A Call To Amy Rothermel, Esquire

After a few meetings this morning, I hope to speak with Amy Rothermel, Esq., Angie Funk's attorney this afternoon.
I took some time to process the latest happenings involving her client and the letter(s) that were sent. I haven't received one but would expect to, given my outspoken criticism of her client.
I would like to at least introduce myself to her via the phone and make my position known.
I have never seen any member of the Bar as an adversary and actually hold them in awe, given their education and expertise.
I fully appreciate my rights as protected by the First Amendment but I also fully understand an individual's rights to protection from invasion or privacy and stalking and well as libel.
Simply having to read an opinion posted that is negative or insulting isn't grounds for legal recourse. As I have learned, there is no law against having your feelings hurt LOL But there are laws against privacy invasion etc which I posted earlier.
If that were the case, I'd have a slam dunk in my pocket right now against the latest psycho babble I've read. Well, make that the babbling of a psycho lol
In any case, I have no problem discussing any of my blog posts with Ms. Rothermel. I am not "waxing indignant" should she send me a letter as well.
She is doing her job in protecting the rights of her client. And if at any time, my actions breach the law, I stand accountable.
I am a fan of accountability and autonomy.
I came across some legal findings in states other than PA so far, where a judge has ordered a forum owner to produce any and all documentation to assist in revealing the real and true identities of anonymous posters on the forums. There is more than one reference and although it's a slim chance that it will go that far, this attorney could want to be ground breaking in the state of PA.
To quote one attorney, "You are protected under the First Amendment if you are doing it right. If not, you are not."
I know that in the Salisbury, Maryland area a local politico, I believe it was, filed against a blogger for libel but I don't know the outcome of that lawsuit. I'll check it out and post that and some of the references I've found pertaining to libel in the forum setting and blogs in general.
Well, it's off to a few meetings and then hopefully I will be able to speak with Ms. Rothermel.
I hope I can be of some help to her. I know that I will be completely forthcoming at the very least!
But if any forum owner blindly believes that they will never be put in a position to produce any and all information that they possess to assist in the identification of anonymous posters, they have their head in the sand.
The First Amendment is not a shield. The times are changing.
I'll get those references posted about that when I get back later today!

Sitting Back and Taking A Long, Hard Look At It All...

Since July of last year, many have been focused on the Roseboro case and the pending trial.
Forum posts and blog entries have gone through the roof. People on the street are still talking about it any and every chance they get.
It's been a source of sick entertainment for some, and for others it's just filled a void in their own lives. When the trial is history, they'll move on to the next hot topic.
In the midst of all the attention, posting and hoopla about this case, there has been an air of surreality to it all.
People meeting for lunch and toasting Mike Roseboro on his birthday.
A pool on the birth date of the new baby.
Some of it isn't just in poor taste, it's pathological.

But now, the baby has been born.
The trial is scheduled for July 17, 2009.
There is a sense of hard, cold reality that has landed on all of this.
Not until the trial will we know what the prosecution has in store. Only then will we learn what the defense claims are.
But right now, there is a baby and two little girls who need to adapt to the swirling changes in their lives.
There are children that are still without their mother and father.
Maybe it's the Mom in me but I believe that in the best interest of the Funk/Rudy children, they all need to be left alone. And that includes Angie.
Please do not mistake my words for any change in my opinions of her and her choices or actions.
I just am dumbfounded and sickened that anyone would call her while she was still in the hospital to talk to her about anything related to the case or her new baby.
I see that as a line that never should have been crossed.
There is nothing that needed to be said, no questions that needed to be asked that were important enough to violate her privacy while still in the hospital. That was just too much.
Like a pirhana feeding on fresh meat...that's all it is.
If being a journalist is all about disseminating true information to the masses and bringing issues to the light of day, aren't there ethics involved?
And even if there were no journalistic ethics, what of the ethics and morals of just being a person. Or of being a Mom?
Calling Angie Funk in that hospital was inexcusable.
I guess it's just a case of needing so badly to get the scoop, at all costs....

Ask her anything you like after she and that child have settled in and the girls have some time to adapt to yet another upheaval in their lives.
Use some good judgment and just try doing the right thing.
And if not, I'm sure Ms. Rothermel will do it for you.

Two Berks County Attorneys Just One Block Away From Each Other

It just occurred to me that Alan Sodomsky and Amy Rothermel have offices just a block apart.
I understand Roseboro's choice in Sodomsky, despite that he is a Berks County lawyer. And I surely mean no disrespect whatsoever to Ms. Rothermel, but why does Angie Funk have a lawyer in Berks County and just steps away from Mr. Sodomsky's office?
I wonder if it was a referral.....
Hmm...does this mean that Mike and Angie are technically on the "same side" of this issue?
I may be completely wrong but it doesn't feel as if Mike and his attorney will be going after Angie the way many have anticipated.
If Angie is the prosecution's star witness against Mike and not a hostile witness....would you expect her, being a Lancaster County resident who has met with the Lancaster County authorities numerous times, to have secured the services of a Berks County attorney?
Or did Mike and Angie meet with Sodomsky together and he advised her to seek out Rothermel?
Just wondering.....

Fancy Footwork of The Defense...

Prosecutors bear the burden of proof.
Defense teams need only to create doubt.
While the prosecution can't be "all over the map" in laying out their case, they present to the judge and jury motive, means and opportunity in a cohesive package. It is their job to take the jurors step by step along the path that ends with the crime being committed. And if the jurors are convinced that the crime in question could ONLY have been committed by the accused, the prosecution has done it's job and a conviction is the expected outcome.

The defense doesn't have to take the jury down a path of one scenario. They can present several possible scenarios. And if any of those possible scenarios leads one juror to hold reasonable doubt about the accused's role in the events, an acquittal is the expected outcome.

In the State of Pennsylvania vs. Michael A. Roseboro, the DA's office has to have a plan, focused on one clear and continuous set of events that led to the death of Jan Roseboro.
They will have to show means.... Yes, Mike had the means to kill Jan. She was at home, with him, while three of their children slept. He's a strong man and could have beaten, strangled and struck her with an object.
Mike had opportunity. See above. Jan was there, fully accessible to him. He admits to being on the property with her in the time frame of the crime being committed.
Now for motive.
The DA has Angie Funk as star witness. She already had offered the emails Mike had sent to her, turned over her phone, and gave statements to them including details of her pregnancy.

In the article that follows, I was most interested in what Mr. Sodomsky had to say about Angie Funk..

The attorney for an accused killer told reporters Wednesday that Michael Roseboro did not murder his wife two weeks ago in northern Lancaster County.

"Contrary to published reports and widespread speculation, Michael Roseboro did not kill his wife," Reading defense attorney Allan Sodomsky said. Sodomsky said prosecutors are overlooking important information in the case.

Police said Roseboro killed his wife of 19 years, Jan Roseboro, on the night of July 22nd by beating her, strangling her and then throwing her in the family swimming pool in Reinholds. Roseboro called 911 that night and said he found his wife's body floating in the pool.

While prosecutors indicated there is no evidence a robber may have killed Jan Roseboro, Sodomsky said the killer could have been a robber.

"As soon as the body was released to the family, it was noted that there was approximately $40,000 worth of jewelry missing from Jan's person, that she had on," Sodomsky said.

Prosecutors said Roseboro had a motive to kill his wife because he was having an affair with another woman. Sodomsky said the woman claiming to be Michael Roseboro's mistress is not believable. "She struggles to gain credibility with the people that know her best," Sodomsky said.

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman reacted to Sodomsky's comments by issuing a statement in which he said he will not conduct the trial in the media.

Well...it's not a secret that Angie has been called a liar by many that know her. We all know by now that Angie and the truth aren't close friends.
But she is clearly pregnant. And claims the child is Mike Roseboro's.
She clearly handed over emails that she claims were sent to her by Mike Roseboro. I find it hard to believe that the DA would not have had all the emails investigated by a computer forensics specialist to make sure Angie didn't do some fancy footwork with her computer.
So what does that do for Mike and his defense?
All they can hope for is that the paternity test reveals another man as the father of the baby.

Mr. Sodomsky has had to regroup. His attempt at tearing down Angie's credibility has suffered much as the investigation has moved along. Angie revealed to investigators that she is pregnant. Mr. Sodomsky had to be aware of that thanks to discovery.
Despite her penchant for lying, it appears that so far she can back up her current claims.
All she needs is the correct result on the paternity test.

So what tack will the defense come up with now?
Possibly the robbery theory. I have one question...wasn't it Mike who was the one to receive the body and claim the jewelry was gone?

I hope Mr. Sodomsky doesn't underestimate the intelligence of a Lancaster County jury.

Maybe he'll present evidence that Angie wasn't the love of Mike's life, that he simply used the same lines on her that he used on many of the women he had affairs with.
Many are wondering how many of his former mistresses will testify. Especially the ones that he was sleeping with during the summer of 2008.
There have been stories, and they are as yet unsubstantiated by me, that Mike was known to frequent a local establishment with one of his women.
But I'm sure Mr. Sodomsky will tell us all that a cheater does not a murderer make.
And that is true in some cases.
Angie wouldn't be believable even now with out emails and a pregnant profile to back her story up.
If you were attempting to come up with a defense, what options would you have?

1. A robber hopped or opened the gate on the fence and beat, strangled and drowned Jan Roseboro. He or she then hung around, washed blood from the area around the pool, off of their hands, cleaned the bottom of their shoes to leave no traceable footprints and left themselves out the gate through which they entered, leaving no fibers, dropped jewelry, hair strands behind.
2. The aforementioned robber then NEVER hocked or pawned the stolen jewelry. They must have kept it for their own use.
3. The robbers just happened to choose that house, that night, and that person, fully unaware that the woman they were about to rob and kill had a husband who told his mistress that he was going to tell his wife he was leaving her. It is a total coincidence that they chose that night, hours after the woman's husband had emailed his mistress professing his love, telling her that he had to have her as his wife, and he had to become her husband.
   That qualifies Mike Roseboro for a spot on the show "Worst Week Ever".
   

Somehow, I just don't think so.......

Funny How My Mind Works.......

I've been wondering about Angie Funk's desire to not have blood taken as requested by the State to determine paternity of her unborn child.
Clearly, Angie has made her feelings for Mike Roseboro known and has never changed her stance of wanting a life with him. She told the authorities that she is pregnant with the Roseboro baby.
Then why would her attorney try to block the very test that will eventually reveal the results that Angie already has claimed to be fact, and results that will seal her connection to Mike Roseboro for the rest of their lives?
Even with the final DNA testing being done after the delivery, it's not like Angie to NOT want to rush headlong into any tether to her lover.
Why wouldn't she immediately want to submit to the serology to get this plan on the road?
I am wondering about that right now.
I have no idea if Angie has submitted any forensic evidence to the police, investigators or DA's office. I have no idea how much attention they have paid to her and her involvement in the events that led to Jan Roseboro's murder.
It seems from all that we've read and heard, that Angie hasn't been in the running as a suspect.
Now I wonder....by not giving up a blood sample that could yield her DNA profile, is she trying to make sure she stays out of the suspect line up?
This is pure speculation, but what if there has been no quantifiable forensic evidence tagged with Angie's ID up to this point. Steadman is after a win. And even if she is a probable suspect, they would never get an indictment unless all involved can see this clearly earning a conviction in the end.
So far, Angie hasn't been mentioned by the DA as a suspect. In fact, he stated that they anticipated no further arrests.
I first questioned if Angie Funk was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony. The trial will reveal that.
But if she hasn't been scrutinized deeply only because the DA feels Mike is the only suspect, what if there are a few unidentified forensic details that they haven't pursued?
If they haven't tested Angie up to this point and she was at the Roseboro home, that blood test could put a hitch in her gitalong.
It may the first concrete forensic comparison sample they have had, of Angie's, to this point.
And that may be why Sodomsky needed just a little more time and asked for the continuance.
To win his client's freedom, Sodomsky has to create doubt. One tactic is to make the jury wonder if someone else did in fact commit the crime. And a good defense attorney will throw anyone in the jury's path to secure an acquittal for his client.

Taking blood out of her arm in no way posed a threat to her unborn baby. So why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? Or not taken until after the birth of the baby?
Is it even possible that Mike did find Jan at the bottom of the pool the way he claimed, and that Angie's DNA was at the scene?
I am speculating that one possible scenario is that Angie took care of Jan. Mike found Jan in the pool and didn't know Angie had anything to do with it. But if she left some DNA behind and her blood test is performed, she could be identified by it.
If she would be identified as being at the Roseboro home and they took it a step further and claimed that Angie could have been directly involved in the murder, would Mike be more forgiving of Angie if he pictures her holding their newborn baby?
How could Mike look at the face of his newborn and hate the child's mother? No matter what he may have learned?
Just an idea. I have no facts to back that up.
But ask yourself the same question.
Why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? And not want it enough to have her attorney attempt to block it in court?
Remember what we've all heard others tell us about what Angie thinks of Mike's guilt...
She keeps saying she "knows" he couldn't have done it. Hmmm...maybe that's because she knows who DID.

Angie's Face On A Mug? How About A Coaster?

Just when you think it can't get any crazier in the Roseboro murder case arena.....

Were you aware that we can now order coffee mugs, imprinted with Angie Funk's picture? Or how about a set of coasters for that next little neighborhood cocktail party?

You think I'm joking? I couldn't make this stuff up.

Here is a link to a preview version of a photo of Angie with her daughter as it appeared in the Lancaster Newspapers.

The photo is legally copyrighted, so don't even bother to try to copy and save it.

What stuns me is the order form that appears below the picture....Look at the various items and styles you can order of that photo.

Unreal.... Check it out......

And if you place an order, let me know......


The photo and album id: Photo 12626866 Album 154642
Those numbers can be used to locate and purchase the items from LNP.
Here is a link to the page as it appeared in 2005....

http://photos.lancasteronline.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=12626866&event=154642&CategoryID=0

The Pregnancy, The Questions and The Fallout

Yesterday's publication about Angela Funk's pregnancy and the pursuit of clinical paternity sure stirred things up!
Those who haven't been following the case closely were shocked, some surprised and many left just shaking their heads.
Now, even more of Funks personal business it out there for all to read.
Alot of people have wondered all along how hard it had to be for Randy for live with the knowledge that she was pregnant to another man. Now he knows that the rest of the local world knows it too.
The ripple effect of this tragedy are so widespread.
Wives have learned that their husbands had affairs with Funk, thanks to a knock-knock, out of the blue from investigators on the case. Husbands have found out the same thing about their wives having dalliances with Roseboro.
Some friends who believed they were real, honest parts of the main players lives have learned that they never really knew these two at all.
Some aren't surprised by any of it. Not even a little bit.
Two people were so self-centered and so without personal restraint that they mowed down lives throughout the county. They couldn't put the brakes on.
Roseboro maintains his innocence so any outpourings of remorse are limited.
Funk has no remorse. She has stated that she "didn't do anything wrong". Really?
I'd love to know what formula she used to come up with that assessment.

So now, a continuance was granted thanks to a petition of the court by Mr. Sodomsky. This case will now drag out even longer. It's the middle of March. The trial was set for July 6, 2009. What on earth do they have on the list now that would require pushing the trial date even further back?
What has changed?
Jan Roseboro is still gone. Funk will deliver on April 1, 2009 give or take two weeks. Do they really believe that there is more exonerating evidence out there to find?
Why did Funk's attorney petition the court to delay the serology?
He wanted it postponed until after delivery, which makes no sense if the testing was not in utero.
It's the paternity that's at issue.
And for that, the child needs to be tested.
Interesting.......See what the professionals have to say:

1. Can a paternity test be performed without the mother?

Yes. If the mother's participation is not possible, we can perform a motherless paternity test at no additional charge. A motherless test requires more extensive analysis to produce conclusive results, but the results are just as accurate as those of a standard paternity test.

DDC encourages mothers to participate in paternity testing for the following reasons:

	Mothers who participate are guaranteed to receive a copy of the test results. Due to DDC's strict confidentiality policy, we are only able to release results to those tested, their authorized representatives (such as an attorney), or the tested child's legal custodian.
	Some courts require the mother to participate in a paternity test.
	The mother's participation aids in the analysis of unexpected results. Her participation is especially helpful in the rare cases when a mutation (a random change in the DNA) has affected the results.

The LNP articles never hinted that the testing was in utero, of the unborn child. So what results were they referring to in printing that the results in question weren't available or part of the record?
A simple swab from the inside of the cheek is all that is needed for DNA testing in most cases, if not all. That could be done once the child is born.
In utero testing is contraindicated in cases where the mother is more than 24 weeks along.


Here is the pre-birth scenario:

1. Can you do a paternity test before the baby is born?

Yes. If the mother is between 10 and 24 weeks pregnant, an OB-GYN can collect a DNA sample from the developing child through either chorionic villi sampling (10-13 weeks) or amniocentesis (14-24 weeks). The baby's prenatal sample is then compared against the mother's and alleged father's DNA samples, which are collected using the standard buccal swabbing method.

If the mother is more than 24 weeks pregnant, she must wait until the baby is born to do a paternity test. However, a newborn infant can be swabbed any time following birth, so a paternity test can be started soon after the delivery.

So it looks like Funk's blood sample was just taken for even more clarity in case of mutation of genes.....

1. Can a paternity test be performed without the mother?

Yes. If the mother's participation is not possible, we can perform a motherless paternity test at no additional charge. A motherless test requires more extensive analysis to produce conclusive results, but the results are just as accurate as those of a standard paternity test.

DDC encourages mothers to participate in paternity testing for the following reasons:

	Mothers who participate are guaranteed to receive a copy of the test results. Due to DDC's strict confidentiality policy, we are only able to release results to those tested, their authorized representatives (such as an attorney), or the tested child's legal custodian.
	Some courts require the mother to participate in a paternity test.
	The mother's participation aids in the analysis of unexpected results. Her participation is especially helpful in the rare cases when a mutation (a random change in the DNA) has affected the results.

So there will be no results until after the birth of the baby, if everyone has followed the accepted protocol.

I am sure Mr. Sodomsky is well versed on all of this by now so perhaps he planned all along to file for the continuance. Having blood samples taken at this time yields no results and would have no impact whatsoever until after the delivery. That leads me to believe he wanted the delay anyway, and planned on it prior to this latest chain of events.


The only thing left to surprise anyone would be for those test results to reveal that Roseboro is NOT the father of the baby. Could it happen? Yep. Nothing about Funk should surprise anyone anymore. But odds are, it's Roseboro's. Funk had him in her sights. And the baby just sealed the deal.

A Sad and Sorry State of Affairs....all the way around.....

I do have to apologize for not being as attentive as I should be to this blog. Time just hasn't permitted. The business is booming and my research has taken up much of my time.
I do have to share this, however.
At one point I was a frequent poster on the community forum Denverpaonline.com
I was a diligent and mouthy poster to be sure. There was never a question as to how I felt about anything, at any time. But one thing was etched in stone. At no time did I ever sit back and allow anyone to disrespect another forum member, or to "act a fool" when it was clearly inappropriate.
Sadly, Denverpaonline.com has sunk to an all-time low.
The site really started to go downhill with the addition of the chatroom. Forum posts slowed and at some points in time, almost ceased, until some newsworthy gossip or sighting stirred it up.
I could hear the melody of "Video Killed The Radio Star" every time I noticed how there were no new forum posts in days.
The chat became a pedestrian, juvenile and catty gathering where you couldn't find class and good sense with a microscope.
Most people of intelligence did what I did and just left and continued to avoid it.
I've gotten many, many emails from others who are sorely disappointed by what the site has become without any leadership. When the warden is away..... you get the point.

Tonite, I checked the forum and was so glad that shopgirl posted her feelings about the utterly ridiculous and inappropriate things going on in the forum. A select few members had gotten together at a bar to toast Mike Roseboro on his birthday. Someone else has been photoshopping Mike's head on a body clad in prison stripes. The songs that are posted on the forum are juvenile at best.
Left to their own devices, the site has become what is the least good about Denver, PA. It saddens me that anyone unfamiliar with the area will be greeted by asinine postings and fun-making in light of the most horrendous of crimes. The brutal death of Jan Roseboro.
How anyone can make light of that is beyond me.
If they want to titter about Mike in the privacy of their own homes, fine. But for heaven's sake don't show your ass on a public forum.
They truly have no idea how foolish and ignorant they look.
They just don't get it.
But thank you, shopgirl for your posts. You wrote what many are thinking. You never defended Mike. You simply showed how inappropriate it is to make light of anything related to this crime.
The demise of a really great forum is actively taking place. It will be nothing more than a breeding ground for the witless and the uneducated. They need to bump their cable package up a notch or find a hobby. Their asses are showing........