sandra's profileharry bout ; onschuldig ...PhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
January 23 vandaag bij BuZa geweest.Vandaag hadden Annabelle en ik een afspraak met 3 mensen van Buitenlandse Zaken (BuZa).
We hebben ruim een uur met elkaar gesproken, zien dit ook als een soort persoonlijke kennismaking met elkaar.
We zullen elkaar goed op de hoogte houden maar nu gaan we eerst verder via het Ministerie van Justitie.
Hier hebben we via BuZa een contactpersoon toegewezen gekregen. Zijn telefoonnummer hebben we ook dus een dezer dagen zullen we bellen en proberen om een afspraak te maken.
toegevoegde foto hebben we na onze ontmoeting gemaakt, even napraten..... January 19 goed nieuws over medicatieIk ben net thuis van mijn werk en vond een geweldig bericht van Doug in mijn mailbox :
" Harry just called me...they gave him the old blood pressure medicine back again, and they are giving him the stuff he was taking for his cough, and he's feeling like a million bucks ! Has already lost 7 pounds now that the fluid is leaving him. Said to be sure to tell you, and he sends his love... Doug "
hehe, Harry heeft zijn medicatie nu weer helemaal zoals het eerst was...ben blij dat ze eindelijk in zijn gaan zien dat dit echt niet goed ging. Alleen had het best wat vlotter gemogen allemaal, dan had Harry zich niet zo lang zo ziek hoeven te voelen.
January 18 jaarverslagVanaf heden is ons jaarverslag te lezen.
volg deze link : http://www.geocities.com/freeharrybout/annualreportfhbsg2006.pdf
January 13 Brief aan Minister van Justitie.Al enige tijd hebben wij ook een goed contact met Sabine Zanker, zij is het hoofd van Fair Trials Abroad.
Ook Sabine is van mening dat Harry echt terug moet naar Nederland. Ze is ook van mening dat de zaak waarin Harry in is veroordeeld aan alle kanten rammelt. Sabine heeft een brief geschreven aan Minister Hirsch Ballin. U kunt de brief hieronder lezen :
29 November 2006.
Dear Minister,
My name is Sabine Zanker, and I am the Head of the legal team at Fair Trials Abroad, a non-governmental organisation. Fair Trials Abroad (www.fairtrialsabroad.org) is based in London, England, and our mandate is to secure the rights of European Union citizens in criminal proceedings in foreign countries. Although our legal team is comprised of European lawyers, we do not advice on domestic law, but rather assist and work with our client's lawyer using international human rights law as a basis for our opinions. As a charity we do not charge for our services.
We are assisting in the representation of Harry Bout, a 48 year old Dutch national who has been incarcerated in Michigan State Prison since April 1985. He is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for allegedly committng a murder. On 29 August 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Mr. Bout's leave to appeal. Furthermore, the deadlline to file a motion to appeal at the United States Supreme Court passed on 27 November 2006.
It would be a grave miscarriage of justice for Mr. Bout to serve a life sentence for what we believe to be an unsafe conviction. It was very unfortunate indeed that Mr. Bout could not make use of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Bout no longer had the financial means to employ his current attorney or hire another attorney. In order to be assigned government-funded representation Mr. Bout would have had prepared and filed his case himself and secondly the court would then have to decide that the case has merit, because assigned a public offender. However the district court within his particular Circuit, the 6th Circuit, never considers pro per filed cases ("with the defendant acting on his own behalf"), to have merit. This leaves people like Harry Bout with no financial means in a no win situation, they cannot appeal to the Supreme Court. just to give you an idea of the practical problems he is facing, it would have been sheer impossible for him to draft his own submission. He had forwarded his only copy of his lawyers previous submission which we would have needed as reference to the legal arguments to an Organisation in defense of the wrongly convicted in Canada, as he is unable to make photocopies in prison and his personal typewriter is in repair - if it turns out to be un - repairable he even won't be allowed to purchase a new one because of a change in regulations.
Thus, his only chance to clear his name has now passed. As a consequence, his final hope resides with the Dutch Government's efforts to contact those individuals who have the authority to commute or pardon his sentence.
I believe that the only option for Mr. Bout apart from looking forward to a certain death in prison in many years time is to have him transferred to Holland, where he would be released from prison at some stage. The Dutch Government has the means by which to contact and urge the current governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, to commute Mr. Bout's sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole to allow him requesting a prison transfer back to the Netherlands.The Government also has the means to contact President Bush and request a pardon on Mr. Bout's behalf. In both instances, I urge the Dutch Government to use its diplomatic position and communicate directly and personally with both Governor Granholm and President Bush.
Based on the evidence, detailed below, I firmly believe Mr. Bout is innocent of the murder: Mr. Bout was born in the Netherlands, and his parents moved the family to the United States and settled in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Mr. Bout had a business of buying wrecked houses and renovating them for profit. On March 7, 1985, an acquaintance of Harry by the name of Al Iwuagwu was fatally shot in an upstairs bedroom of a home that was owned by Marianne Schut, Mr. Bout's mother.
Those present in the house on the evening Mr. Iwuagwu was shot were Mr. Bout, Mr. Bout's girlfriend Dawn Bean, and Evelyn Schneider, an elderly woman who rented a room from Mr. Bout's mother. On March 7, 1985, Mr. Bout and Ms. Bean went on a double date with Mr. Iwuagwu and another woman, Vera Johnson. Later, after dropping off Ms. Johnson, the remaining three went to Ms. Schut's house, where Mr. Iwuagwu was shot three times in the head and died from his injuries.
Mr. Bout and Ms. Bean were charged with the crime. Ms. Bean initially proceeded with an insanity defence. After obtaining her third lawyer, however, she placed the blame on Mr. Bout and avoided a custodial sentence. She testified that Mr. Bout had suggested a threesome, that she had agreed, and had led the way upstairs, with Mr. Iwuagwu behind and Mr. Bout in the rear. She stated that she heard gunshots in the upstairs bedroom and saw that Mr. Bout had a gun.
The other main prosecution witness was Elvin Shaver, who helped Mr. Bout dispose of Mr. Iwuagwu's body. Mr. Shaver was threatened with being charged as a "habitual criminal" (which carries a life sentence in Michigan) and was charged with the lesser crime of accessory to murder in return for his testimony. Mr. Shaver later provided Harry's appellate lawyer with a sworn affidavit. However, under renewed pressure from the prosecutor Mr. Shaver plead the 5th amendment ( the right to silence) in response to every question he was asked at the hearing of the motion for new trial. Evelyn Schneider told police and testified at trial that she was in her bedroom, when she heard shots, then saw Mr. Bout coming up the stairs carrying a shotgun. He called out "Dawn, are you all right?" Police agreed there was no evidence that the shotgun was ever fired, and that Mr. Iwuagwu was killed with a handgun, not a shotgun.
Mr. Bout testified that he had heard the shots while downstairs, had taken his mother's shotgun, and headed up the stairs, calling to Dawn to see if she was alright. When he reached the bedroom, he saw Ms. Bean alone with the body of Mr. Iwuagwu. She told Mr. Bout that Mr. Iwuagwu was attempting to sexually assault her when she shot him, and begged Mr. Bout for help. Mr. Bout admitted that he helped cover up the shooting by helping to bury the body and move Mr. Iwuagwa's car to an airport parking lot. However, Mw. Bout has always maintained that Dawn Bean killed Al Iwuagwu.
At Harry's trial Grand Rapids police officers Sandra Arens and john Robinson submitted a false diagram of the house showing a wall extending into the way of Mrs Schneider's view. The police lied that Mrs.Schneiders bedroom door opened inward instead of outward which suggests that the door would also have blocked her view. Mr. Bout's lawyer made an application for the jury to be allowed to visit the scene of the crime as Michigan law holds that, at the discretion of the trial judgeof, a jury can go to the scene of a crime. Kent County Circuit Judge Stuart Hoffius refused the application.
The defence called three people, including Mr Bout's sister, to testify that it was possible to see someone coming up the stairs and crossing to the room where Mr. Iwuagwu was shot from Mrs. Schneider's bedroom. Photographs of the view from Mrs. Schneider's bedroom can be viewed at http://www.injusticeline.com/bout.html and clearly show a person can be seen coming up the stairs from the bedroom. However, the jury, unable to view the stairway itself, was inclined to believe the testimony of the two police officers and convicted Harry Bout of murder.
Mr. Bout was denied access to a fair trial in the U.S. He was initially denied access to consulate officials. In addition, both main prosecution witnesses were originally implicated in either the murder or the subsequent cover up and received lenient treatment in return for their testimony. Furthermore, the judges refused permission for Harry to dismiss his appellate attorney who was given control over Harry's case against his will.
As indicated above, the evidence against Mr. Bout was not nearly sufficient enough to justify a quilty verdict.
Many people have become interested in Mr. Bout's case due to the weakness of the evidence against him. His supportgroup (www.freeharrybout.org ) continues to publicize his case through their website and other media outlets.
In sum, the Justice system has a responsibility to protect the innocent and a duty to punish the quilty. In Michigan, it has failed to do either satisfactorily. The Dutch Government's intervention is critical if Mr. Bout is to obtain his long-awaited and deserved freedom. Otherwise, given the standard life expectancy of a man his age, Mr. Bout will more likely than not serve another 20 to 30 years before dying in prison. I believe that this is a cruel and inhumane manner to treat any human being. Fair Trials Abroad believe that his case is very worthy and deserves your full attention.
thank you very much for your time.
Yours respectfully,
Sabine C. Zanker
European Lawyer
Legal Team
Fair Trials Abroad
January 08 antwoord op onze briefIk heb al een tijdje niets van me laten horen. Ik heb hele fijne feestdagen gehad maar het is goed dat alles weer 'normaal' wordt nu. En iedereen weer een beetje fatsoenlijk te bereiken is.
We hebben al weer een tijdje niets van Harry gehoord maar we hopen dat dat komt door de feestdagen en niet omdat hij te ziek is of in 'the hole' zit.
Het laatste wat wij van hem weten is dat hij zich nog steeds niet goed voelt maar nu wel een klacht heeft ingediend tegen de slechte medische behandeling die hij krijgt. Harry had hier eerst weinig trek in want vaak gebeurd het dat iemand 'gestraft' wordt als hij een klacht indient. En bijvb. in 'the hole' gezet wordt voor een aantal dagen/weken. Harry was dus wat huiverig om in zijn toestand een klacht in de dienen maar misschien valt het mee omdat de klacht nu niet tegen een bewaarder is ingediend. Als hij geen klacht indient komt er dus ook niets in zijn dossier en denkt men dat alles goed met hem gaat....
Begin December hebben we een brief geschreven aan 'Bureau of Health Care Services' waar we zaterdag 6 Januari antwoord op hebben gekregen.
In de brief die wij stuurden hebben we onze bezorgheid ge-uit over Harry's slechte gezondheid.
het antwoord:
Dear Ms......
I am in receipt of you correspondence regarding Harry Bout, #180741. You have expressed concern that he has reported that he is not receiving the medical care and treatment to meet his needs. You attached to your correspondence a letter sent to you by Mr. Bout and expressing these concerns along with a concern about dental treatment that Mr. Bout needed.
Without acknowledgement that Mr. Bout has signed a "Patient's Authorization for Disclosure of Health Information" identifying you as the intended recipient of his confidential medical information, I am only able to respond to your concerns in general terms.
The Michigan Department of Corrections, Bureau of Health Care Services, works diligently to assure that all of it patients receive the medical care necessary to meet the patient's medical needs. Mr. Bout is not viewed any differently than the remainder of our patient population. Review of the concerns expressed in your correspondence indicates that your (Mr. Bout's) concerns seem to be tied to the recent formulary changes that the Department of Corrections implemented.
The Department to Corrections' operations are funded by State of Michigan tax payer dollars. As such, it is imperative that the Bureau of Health Care Services or any other State of Michigan entity ensure that the money allocated to it is used in the most efficient and effective manner. The Bureau of Health Care Services' additional responsibility is to operate within that budget while continually ensuring that it is providing quality health care. This requires me to continually review the care being provided and assess how things can be done differently to operate cost effectively and efficiently with quality a number one priority.
A recent change made within the Bureau of Health Care Services was the implementation of a new pharmacy system which allows us to provide all necessary patient medication at a reduced cost to the State of Michigan and in a more efficient manner throughout the state. Prior to making this change, a group of physicians and pharmacists came together to review the Bureau of Health Care Services' formulary to determine if changes could be made to it. Key to the discussions held was the acknowledgement of all parties that we could not remove a current medication from the formulary without assurances that a replacement of equal or greater clinical value was available. The end result was the removal of certain medications.
page 2
When a medication is removed from the formulary, those medications are unavailable for normal ordering by the facility medical service provider (MSP). However, if the physician believes that an off formulary medication is necessary to meet the needs of his/her patient, the provider has the ability to make the request for the off formulary medication to the regional Medical Officer (RMO). Before this is approved the Regional Medical Officer will assure that all other viable treatment options have been attempted and have failed, prior to authorizing the off formulary request.
As a result of the changes made to the formulary, a medication that Mr. Bout had been receiving was no longer available on the formulary. Although Mr. Bout's MSP made a request for the medication to the RMO, it was not approved because there were other options available to the MSP to try first. Mr. Bout has not been without medication, he has been without the medication he desires.
Mr. Bout's care is closely being monitored. His current health is stable and in good control. Please encourage Mr. Bout to work with health care staff to attain the common goal of continuous stable health for him. Also, please encourage Mr. Bout to make a good faith effort with the care plan in place right now and to communicate any concerns he has about its effectiveness after making this effort.
In regards to Mr. Bout's expressed concern about his tooth, dental staff are on site at Mr. Bout's current facility. As with all health care disciplines, if the care needed falls outside the care providers's expertise or ability due to facility restraints, outside specialty care is requested and provided. Mr Bout has seen a specialist to address his dental needs. The complaints expressed in the correspondence attached by you have not been made to facility health care staff. If his condition is as expressed, he should be encouraged to communicate his concerns to health care staff at the facility so that he can expeditiously be assessed and his needs addressed as indicated.
For informational purposes, Mr. Bout misinforms you that the Department of Corrections has recently contracted for new health care providers under the name of "Secure Care". Contrary to Mr. Bout's belief, there has been no change to the provider contract. The Department of Corrections is unaware of any organization named "Secure Care".
I trust that the information provided within this response allays your concerns about Mr. Bout's medical condition and the care that he is being provided.
Please contact this office if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Thank you for your correspondence.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Russell, Administrator
Bureau of health Care Services.
_
Ja, wat moeten we hiervan vinden ?
De brief geeft lang geen antwoord op al onze vragen.
Harry is er beroerd aan toe en ik kan me voorstellen dat hij het gevoel heeft dat ze medicatie aan het uitproberen zijn. Dit wordt ook wel een beetje gezegd in de brief : ..."there were other options available to the MPS to try first"...
Wat belachelijk ! Je hebt een medicijn wat goed werkt bij iemand en de vervangende medicatie zorgt voor lichamelijk problemen....ga je dan weer eerst iets anders (goedkopers) uitproberen ?
Waarom vertellen ze ons niet gewoon wat ze van plan zijn te gaan doen aan de slechte lichamelijke conditie waarin Harry nu verkeert. Waarschijnlijk omdat Harry 'nog geen toestemming heeft gegeven' om medische informatie met ons te delen. Dit is nog niet verwerkt misschien want ook daar moet weer een ander papiertje voor ingevuld worden.
En dan nog de vraag : " Please encourage Mr. Bout to work with the health care staff "......wordt ook wat moeilijk na wat Harry ons laatst vertelde. Hij werd gewogen. Er was zeer duidelijk een gewichttoename door al het vocht wat hij vasthield. En de verpleegster schrijft doodleuk wat anders op en zegt dat alles goed is ! Als Harry haar daarop attendeert zegt ze : 'Och ja, ik heb het verkeerd gelezen'. Dan verandert ze het. Hoe kun je daar nu nog vertrouwen in hebben ?
Tijdens het schrijven van bovenstaande ontvangt Annabelle een brief van Harry, gedateerd op 29 December 2006.
Hij vertelt zijn 'oude' medicatie weer te krijgen : Norvasc.
Verder heeft hij nu steunkousen gekregen.
Zou dit nu komen omdat vele mensen zich zorgen om hem gemaakt hebben en aan de bel hebben getrokken ? Of omdat ze zelf ook gezien hebben dat de vervangende medicatie geen goed deed bij Harry ?
We zullen het waarschijnlijk nooit zeker weten.
Een ding is zeker : het is heel goed en heel fijn dat hij in elk geval de 'Norvasc' weer krijgt!
|
|
|
