Response to "NEW EVIDENCE" January 2005 version

 

Van Dyken Long Soldier's original "NEW EVIDENCE" page was removed and replaced by a new version in January 2005.  

The major thrust of the Jan. 2005 version as with most of the website is the promotion of the theory that Van Dyken Long Soldier is the victim of conspiracy, corruption and racial prejudice.

The truth is that Van Dyken Long Soldier while on probation for a previous auto theft, went on a crime spree that included auto theft, burglary and forgery in Great Falls, Montana. After traveling to Missoula,  the spree continued with the theft of gasoline and culminated in the murder of a deputy sheriff. It is Long Soldier's own conduct, not his heritage, that has lead to his incarceration. 

A brief response to Long Soldier's latest "NEW EVIDENCE" claims follows:

1. The trials were both moved to venues outside of Missoula County. In each case Van Dyken was tried before juries drawn from the local jury pool of the trial venue.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Section 24 of the Montana State Constitution guarantee the defendant's right to trial before an "impartial jury" there is no mention of "a jury of one's peers."  

2. Van Dyken Long Soldier was not acquitted of any charges during the first trial. The jury was unable to reach a decision and mistrial was declared.  The trials have been reviewed multiple times and no court has ever found that Van Dyken Long Soldier was placed in double jeopardy.

3. Van Dyken's description of the hair cutting episode (he did not wear his hair in braids at the time) will give the reader some idea of the level of cooperation that he must have been affording his defense team. 

4. The Montana Supreme Court found no violation of Van Dyken Long Soldier's rights. The United States District Court spells out in great detail why it found that if there is any error, it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. You can read the full text of both court decisions by clicking on links on the reference page.

5. Van Dyken's claim of "nepotism" because a local district court judge presided over his trial is ludicrous, nearly all district court trials are heard before judges whose jurisdiction the alleged  crime was committed in. 

6.  In State of Montana V. Garrymore (Oct 2, 2006) The Montana Supreme Court determined that restrictions on parole are not in conflict with either Apprendi V. New Jersey or Blakely V. Washington.

     (Montana V. Garrymore opinion can be read here.)

   Also in Gratzer V. Mahoney (November 1, 2006) The Montana Supreme Court decided a similar case on an appeal under the "old Montana homicide law" -  the law in effect when Van Dyken was convicted.

     (Gratzer V. Mahoney opinion can be read here.)

7.  I'm unable to respond to the claim of "witness tampering" or recantations because I have no idea what he is referring to.

8. The atrocities committed in this case were committed by Fred Van Dyken Long Soldier against Sgt. Allen Kimery, his family, friends and the citizens of Missoula County.

 

Back to Long Soldier's Lies

 

Back to Main Page