misconduct.

WHAT DOES DR. FALZON KNOW

Dr. Falzon knows that the mandatory autopsy was not conducted; he knows that a court battle ensued to obtain Joyce’s specimens because Dr. DiCarlo refused to test all specimens based on the allegation of suspicious death; he knows that independent analysis of the specimens showed that Joyce was dehydrated and in a prolonged fasting or starvation condition at the time of her death; he knows that Bill and Carolyn are still pressing for an investigation.  Though Dr. Falzon knows all of this, he still has chosen to conspire to protect Dr. DiCarlo and all the other public servants involved in this blue wall cover-up.  As we have clearly documented, the “case” has not been thoroughly investigated, certainly not by the Medical Examiner’s Office.

Dr. Falzon’s affirmation is knowingly and purposely false and not supported by direct and relevant evidence.  His intent, at a minimum, is to protect Dr. DiCarlo, along with all the other public servants.  Dr. Falzon also states that all the material has been reviewed.  We provided Dr. DiCarlo, the Middlesex County Counsel (who also has complaints filed against him in this case), the Prosecutor’s Office (who also has complaints filed against him in this case) and the Sayreville Police Department (who also have complaints filed against them in this case) with “all” the direct and relevant evidence/material to review.  All the more reason to conclude that the blue wall cover-up is alive and well.

As a reasonable person can read from our links, the direct and relevant evidence clearly shows that numerous public servants in Middlesex County, including now Dr. Falzon, have used their office to hinder an investigation, falsify public records and documents, all with the intent of protecting the alleged murderer of Joyce, and protect themselves from indictment and prosecution.  How Dr. Falzon can review all the material and conclude that nothing amiss has occurred seems to defy all logic.  Dr. Falzon is unable to produce any evidence to support the claims made in his denial letter of February 5, 2009.

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.  A PATTERN OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT IS BECOMING APPARENT.

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.