Miles first testifies, as he did at Buckley's trial, that this interview was strictly between himself and Michael Brown. Later he provides examples of Mr. Brown's "outsmarting the authorities" that do in fact include the participation of others. (This is also the first indication of the presence at this meeting of Brown's "attorney" John Aranyos).

He also testifies that this (two day) interview comprised the total extent of his involvement with Mr. Brown. This is a particularly curious matter as, according to attorney Elliot Segel, the (suppressed) tapes actually concerned this Holiday Inn meeting, and involved much more than was revealed at Buckley's trial, or here. Tapes which in fact consumed an entire day in listening to - at a secret hearing. It is also curious that attorney Segel represents this interview as being at the Holiday Inn - on June 19th and 20th. The Holiday Inn affair was in fact on June 13th and 14th. Everyone else, i.e., Judge Wolfe, attorney Bonavita, and District Attorney Massa asserts these tapes were of a "witness" preparation meeting" conducted by Massa at the Warren County Courthouse - on June 19 and 20, 1990 (or thereabouts).

It is not clear at this point whether attorney Segel had been duped by Brown's prior attorneys, District Attorney Massa, and Judge Wolfe into believeing these tapes were in fact of the Holiday Inn meeting, or whether Segel is acting in collusion therewith - in misrepresenting their actual source.

For more information concerning these tapes, see THE TAPES.

Actually we don't believe these tapes concerned the Holiday Inn at all, but rather that Trooper Miles was in fact present at these additional meetings.

There is also a reference to an In Chambers Hearing in which testimony was presented (concerning the Holiday Inn affair) that does not appear of record. To further set matters straight, this (In Chambers Hearing) was not a pretrial matter, but was in fact conducted during the Buckley trial (on May 24, 1991, it appears) subsequent to Barry Smith's receipt of the anonymous letter on May 20, 1991 advisng him of the fact and nature of this (Holiday Inn) interview.

90    

THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

MR. BONAVITA: Trooper Miles.

WILLIAM MILES, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:

BY MR. BONAVITA:

Q: Would you state your name?

A: Trooper William A. Miles, M-I-L-E-S.

Q: Where are you currently stationed?

A: Pennsylvania State Police Headquarters, Troop E, in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Q: During the course of your involvement did you have an interview with Michael Brown in May of 1990?

A: I believe it was June of 1990.

Q: Where was that interview? Where did that interview take place?

A: At the Warren Holiday Inn.

Q: What was the purpose of that interview?

A: I had been contacted by the Pennsylvania State Police in Warren, Trooper John Herzog, and asked if I could possibly conduct a polygraph examination on Mr. Brown.

Q: Did you in fact perform a polygraph examination?

A: Of sorts.

Q: How do you mean? Could you explain that, please?

91    

Q: Did you conduct an in-depth interview?

A: Yes, I have. (sic)

Q: I am going to show you what has been entered into evidence as Defendant's Exhibit Number Three and ask you if you can identify this?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And is this the statement that you used while you were conducting the interview of Michael Brown?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: I am going to also show you what is identified and previously entered as Defendant's Exhibit Number Two and ask you if you can identify that?

A: Yes.

Q: Are these the answers that were prepared as far as the questions that you asked Mr. Brown?

A: Actually what happened was a statement that was furnished to me made by Michael Brown I believe to the Public Defender's Office at that time, I was utilizing this statement and - -

92    

MR. BONAVITA: Exhibit Three, that's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Say that again. This is whose statement?

A: It's a statement furnished by Mr. Brown to the Warren County Office of the Public Defender. I was furnished with this statement and was under the impression that it was the final statement that he had made and my interview was going to be involved with this statement, yes.

Q: How did you conduct the interview then?

A: 1 beg your pardon.

Q: How did you conduct the interview? Did you use this statement and, for instance, read to him passages in that statement and ask him if this was correct or not?

A: No. What had happened at the onset of our visit is Mr. Brown advised me that there were some problems in this particular statement and he was under the impression that we were going to polygraph his veracity in this statement and I advised him that this was our intent before we started and he said there were some problems in it and I said fine, I didn't want to lead him on so I'll tell you what we'll do, I will start reading this to you and you stop me at a point that you don't feel is right and you tell me what you really want to say and that's basically what did happened. This is a typed version of the notes

93    

Q: You went through it with him page by page?

A: Sentence by sentence, page by page.

Q: In Defendant's Exhibit Number Three which is his statement, indicates by notations which are paralleled to the paragraphs on Defendant's Exhibit Number Two?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And the numbers - - would it be correct to say that the numbers on the statement which is Defendant's Exhibit Number Three correlate and are changed by what is in your typewritten notes on Exhibit Number Two?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So when reading through the statement of Michael Brown when you come to a number that indicates that there is an inconsistency or inaccuracy in his statement which is corrected by your typewritten notes which is Exhibit Number Two?

A: That is a change that he said that he wanted to make at that point.

Q: Did he indicate to you that he was telling the truth throughout at this time?

A: He said that he was, yes.

Q: And throughout the statement does he say or indicate various places where he was provided information

94    

A: He did say that at times.

Q: And did you type - - make notes as to what those changes were and how he came up with the version that was submitted in his statement.

A: It would all be listed in Defendant's Exhibit Number Two. Each one of these items is a discrepancy that I listed on his statement, Item Number Three.

THE COURT: Let me see so I don't miss that on the record. What's the date of Exhibit Number Three, that is, his initial statement?

TROOPER MILES: 4/4/91, April 4, 1990.

THE COURT: April 4th, '90 and you saw him - - what's the date on your exhibit?

TROOPER MILES: June 13 and 14 of 1990.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

BY MR. BONAVITA:

Q: Now, what did you do with this report once it was prepared?

A: Each evening, out of the two evenings we were together, once I was done we discussed what had transpired that day, the investigators working on this investigation, Trooper Herzog and District Attorney Massa.

Q: Did you prepare Defendant's Exhibit Number Two and

95    

A: This was done a couple days later, it was typed by one of the secretaries in the District Attorney’s Office and there were copies, where they went, I don't know.

Q: But you left them with the District Attorneys Office and with Trooper Herzog and that was the last you heard about it?

A: I believe until I was summoned to Court here.

Q: Okay. Are you aware of an anonymous letter that was sent to the attorney for Jay William Buckley regarding the existence of this document?

A: I am aware of the letter.

Q: Do you know who wrote the letter?

A: Absolutely no idea.

Q: Okay. Were you asked or were you contacted between the time that this was prepared and the time of the trial of Jay William Buckley, were you contacted by any one that would be representing Mr. Buckley regarding the existence of this?

A: No.

Q: Did you hear anything more from the District Attorney's Office of from any police agency investigating this case regarding the existence of this statement?

A: No, I don't believe I have talked to any one about it.

96    

BY MR. MASSA:

Q: Trooper Miles, I have several questions. Defendant's Exhibit Number Three is dated April 4, 1990 is on what stationery.

A: Office of Public Defender.

Q: And I am going to show you the last - - it doesn't have a last page.

(Whereupon, there was a brief pause.)

Q: Officer Miles, does that appear to be the same document?

A: Yes, sir.

A: I ask you to look at the last page, what does that contain at the bottom?

A: At the bottom it has "Sworn and subscribed this 5th day of May", I'm not real sure.

Q: That a notarial seal?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What signature appears at the bottom of the page?

A: Michael Brown.

Mr. MASSA: Your Honor, I move the admission of Commonwealth's Exhibit Number Five and ask that it be attached and complete Defendant's Exhibit Number Three.

97    

THE COURT: Admitted.

Q: Trooper Miles just so the record is complete, you're a polygraph operator by special training and expertise?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You administer, in common terms, a lie detector test; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You stated you were contacted by Officer Herzog. Was it your understanding and belief that Officer Herzog contacted you at my specific request?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did I communicate with you that I wanted you to run or subject Mr. Brown to a polygraph examination as a part of the investigative process?

A: Yes, sir, you did.

Q: And did you indicate to me that you were somewhat reluctant because it was post-arrest and not pre-arrest?

A: There were a lot of circumstances in this investigation that I didn't feel were conducive.

Q: You felt generally for a number of reasons, indicating one that I just mention, that it would be improper procedurally policywise to run Mr. Brown on a polygraph; is that correct?

98    

Q: Notwithstanding your candid position to myself, did I insist your efforts to try and do that nonetheless?

A: No, sir.

Q: Now, you stated you interviewed Mr. Brown at the Holiday Inn over a two-day period, June 13 and 14 of 1990?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who made the arrangements to conduct the interview at the Holiday Inn?

A: Myself and I believe Trooper Herzog.

Q: What was the purpose of having it at the Holiday Inn?

A: I wanted as much privacy as possible, as much of a relaxed atmosphere for Mr. Brown. We would have restroom facilities, coffee and such available because I knew it was going to be a time.

Q: Notwithstanding there were other individuals present in the vicinity, did your interviews with Mr. Brown over that two-day period involve any one other than yourself and Mr. Brown on a one-to-one basis?

A: We were one to one a hundred percent of the time, there was never a question asked by any one else.

Q: No one else interfered or intervened in any way, shape or form?

99    

Q: Is it your standard operating procedure as a polygraph operator to proceed in a two-step manner, Step Number One being an exploratory or background interview?

A: It's called a pre-test interview.

Q: That's what basically your review of the April 4, 1990 statement was?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That's what happened Day One basically?

A: Yes.

Q: On the second day did you attempt, notwithstanding your thoughts to place Mr. Brown on a polygraph, or subject him to a polygraph examination?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And in your opinion as a trained expert in polygraph examination what was your opinion as to the results of the examination?

A: In my opinion they were inconclusive, no determination could be made.

Q: So from your standpoint as a licensed polygraph operator you're saying that you could not tell basically upon your involvement whether Mr. Brown was telling the truth or not telling the truth?

A: That's correct.

Q: Were you aware of the fact that notwithstanding

100    

A: I understand that he did.

Q: But your sole involvement then was limited to the 13th and 14th of June of 1990?

A: With Mr. Brown, that's correct.

MR. MASSA: I have no further questions.

BY Mr. MASSA:

Q: Your testimony today was consistent with the testimony you gave under oath in Chambers; is that correct, at a pre-trial matter?

A: I certainly hope.

Q: And consistent with your testimony during the trial?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: With the exception that the jury was not aware of the fact that you were a polygraph operator?

A: Yes, sir.

Mr. MASSA: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Officer, I have may have missed it, did you or did you not administer a polygraph examination to Michael Brown?

TROOPER MILES: Yes, sir. What I did because the whole

THE COURT: Did you get any sense in talking to Brown for two days by yourself that he was being structured or promoted by any one to take the position he was an eyewitness of the Wilson crime?

TROOPER MILES: I got the feeling that Mr. Brown was kind of out trying to outsmart the authorities possibly by picking up little bits and pieces of things and utilizing them in his own way. For instance, one statement that he made to me he wasn't really concerned about taking a polygraph exam because he figured that I would ask him if he had sex with Mrs. Wilson and if he helped kill her and he knew that he didn't do either one of those, so he wasn't concerned at that point. There were different things of that nature, then the one incident, where he had allegedly forgot to

105    

THE COURT: That said, did you come or get any sense that the underlying current was anything from the Commonwealth to make him do that, to have him do that so they could structure an eyewitness against Buckley?

TROOPER MILES: My honest feeling toward the Commonwealth, the investigator, is that they sincerely, honestly believed he was there 100 percent and they were going for the truth.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may step down.

MR. BONAVITA: Barry Smith.

BARRY SMITH, called as a witness was sworn and examined, testified as follows:

BY MR. BONAVITA:

Q: Would you state your name, please?

A: Barry Smith.

Q: Your position?

A: I am an attorney.