<\/p>\n
LAST UPDATED:\u00a0\u00a0Dec 28, 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n Total Visits:\u00a0 140,462<\/strong><\/p>\n Total Hits: 683,033<\/strong><\/p>\n NAVIGATION NOTES <\/strong><\/p>\n PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BODY NARRATIVE IS DOWN BELOW THE SUMMARY AND UPDATES.<\/strong><\/p>\n Summary – Updates<\/strong><\/p>\n May 27, 2014<\/strong>: \u00a0We 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.<\/p>\n September 5, 2013<\/strong>:\u00a0 The FBI office in Newark has been contacted regarding this corruption.\u00a0 We are pending a response from them at this time.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n May 28, 2011:<\/strong>\u00a0 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.\u00a0 At Det. Davis’ direction (R&I), evidence in support of the criminal complaints was not\/not provided at this time.<\/p>\n March 3, 2011:<\/strong> 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.\u00a0 Birds of a feather flock together.\u00a0 For Judge Grant to respond in any other manner would mean a number of public officials would be investigated for corruption.\u00a0 Now Judge Glenn A. Grant is part of the corruption.\u00a0 Look for the new chapter on “The Courts” by the end of March.<\/p>\n February 7, 2011:<\/strong> Our response to Judge Lawson’s Opinion was mailed to Judges Lawrence M. Lawson, Glenn A. Grant, and Travis L. Francis\u00a0today.\u00a0 We also sent a copy of our response to Gov. Christie.\u00a0 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\u00a0to support our charges.<\/p>\n January 25, 2011:<\/strong>\u00a0 Without hearing the 60 other criminal complaints, Judge Lawson dismissed all of them.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 A response is being prepared.<\/p>\n January<\/strong> 13, 2011<\/strong>:\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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”.\u00a0 We could not find anything in the Rules of the Court addressing the issue.\u00a0 Judge Lawson is to provide us with a written opinion shortly.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 We are as confused as ever as to why the Courts in NJ continue to act in this harassing and frivolous manner.\u00a0 More to come.<\/p>\n December 27, 2010:<\/strong>\u00a0 The probable cause hearing is set for January 11, 2011.\u00a0 We understand the Court intends to hear all 61 criminal complaints in one day, though the Court will not confirm that.\u00a0 When we asked in what order the complaints would be heard, we were told to consult the Rules of the Court.<\/p>\n October 23, 2010:<\/strong> 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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?\u00a0 It was reported in a telephone conversation \u00a0that the sworn affidavits previously reported as missing, have been located.\u00a0 This continues the pattern of frivolous conduct and harassment, eh?\u00a0 What would a reasonable person think?\u00a0 I am pending notice of the probable cause hearing date and location.<\/p>\n October 7, 2010:<\/strong>\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The correct address of the Court House is 56 Paterson Street.\u00a0 The change of venue hearing was held before Judge De Vesa on October 5, 2010, in the Superior Court, New Brunswick.\u00a0 The outcome of the hearing will be published here as soon as it is received.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Superior Court personnel are looking for my sworn affidavits at this time.\u00a0 The beat goes on in Middlesex County.<\/p>\n September 28, 2010:<\/strong> The probable cause hearing about to be scheduled before Judge DeVesa, as noted in the 9\/20\/10 update, has been canceled.\u00a0 More tocome.<\/p>\n September 20, 2010:<\/strong> Frivolous action?\u00a0 Harassment?\u00a0 Fair hearing?\u00a0 The probable <\/strong>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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 I just cannot seem to get out of Middlesex County and the appearance of bias, prejudice, and conflict of interest.<\/p>\n I recently learned that one of the persons whom I filed criminal complaints against submitted an “attorney letter” to the court regarding my complaints.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Is this deliberate on the part of the Court?\u00a0\u00a0 How is this possible?<\/p>\n September 17, 2010: <\/strong>Sent to Judges Herman and Francis, as noted below, a new probable cause hearing\/review date has been set.\u00a0 Changing their minds again, Judges Herman and Francis will not\/not decide probable cause, nor will they hear the complaints.\u00a0 They assigned that responsibility to another Judge, still in Middlesex County.\u00a0 Here we go ’round in circles.\u00a0 More to come.<\/p>\n September 9, 2010:<\/strong> Judges Herman and Francis will soon be conducting a probable cause review on all 61 criminal complaints.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The court believes they have the 61 criminal complaints in the right place this time.\u00a0 I am told I should be hearing something from the court regarding the status of the 61 criminal complaints fairly soon.\u00a0 Yes, they are\u00a0 still in Middlesex County.\u00a0 Yes, we are wary of Middlesex County ruling on criminal complaints against public servants in Middlesex County.\u00a0 Time will tell.<\/p>\n August 27, 2010:<\/strong> The probable cause hearing scheduled for August 17, 2010, was canceled by Judge George M. Boyd on Aug 16, 2010, due to jurisdictional concerns.\u00a0 The 61 criminal complaints were transferred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for reassignment.\u00a0 Court Administrators are refusing to confirm they have all 61 criminal complaints.<\/p>\n July 28, 2010:<\/strong>\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n July 15, 2010 Update:\u00a0 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n July 2, 2010 Update:<\/strong>\u00a0 On June 2, 2010, Criminal Citizen Complaints were filed against 15 personnel, including those in this site, in Sayreville Municipal Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n 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?\u00a0 Guess.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 We are back to square one thanks to the New Jersey “justice” system.<\/p>\n ON SEPT 8, 2009, A MOTION WAS FILED IN THE NJ SUPREME COURT TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME\u00a0AS THE ALLEGED MURDERER IS INVESTIGATED FOR THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF JOYCE B. (STROUSE) SAUTER.<\/p>\n The Sayreville Police Department intentionally botched a suspicious death investigation to protect one of their own.\u00a0 Though reporting a suspicious death to the Medical Examiner, they failed to interview all persons of interest.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Interview questions\u00a0with certain family members were framed to elicit the information they were seeking to continue to protect the alleged murderer from investigation.\u00a0 Other pertinent family members were not even interviewed.\u00a0 Direct and relevant evidence in their possession was never developed as leads to further their investigation.\u00a0 Though they knew that the Prosecutor’s office was supposed to be conducting an investigation, there was no coordination.\u00a0 When learning that the Prosecutor’s Office was not conducting the mandatory suspicious death investigation, the SPD knowingly and purposely\u00a0looked the other way.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 They chose not to manage and lead the investigation, as evidenced by their deliberate decision to ignore\u00a0aggravating evidence pointing towards the alleged murderer in the case,\u00a0and their intentional decision not to be involved in a case that touched close to home.<\/p>\n To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by (See)<\/strong> 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) <\/strong>locations.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cmission of the Department of Law and Public Safety is centered on the advancement of the quality of life for the people of New Jersey.\u201d That means that the Department \u201cprotects and enhances the safety and interests of every citizen of New Jersey \u2026.\u201d That means \u201cprotecting the rights and safety of the public.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Office, and the Middlesex County Prosecutor\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n Complaints against the Prosecutor\u2019s Office and the County Counsel\u2019s 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<\/a>, 2<\/a> )<\/strong>. A complaint against Dr. Frederick J. DiCarlo, Assistant Medical Examiner, Middlesex County Medical Examiner\u2019s Office was first filed on March 4, 2008 ( See 146<\/a> )<\/strong>. All of the complaints are related to the same suspicious death case. All should be handled as criminal complaints.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 121<\/a>, 122<\/a>, 123<\/a>, 124<\/a> )<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 142<\/a>, 143<\/a> )<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE WONDERS WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT FAILED TO TAKE ACTION<\/strong><\/p>\n In particular, please pay attention to comments of Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis, made December 14, 2006, wherein he wonders, in his opinion:<\/p>\n \u201cNow, it\u2019s interesting that Ms. Ausley\u2019s application is also <\/em><\/p>\n supported by a certification from – from the decedent\u2019s <\/em><\/p>\n brother, and it\u2019s also interesting that the – that law <\/em><\/p>\n enforcement has consistently failed to take any action, <\/em><\/p>\n notwithstanding the allegation of – of the – of the plaintiff <\/em><\/p>\n in this matter.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The allegation was and is that Joyce\u2019s caregiver caused the death of our 61 year old invalid sister, Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter.<\/p>\n 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<\/span> to date, the Attorney General\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n PUBLIC SERVANTS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 102<\/a>, 103<\/a>, 104<\/a> )<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Based on Dep Attorney General Denise Hollingsworth\u2019s conclusion (Hollingsworth, you may recall, was the Attorney General\u2019s investigator in this case) there was no merit to any of the allegations against any of the public servants identified herein. Since, as you\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n A CASE AGAINST THE SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n The Sayreville Police Department did what it intended to do.\u00a0Knowingly and purposely, they protected one of their own-the alleged murderer-a former police officer.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The Sayreville Police Department succeeded.\u00a0 In the process of protecting the alleged murderer, the Sayreville Police Department violated a number of laws <\/strong>under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (2C<\/span>) for New Jersey, for which they should be fully prosecuted.\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT DELIBERATELY BREAKS PROTOCOL IN INITIAL INVESTIGATION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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\u2019s suspicious death, they purposely did not followup with the Middlesex County Medical Examiner\u2019s 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.\u00a0 The Sayreville Police Department also purposely did not followup with the Middlesex County Prosecutor\u2019s Office, in particular, Bruce Kaplan and Bill Lamb, when the Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to conduct the mandatory investigation of the suspicious death of Joyce, as directed by Dr. DiCarlo ( See 25<\/a>, 26<\/a> )<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It was the intent of the Sayreville Police Department to discredit Bill and Carolyn as \u201cwitnesses\u201d and portray the alleged murderer and others, as reputable family and creditable witnesses. A careful reading of the Sayreville Police Investigative Reports<\/span> ( See 71<\/a>, 72<\/a>, 73<\/a>, 192<\/a>, 193<\/a>, 194<\/a>, 195<\/a>, 196<\/a>, 197<\/a>, 198<\/a>, 199<\/a>, 200<\/a>, 201<\/a>, 202<\/a>, 203<\/a>, 204<\/a>, 205<\/a>, 206<\/a>, 207<\/a>, 208<\/a>, 209<\/a>, 210<\/a>, 211<\/a>, 212<\/a>, 213<\/a>, 214<\/a>, 215<\/a>, 216<\/a>, 217<\/a>, 218<\/a> )<\/strong> 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\u2019s daughters, as loving and caring family members who were victimized by the actions of Bill and Carolyn.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Both Bill and Carolyn have other information available to share at the time they are interviewed by law enforcement.<\/p>\n EVIDENCE IS DIRECT, RELEVANT, AND MATERIAL<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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\u2014the body of Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter, to be released to the person alleged to have murdered her for immediate cremation.<\/p>\n The evidence is aggravating. It is both direct and circumstantial. It is the truth.\u00a0 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\u00a0 information to the law enforcement community, and how the Sayreville Police Department knowingly and purposely let an alleged murderer go \u201cscott free.\u201d\u00a0 Evidence submitted by Bill and Carolyn shows a Superior Court Judge, (Judge Francis L. Travis) in a related case, wondering\u2014in his judicial opinion\u2014why law enforcement is not involved in investigating the suspicious death allegations ( See 143<\/a> )<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 All individuals involved must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.<\/p>\n BACKGROUND-OVERVIEW<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Joyce B. (Strouse) Sauter was born in 1942 and at the time of her death, had been married about 25 years. Joyce\u2019s primary caregiver was a former police officer on a local force in Middlesex County. As a result, Joyce\u2019s primary caregiver and the alleged murderer knew many of the county law enforcement officials, including public servants in the Prosecutor\u2019s Office, the Medical Examiner\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n According to one of Joyce\u2019s daughters, who lives out of state, her mother\u2019s relationship with the primary caregiver was abusive ( See 109 <\/a>)<\/strong>, and he was abusive to Joyce\u2019s daughter as well. The abuse was so disturbing to Joyce\u2019s 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 \u201csoon.\u201d<\/p>\n With the loss of Joyce\u2019s father to Florida, Joyce also lost $600 a month in rent. Joyce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Even though Carolyn Ausley had been periodically sending Joyce and Joyce\u2019s 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\u2019s 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<\/a>)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n ONE OF JOYCE\u2019S DAUGHTERS ALLEGES ABUSE<\/strong><\/p>\n On August 2, 2005, one of Joyce\u2019s daughters, sent her Aunt Carolyn Ausley, an email from Maine ( See 109 <\/a>)<\/strong>, in which she stated \u201cBoth Mom and I were abused by him mentally, physically and emotionally.\u201d 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<\/a> )<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n JOYCE\u2019S CONDITION WORSENS<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Carolyn and I were shocked at Joyce\u2019s appearance and her totally confused mental status. They were also shocked to learn neither Joyce\u2019s 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\u2019s doctor, nutritionist, or the National Cancer Institute or American Cancer Society, or a dietitian.<\/p>\n THE CAREGIVER\u2019S PLAN FOR JOYCE WAS TO DIE<\/strong><\/p>\n 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 <\/a>)<\/strong>, 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 \u201cThe plan for Joyce is to die.\u201d<\/strong> And so it was. And so it happened.<\/p>\n NO PAIN MEDICATION MANAGEMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n Administration of medication was out of control. Even Hospice had no written pain medication program during their tenure in Joyce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n There was no medication management program for Joyce. There was nothing from Joyce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n JOYCE GIVEN ANOTHER 6 MONTHS TO LIVE<\/strong><\/p>\n On September 29, 2005, Joyce\u2019s doctor certified she had six months to live if the cancer took its course ( See 24 <\/a>)<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n Carolyn\u2019s and Bill\u2019s suggestion to contact a dietitian or nutritionist was again met with anger and denial by Joyce\u2019s 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 \u201cThe plan for Joyce is to die.\u201d Neither the alleged murderer nor Joyce\u2019s 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\u2019s daughter changed her phone number because Carolyn and Bill kept pressing her about the quality of care being provided to their sister.<\/p>\n 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 <\/a>)<\/strong>. During Bill\u2019s last visit prior to Joyce\u2019s death, the alleged murderer commented, in front of Joyce\u2019s daughter\u2019s (now) ex-husband and friend of the alleged murderer, that \u201cOnce this is over with, I\u2019m selling the house and moving out of here.\u201d Really sounds like a sensitive, concerned caregiver, eh?<\/p>\n ATTEMPTS TO LOCATE AN ATTORNEY FOR JOYCE<\/strong><\/p>\n Concerned that the negligent caregiver\u2019s plan for Joyce to die was happening before their eyes, Carolyn and Bill contacted several local attorneys in the two weeks before Joyce\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s Office, and not the Medical Examiner\u2019s 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<\/a>, 649 <\/a>)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n ADVICE FOR JOYCE\u2019S NUTRITION REJECTED BY CAREGIVER<\/strong><\/p>\n In the two weeks before Joyce\u2019s suspicious death, Joyce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n A few days before Joyce\u2019s 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 \u201cWhat is, is. What is will be. That is that. Good-bye.\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n UNEXPECTED DEATH ADVISORY<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2019s room to give her more pain medications around 5:00 pm, he found Joyce dead.<\/p>\n The alleged murderer said that shortly thereafter, Joyce\u2019s 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<\/a>, 189<\/a>, 190<\/a>, 191 <\/a>)<\/strong>, which agrees with the Sayreville Police Department Report of Investigation, and the Medical Examiner\u2019s certification of External Examination. Joyce\u2019s body was moved to a funeral parlor shortly thereafter for cremation the next morning.<\/p>\n A SUSPICIOUS DEATH IS REPORTED TO AUTHORITIES<\/strong><\/p>\n Immediately following his niece\u2019s notification of his sister\u2019s death, Bill called the New Jersey State Police to report a suspicious death which Bill believed to be murder at the hands of Joyce\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s tone changed somewhat when he gave Bill a chance to tell him of Bill\u2019s and Carolyn\u2019s unsuccessful efforts to hire a NJ attorney to take the case.<\/p>\n Later in the conversation, upon learning from Bill that Joyce had cancer, Lt. Brennan commented \u201cShe was going to die anyway.\u201d, as if that was some kind of \u201cpass\u201d for what happened. Lt. Brennan asked Bill a few more questions and said that someone would be back in touch shortly.\u00a0 A short while later, DET-SGT Jeffrey Sprague called Bill Strouse regarding the suspicious death and possible murder of Joyce. Bill alleged that Joyce\u2019s death was at the hands of her caregiver, as noted in the Police report ( See 193 <\/a>)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n THE SAYREVILLE POLICE BOW TO THE ALLEGED MURDERER<\/strong><\/p>\n According to the Report of Investigation ( See 195<\/a>, 196<\/a>, 197<\/a>, 198 <\/a>)<\/strong> on the 30th<\/sup> 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<\/a> )<\/strong>. The alleged murderer is going to set the stage for the Medical Examiner\u2019s help in making a potential problem go away.<\/p>\n On December 27, 2005, SGT Sprague Mirandized Joyce\u2019s daughter but not the alleged murderer. When questioned by Bill Strouse about that, DET Sprague said that \u201cThe alleged murderer is not the target or suspect in the case.\u201d<\/em> 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 \u201ctarget or suspect\u201d of the investigation? Was Bill\u2019s suspicion about the \u201cblue wall\u201d being confirmed? Thus began the investigatory process by the Sayreville Police Department, and the involvement of the Middlesex County Medical Examiner\u2019s Office, in particular, Frederick J. DiCarlo, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner.<\/p>\n NO PROGRESS IN THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH INVESTIGATION<\/strong><\/p>\n Throughout November and December 2005, Carolyn and Bill attempted to obtain help from many sources, including the Governor\u2019s Office ( See 275<\/a>, 380<\/a>, 381 <\/a>)<\/strong>, the Office of the Attorney General ( See 382<\/a>, 634 <\/a>)<\/strong>, and the New Jersey State Police, among others ( See 323<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 325<\/a>, 326<\/a>, 327<\/a>, 328<\/a>, 329<\/a>, 336<\/a>, 337<\/a>, 338,<\/a> 339<\/a>, 340<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 342<\/a>, 346<\/a>, 347, <\/a>348<\/a>)<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n LOCAL ATTORNEY DEFENDS DR. DICARLO<\/strong><\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 649<\/a> )<\/strong>.<\/p>\n As an example of a glowing deficiency of Venturi, he was unable to tell Carolyn and Bill the status of Joyce\u2019s 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\u2019s and Bill\u2019s four specific taskings to Venturi. As a result, of the four things they hired their attorney to determine in connection with DiCarlo\u2019s 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<\/a>, 649<\/a> )<\/strong><\/p>\n Venturi did confirm two things: 1) That Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner\u2019s Office acknowledged receipt of a suspicious death report from the Sayreville Police Department, and 2) that Dr. DiCarlo and the Middlesex County Medical Examiner\u2019s Office acknowledged they did not conduct the mandatory autopsy on Joyce\u2019s body prior to releasing it to the alleged murderer for cremation.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Her pattern of official misconduct under 2C is becoming extensive.\u00a0 Stay tuned for later chapters.<\/p>\n CHARGES AND COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n Sayreville Police Department<\/strong><\/p>\n October 29, 2005<\/strong><\/p>\n ANALYSIS OF INITIAL<\/strong><\/p>\n INCIDENT REPORT 5021782 18:22:00<\/strong><\/p>\n ( See <\/strong>188<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>189<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>190<\/strong><\/a>, <\/strong>191 <\/strong><\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 188<\/a>, 189<\/a>, 190<\/a>, 191 <\/a>)<\/strong> first<\/span>. 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 )<\/strong> locations.<\/p>\n JOYCE IS PRONOUNCED DEAD<\/strong><\/p>\n 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 \u201cbut believed the woman passed away at appx 1700.\u201d 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\u2019s daughter would confirm in a conversation with Bill Strouse later on that night. Bill\u2019s niece told Bill that she had gone to the pharmacy at the alleged murderer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n When questioned at the scene by Officer Sztukowski, the caregiver \u201cstated Joyce (sic) had been in a nursing home until 09\/15\/05 when he brought her back home.\u201d 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<\/a>, 189<\/a>, 190<\/a>, 191<\/a> )<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n ANALYSIS OF<\/strong><\/p>\n SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n October 29, 2005<\/p>\n ( See 71<\/a>, 72<\/a>, 73 <\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n To make the most sense of this chapter it is necessary to read the documents identified by ( See 71<\/a>, 72<\/a>, 73 <\/a>) <\/strong>first. While it is easy enough to read the analysis, the analysis is about the direct evidence located at the various ( See ) <\/strong>locations in this section.<\/p>\n SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT<\/p>\n DEPARTMENT:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 SAYREVILLE<\/p>\n ORI NO:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1219<\/p>\n CASE NO:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 05-21781<\/p>\n CRIME\/INCIDENT:\u00a0\u00a0 HOSPICE DEATH\/SUSPICIOUS DEATH<\/strong><\/p>\n This is a 3-page report, double-spaced, authored by Sgt. Jeffrey J. Sprague on 10-29-05. Note the \u201cCrime\/Incident\u201d 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n In this report Sprague acknowledges that a \u201csuspicious hospice death\u201d had been reported by the brother of the deceased, alleging that the decedent\u2019s caregiver, \u201chad assisted in her death.\u201d This report also acknowledges that Bill Strouse, the brother, initially spoke with Lt. Brennan about the crime.<\/p>\n NO CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 657 <\/a>)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cfelt that her \u2018caregiver\u2019 had something to do with her death.\u201d 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?<\/p>\n SAYREVILLE POLICE NOTIFY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER\u2019S OFFICE OF A SUSPICIOUS DEATH ( See 131<\/a>, 132<\/a>, 133 <\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n Sprague\u2019s report also notes that Brennan stated that they contacted the Medical Examiner\u2019s Office and spoke with Giralda, stating \u201ctheir concern is that the deceased\u2019s 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.\u201d 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\u2019s Office<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n\n
CHAPTER II<\/h3>\n
SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT<\/h3>\n
**IMPORTANT NOTE**<\/h3>\n
BACKGROUND<\/h4>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n