|
|
||
|
|
||
| Home Facts Case Updates Press Coverage Links Contact Us |
Facts
Lisl Auman was convicted of the murder of a Denver Police Officer, a crime she did not commit.
Lisl surrendered at first chance and was in full police custody for ten minutes when the gunman Matthaeus Jaehnig shot Officer VanderJagt. Lisl was arrested without further incident and was sitting in the back seat of a police cruiser, handcuffed, seat-belted in, telling the police officer what the gunman looked like, what he was wearing, and describing his gun well before the fatal gunfire erupted. Any "flight" or "immediate flight" Lisl could have conceivably been involved in had clearly ended with her apprehension and confinement. Back to TopLisl cooperated with police officers by providing critical information in the moments following her surrender and before Officer VanderJagt was shot. Key references:
"She doesn't even say it's a dead end, doesn't even say that much."
"It has only one entrance way into the four units...."
"She could have grabbed the gun, and shot Jaehnig."
"At that moment in time, there's one person and one person only that can save Bruce VanderJagt's life, and that's her." Often disputed and contradictory testimony and evidence presented in the case against Lisl Auman has, since her conviction, brought about several independent examinations. One perfect example is whether or not Lisl Auman was cooperative upon arrest. Prosecutors claim that Lisl was uncooperative upon arrest and that she could have provided information that could have saved the life of the officer. Colorado's Assistant Attorney General, Paul Koehler, during the Court of Appeals oral arguments hearing on Lisl's case stated, "Auman's arrest might have ended her flight had she greeted the police with relief and told them where Jaehnig was, but she didn't." That claim, however, conflicts with the evidence. In truth, Lisl surrendered immediately and, according to the official police crime scene report, "was arrested without further incident." It is shocking that prosecutors continue to repeatedly damn Lisl Auman for being uncooperative by not telling officers that the hallway down which Jaehnig had just disappeared was a dead-end, while knowing full well that Lisl's arresting officer, Sgt. Michael Gargaro, had contracted to provide off-duty security to the condominium complex for seven years prior to that day. Sgt. Gargaro undeniably knew the detail of the building's layout, and even stated, "It has only one entryway to the four units...." Also note that when Lisl surrendered, she could no longer possibly see Jaehnig. She was placed face down in the snow and handcuffed with her head positioned toward the patrol cars in the parking lot. Police reports show that there is no way that she could have possibly known where Jaehnig had gone, but that officers were focused on Jaehnig who was inches from them when he ran. In part of the 'in context' videotaped interview on the day of the shooting at Denver Police Headquarters Sgt Gargaro describes Lisl's arrest to DPD Homicide Detective Larry Valencia. Homicide Detective Larry Valencia (LV): Going back to the start, when you arrived at the apartment complex there at 3323 S. Monaco, you said you pulled in behind some Jeff. Co. Sheriff's cars. At any time, did you see anybody running up to this apartment? You said that you went towards the apartment where the suspects were supposed to have come out; how did you know if they went to the apartments? Sgt Michael Gargaro (MG): Officers Brake and D...? (most likely Bennett) were running towards the entryway of 3323. It has only one entryway to the four units and I followed suit and that's why I ran over there, so I was only directed by what I saw them doing, not by seeing a suspect or anything like that. And it wasn't until we heard shuffling around on the cement that we ordered her, ya know, we ordered her out, that we knew there was somebody in there and we said, "Put up your hands, come out." LV: Inside the apartment? MG: No, she never made it inside the apartment; she never made it...." LV: Where was she at? MG: She was on the, what would be considered a common area that accesses all four of the apartments that are there. LV: Is this a covered interior area? MG: Yeah. LV: It's interior and you can see her there? MG: Uh, I didn't see her until she started to come out, uh, in to the sidewalk area where I was standing. LV: And she was yelling at who(?), to come; you guys were yelling at her to come out? MG: Yeah. LV: Did you say that she was also yelling? MG: No, LV: She never said anything? MG: No. LV: She just walked out? MG: She didn't say anything until I got her on the ground and handcuffed her, yeah, and she said, "I don't know what this is all about. I don't know what's going on." Consider for a moment the high-speed chase and the harrowing experience of being held captive by Jaehnig, who was escaping from police for his own reasons. Also consider that Lisl surrendered at first chance to several police officers, guns drawn, and with Jaehnig near-by, but away from her line of sight. Because Jaehnig had already shot at police, Lisl was terrified that gunfire could erupt at any second and that she would be shot and killed. After all, she had just witnessed the skinhead shoot at police. It is, of course, logical that Lisl would surrender to police at first opportunity, as initial police statements confirm she did. After being handcuffed, Lisl was pushed away from the building and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser by Sgt. Gargaro, which he then drove a short distance away for safety's sake. Before any shots were fired at the scene of the condominium complex, arresting officer Gargaro asked Lisl if the guy had "any weapons." Officer Gargaro, in his videotaped affidavit, recalled their conversation this way: Homicide Detective Larry Valencia (LV): Did she tell you anything else about what it, how this initiated, with what (or who - unintelligible) it started? Sgt, Michael Gargaro (MG): Yes uh, I asked her the immediate questions such as, you know, "Does he have any weapons?" This is before the gunfire began. I asked her if he had any weapons. And uh, she said, "He has a gun," and I said, "What kind of gun?" And we already knew he did because he had been firing at Jefferson County Sheriffs, uh, during the car chase part. And uh, I said," Like this, what I have?" and she said, "No, it's big, like a rifle." And I asked her if he had any extra ammunition or anything like that and she said, "I don't know, he's wearing a black leather jacket." Clearly, Lisl Auman was cooperating as she was being questioned by arresting officer Gargaro at the condominium complex prior to the fatal volley of gunfire that killed Officer VanderJagt. It is also clear that while being questioned downtown at Denver Police Headquarters, that Lisl told lies geared at protecting herself from her captor and his friends involved in the events of that day. Not only was Lisl Auman hysterical in the aftermath of the 100 to 120 mile per hour high-speed chase down the icy mountain highway, she was overwhelmed by the violence that she had just witnessed. Any reasonable person in Lisl's state of mind at that point in time would be scared to death. She believed her captor to be a mafia type, describing him to police as, "I've seen movies like Reservoir Dogs. Kind of like that." The movie "Reservoir Dogs," in which mobsters brutally torture and kill police officer(s), is considered by many movie buffs to be 'the' most horrific and bloodiest mafia movie ever made. It makes perfect sense that Lisl would want to distance herself as much as possible from Jaehnig and his gang. All lies that Lisl told were told to protect her own life. Her harshest critics say that Lisl, "Lies, lies lies." But if they could be in the same situation, they surely wouldn't want to risk being tortured and killed. Lying to save your life in this situation was a sane thing to do. Lisl, however, did not know prosecutors would use her statements, out of context, to blame her for the officer's death. In her state of mind, Lisl gave information to the police that she thought could help them, but stopped short of disclosing names. During closing arguments in Lisl's trial, Deputy District Attorney Timothy Twining states, "Only one person can end the other participant's flight, and that's Lisl Auman. At that moment in time, there's one person and one person only that can save Bruce VanderJagt's life, and that's her. Repeatedly they ask her, repeatedly they ask her, help us out, come on, help us out. There's been a shooting help us, help us, help us. She doesn't even say it's a dead end, doesn't even say that much. "The defendant could have prevented Bruce VanderJagt's death. Instead, you (pointing at Lisl) helped cause it." It is appalling that this sort of distorted reasoning continues to haunt Lisl Auman through her appeals while she waits in prison hoping for a shred of justice. Analysis of their allegations is too important to let pass, especially when examining the extent to which prosecutors have relied upon specious distortions and shameless indifference toward the evidence presented. The lengths to which prosecutors go to spin the evidence is also revealed during an interview almost two years after the trial, with the Chief Prosecuting District Attorney Henry Cooper stating, "She could have grabbed the gun and shot Jaehnig." Was Cooper's statement just an off-the-cuff remark, or was it pure conjecture? Reggie Rivers interviewed Chief Deputy DA Attorney Henry Cooper on his talk radio show. The context of his statement is provided here for your analysis. Reggie Rivers (RR): We go now to Chief Deputy DA Henry Cooper. I know you've been sitting there for a while, and you have some things on your mind. Chief Deputy DA Attorney Henry Cooper (HC): You had just talked a little bit about a continuum where Lisl was way at the bottom and Matthaeus Jaehnig is way at the top. I agree Matthaeus Jaehnig is a ten. But I would not describe Lisl Auman's involvement as a half or a one. She, I think the article in the Denver Post that ran a couple of weeks ago "Hostage or Accomplice" she was by no means a hostage. (See Denver Post April 30, 2000 "Hostage or accomplice?" by Diane Carman). She showed everybody where to go up at the house in Pine. She rode down with Jaehnig, she dumped evidence out of the car, she threw some evidence out of the car, never trying to escape out of the car. RR: You characterize that as trying to get rid of evidence. HC: Why didn't she get out of the car and leave? RR: Because in her statement, she says she started to get out and he says where the hell are you going? HC: No, that was a different part of the chase. That was a mistake in the way the trial was reported. There were two times the car stopped. One time by a school. Some schoolgirls saw the car stop, and door open; Lisl threw a basket out of the car. The door closed, they drove off. RR: It's not conceivable she threw a basket out in preparation to getting out? And he stops her from getting out? He says where were you going? HC: The girls were close to the car. They didn't hear anything like that. RR: Just because they didn't hear anything, doesn't mean it didn't happen. So your contention is she wanted to be in the car. HC: Yes. Then the car continues down the road. RR: Why would she want to be in the car? HC: I don't know. Adrenalin? She was liking it. She was a part of it. RR: OK, she was a part of it, but... HC: You just can't accept that, Reggie? RR: No, I can't. Because I listen to her...when I watch the tape. She is clearly lying about a lot of things. The part that is absolutely believable is when she talks about how scared she was in the car and how she was shocked when this guy took off running and she didn't want to be with him. HC: Why didn't she leave when they parked back at the apartment? RR: She did. HC: No. She ran with him to the apartment. RR: Who ran first? HC: Nobody saw them, but she ran with him. RR: How do you know she didn't run first? And he followed her. HC: Because when the cops show up, Jaehnig's at the door, she is standing behind him. She is standing behind Jaehnig, closer to the gun than Jaehnig. She could have ran. She could have grabbed the gun and shot Jaehnig. She didn't do any of that. She was with him. RR: How do you know she wasn't a hostage? HC: He didn't have a gun. RR: We go back to the statement of the officers. Where in the statement they say he didn't have a gun. In the original statements,...." HC: Reggie, do you think if he had a gun, standing at that door, he would not have been shot by the police? RR: I don't know. I'm guessing they would shoot him. But I don't know how quickly he runs. They didn't mention that he was an unarmed man in their report. They mention he is unarmed in their amended report. (KHOW 630 AM Radio - 5-11-2000) DA Cooper's words were not taken out of context. These are the same type claims that her accusers have been making all along. Prosecutors are clearly placing the responsibility for stopping Jaehnig's reign of terror on Lisl Auman. Police in three counties couldn't stop Matthaeus Jaehnig and Lisl Auman couldn't either. Implications persist that Lisl Auman could have stopped him by letting the car go off the road and crash, or by telling officers the hallway is a dead end, or by taking the gun and shooting Jaehnig. Is that the criteria required of one to be "cooperative?" In a trial loaded with tragic passion, but bereft of any real evidence of guilt, by using that logic, it is understandable how the DA could transform Lisl's 'getting her things,' into murder. Back to TopLisl was in a desperate domestic situation. Lisl Auman had good reason to be concerned that she could become an assault victim herself. Shawn Cheever, her ex-boyfriend, had documented episodes of domestic abuse in his marriage, including violation of a restraining order. Cheever also has a record of numerous other arrests ranging from of sexual assault on a child to felony assault. Lisl's decision to move out was over concern regarding Cheever's escalating and unpredictable behavior. Her intent was to protect herself. Lisl was in the act of moving out of a residence that she shared with her ex-boyfriend. The Jefferson County Transcript newspaper reported, "The burglary victim, Shawn Cheever, a logger, told his side of the story to Lakewood resident and KOA radio reporter Carol McKinley last week." The article stated, "Cheever blames himself for the death of the officer, McKinley said, thinking that if he had he let his former girlfriend take her belongings, VanderJagt would be alive today." (Linda Tharp - JCT 11-21-97) Back to TopLisl Auman had a right to be in the residence in which she lived and was moving from. Lisl was entitled to retrieve her property. Lisl Auman was living in the room at the Hudson Hotel Lodge near Buffalo Creek in Pine, Colorado with her boyfriend Shawn Cheever for about two months preceding her arrest. She also had rented a separate room at the Lodge but had rarely used it for anything but storage in the month preceding the alleged burglary. Lisl made the decision to move out of the Lodge over concern of Shawn's escalating and unpredictable behavior. When asked by police why she thought that she was going to have a problem getting her stuff back, Lisl responded," Because Shawn is like controlling, and I didn't know if he was just going to bully me around and tell me, you know, you can't go anywhere." Lisl Auman was simply trying to move her own belongings when she went back to her residence just a couple days after leaving Cheever. She did not take anything that did not belong to her. If theft was committed, it was by others who were granted immunity from prosecution to testify at Lisl's trial. They plea-bargained to second-degree burglary and received sentences of probation. The fact that gets lost here is that Lisl had a right to be in the residence in which she lived and was moving from. Lisl was entitled to retrieve her property. Lisl had recently become reacquainted with Deme Soriano, her old high school friend, and Deme, knowing that Lisl was in an abusive relationship, suggested that she could temporarily move into her condominium in Denver until she could get back on her feet. Back to TopAfter staying at her father's home for a couple of days, Lisl decided to accept her offer and went over to Deme's on Tuesday November 11th. Because Lisl had left the Lodge on the preceding Saturday (November 8th) with only a small amount of her possessions, she told Deme that she still needed to get her things from the Lodge and asked Deme if she would take her back up to Buffalo Creek to help her get them. Because Lisl's primary residence was the room that she and Cheever were sharing, many of her belongings were, naturally, in that room when she decided to move out. Though Lisl's only desire was to move away from Cheever, her asking Deme for help produced undesired results. Unbeknownst to Lisl, Deme asked her boyfriend, Dion Gerze, if he wanted to go with her and Lisl to get her things. The evening before Lisl was to go with Deme to get her things, Dion's friends, Steven Duprey and Matthaeus Jaehnig, showed up at Deme's condo, at which time Dion announced, that Duprey and Jaehnig would also be going up to the mountains with them. It was decided to go the next day, November 12, 1997. Jaehnig and Duprey left for the rest of the evening and would return the next morning. Lisl did not want the men to go with her and Deme, but she felt powerless to withdraw from their plans. Lisl had never met Jaehnig before and knew nothing of his character. Lisl made it clear to police throughout her questioning that she had no intent to take anything besides her things and that she did not think that the men involved would steal anything from anyone. Lisl was not, as the prosecutors depicted, the "catalyst" to everything that happened that day, and there was no plan on her part to burglarize. She just wanted her things. According to one journalists investigative report, "At some point, Lisl did become aware that the men were taking items that were not hers. Soriano believes she was afraid to challenge them. "They were on top of us the whole time," she says. "There was really nothing she could have done." The article also states that during her questioning. "... Lisl denies emphatically that she intended Cheever to be burglarized, but there is a moment that suggests she may have been aware the night before the trip that one of her companions, Dion Gerze, had larcenous intentions. She quotes him as saying, "What else does he have?" and, weeping, admits that she mentioned "a couple of speakers." But, the men said nothing more about it and did not act excited about it in any way. Lisl stated throughout the rest of her questioning that she didn't know or believe that any of Shawn's things might be taken. Witness statements and initial police reports also support the defense's contention that Lisl Auman did not have any belief that theft would occur when she went to move her belongings. Her understanding was that the men involved were going to do nothing more than help her move her things. Back to TopWhy was Lisl's attention diverted away from the men prior to them entering the building with bolt cutters if she was in on some plan to burglarize? And burglarize, what? Her own residence. Because none of this makes any sense, prosecutors relied on the illusory hate rhetoric that characterized prejudiced media reports published in the months preceding and days leading up to Lisl's trial. Police reports indicate that the men involved deliberately distracted Lisl Auman by making sure that Lisl and Demetria Soriano went inside Lisl's room to gather some of Lisl's belongings. It was only then, when Lisl was separated from the men, that any real notion of theft started to emerge. Upon arrival at the Lodge, the men told Deme Soriano, to go into the building with Lisl and retrieve Lisl's things. After the women went inside, two of the men then went through the unlocked front door of the Lodge carrying bolt cutters, presumably to enter Shawn's room, and later came back out carrying speakers that belonged to Shawn Cheever. November 12, 1997 Jeffco Case Report - Investigator Ralph Gallegos recounted a witnesses statement from a 13 year old Juvenile Female: "She stated there was a "Mexican girl" approximately 5'-4" with wavy waist length long dark hair. She stated the driver of the black Chevy Lumina got out along with a female she stated she knew as Lisil (sic). She stated the male got out of the vehicle and told the Hispanic female to help Lisil retrieve her property. She stated the two females went into the residence where they retrieved their items. She stated that the two males then exited the vehicle and entered the residence with the bolt cutters. She stated the driver and the passenger of the black car were the two individuals she saw enter the residence with the bolt cutters. She stated that they returned to the vehicle carrying some speakers which they placed into the back of the Trans Am." Further into the report Gallegos continues: I then interviewed [12 year old Juvenile Female] who stated that she too had been with her sister [13 year old Juvenile Female] in a bedroom looking out the window of her residence. She stated that she also saw both vehicles drive on to the property and parked directly in front of the window they were looking out of. She recounted the incident the same way her sister [13 year old Juvenile Female] did, describing the individuals as [13 year old Juvenile Female] had. Another November 12, 1997 Jeffco Witness Statement submitted by Deputy M. Sensano quoted the 13 year old Juvenile Female: "This male then told the female 'You go help her' (referring to Leesel (sic)," and "Passenger of the red car "Leesel" resident of 18060 Grove St., stayed in upper level southeast room." One key police officer seemed less convinced of Lisl's guilt. In a Denver Post article published six days after the event, Investigator Jon Priest expressed uncertainties about what role Lisl may have played in the affair. Priest said, "We're trying to get the bottom of it. We know we have a burglary. Was it planned? We don't know." He added, "It's possible that Auman helped steer the car during the chase." That's hardly an indictment. Back to TopLisl Auman did not break into her residence and did not take anything besides her own belongings. Furthermore, no witnesses saw Lisl Auman removing any stolen goods. If any burglary did take place at the Lodge that day, it wasn't committed by, or at the request of, Lisl Auman. In fact, Lisl did not even recognize that theft might be occurring until it had already taken place. November 20, 1997 Jeffco Case Synopsis stated: "Witnesses [13 year old Juvenile Female], and [12 year old Juvenile Female], Mary Lucas, and Daniel Mattson told Investigators that they saw Steven Todd Duprey, Dion Lee Gerze, and Demetria Helena Soriano all carrying out items known to belong to victim Shawn Cheever, and saw them place stolen items into both of the two suspect vehicles." Lisl Auman was not mentioned as being with the trio or handling any stolen goods. Furthermore, the alleged victim of the burglary, Shawn Cheever, contradicted his sworn statement to police when he contended that the items in his room, that Lisl was alleged to have stolen, were his property. Denver Police Officer Nick Rogers interviewed Shawn Cheever about the
burglary from his room at the Hudson Hotel Lodge in Buffalo Creek. 'I
locked my room when I decided to tell her to get lost,' he wrote in the
statement to police on Nov. 12. 'I had nothing in my room that belonged
to her.' Based on these facts, and the fact that Lisl had the legal right to be in the room that she shared with Cheever, Lisl Auman is innocent of the crime of burglary, the predicate crime prosecutors used to pursue the felony murder charge. Lisl was very frightened by what she had witnessed and felt forced to provide police with videotaped statements. Police told her that she was "in the safest place that she could possibly be," but what the interviewers concealed from Lisl was their intent to lay the blame on her. Lisl declared repeatedly throughout both of her statements, she was afraid for her life, describing her captor as a mafia type. She feared she might be tortured and killed, which is not an unreasonable assumption based on what she had witnessed that afternoon. It was clear that Lisl was very frightened and was primarily focused on her own survival right up to the last minute of her last interview when she stated, "I just want to protect myself," and "I'm a walking dead person." Back to TopDuring those interviews the Police Detectives and the Assistant District Attorney skillfully introduced the undefined term "muscle" and proposed that she wanted to "retaliate," both of which expressions, out of fear for her own life, she felt obliged to affirm. The interviewers never did define "muscle" to Lisl or elaborate on the example that they had just supplied until they contentedly presented it to the jury. The DA's later insisted that those statements were Lisl's own words which they then distorted and used, out of context, at the trial to obtain their intensely sought after conviction. By blaming Lisl, prosecutors diverted blame away from examining any other aspect of the events leading up to Officer VanderJagt's death, including how Jaehnig's long trail of violence was seemingly tolerated by the Denver District Attorney's office, and that had Jaehnig been properly restrained in his myriad of arrests in Denver, officer VanderJagt might surely be alive today. Lisl Auman is not to blame for Matthaeus Jaehnig's final act of violence. Jaehnig's final acts of violence should have ended with one of his arrests years before he once again attempted to point a gun at a police officer. Lisl did not know Matthaeus Jaehnig. Lisl had never met Matthaeus Jaehnig before, nor did she know of his extensive police record for crimes of violence or his inclination to be armed during the commission of those crimes. Lisl had only met Jaehnig briefly right before the alleged burglary, and had less than a five-minute conversation with him, if that. Jaehnig's aid in helping Lisl move her things from her Buffalo Creek residence was arranged by her old high school friend's boyfriend, Dion Gerze, who was friends with Jaehnig. Lisl did not know that Matthaeus Jaehnig had guns in his car. There is no evidence to support that Lisl knew that there were guns in Matthaeus Jaehnig's car. Suggesting to the public, long after Lisl's trial, that Lisl could have somehow seen the guns inside the car is clearly an attempt to spin the story in yet another direction. It is absurd to believe that the life long criminal Jaehnig would have allowed his guns to be visible to anyone who might have been a casual observer. The gun that Jaehnig used to shoot at police officers was folded in half and concealed in its carrying case. With the gun in that configuration, the canvas carrier more resembled a case that would hold a fly fisherman's rod. Too many people are reminded of prosecutor's attempts to accuse Lisl of handing the gun to the skinhead so he could shoot the police officer. There is hardly a soul that believes that now. Several of the jurors had even expressed disbelief at that claim. Furthermore, Lisl had never ever had any involvement with guns. Lisl had no idea that she would be riding in Jaehnig's auto until the moment that Jaehnig and Steven Duprey showed up in Jaehnig's car on the morning of the trip to the Lodge. Upon arrival at her girlfriend Deme Soriano's condominium, the men were eager to get going and Lisl was ordered by the men involved to get into the car with Matthaeus Jaehnig. Jaehnig had previously indicated to Gerze that he desired sex with Lisl. He was under the impression that if he was to help Lisl move her belongings that he could possibly "get laid." Lisl was unaware of this. The men had pre-planned for Lisl to ride up to the Lodge in Jaehnig's auto and she had no say in their decision and felt powerless to decline their wishes. During the high-speed chase down the winding mountain highway and into Denver, Lisl was shocked when Jaehnig pulled the gun out "from nowhere," and removed the assault rifle from its carrying case and unfolded it from its stored position into a full length rifle. The gun had been folded in half, which is a common feature of some assault rifles, thus the gun was well-concealed from anyone in or out of the car. Lisl has emphatically and consistently denied that she knew any guns were in the car. Back to TopLisl did not know Matthaeus Jaehnig's car was stolen. Lisl knew nothing about the ownership of the car, which had been reported stolen months earlier. Littleton Police had put out an advisory to its officers the previous summer to be on the lookout for that stolen red Trans Am and warned of its gun-wielding occupants, one of whom was later identified as Matthaeus Jaehnig. Police said that Jaehnig pointed a gun at motorists on South Sante Fe Drive in Littleton and eluded police when they tried to pull him over on August 16, 1997. Lisl did not steer the car so that Jaehnig could shoot at police. Lisl Auman maintains that she absolutely had no choice but to take the steering wheel during the high-speed chase when Matthaeus Jaehnig pulled a gun from its case and leaned out the car's window. Facing the possibility that the car would crash if she did not take the wheel, Lisl's response was instinctive and was most likely much the same as anyone else's would have been. It was a reflex, not a decision. Lisl was terrorized throughout this ordeal and had no choice. Lisl's statement is consistent in this regard. Denver Westword: Detective Priest asked, "You're holding on to the steering wheel?" To which Lisl responded, "I held on to it for about three seconds." This admission will be the basis for some of the charges filed against Lisl Auman: attempted murder of a peace officer, assault and felony menacing. The jury will acquit her of the first two charges but find her guilty of felony menacing. (April 15, 1999 Denver Westword "Zero to Life," by Juliet Wittman). Back to TopLisl did not hand the gun to Matthaeus Jaehnig. Judge Nancy Rice dropped the "murder after deliberation" charge during a pre-trial hearing because there was not sufficient evidence to back the claim of Lisl touching the gun; no eyewitness testimony, no finger prints, or any proof whatsoever. Denver police officers did not mention in their original statements, made the night of Officer VanderJagt's death, that Lisl "appeared to set something down" before surrendering. The two apprehending officers only made those claims in statements made two days later. Both police officers testified in those subsequent statements that the "something" had to be the gun Jaehnig used to kill VanderJagt. The defense attorneys maintained from their opening arguments, and throughout the trial, that those officers lied about Lisl "setting something down" to implicate Lisl in the murder. So positive were Lisl Auman's defense attorneys that police officers lied in their official police witness statements, they made repeated appeals to Judge Nancy Rice to impeach the testimony of Denver Police Officers Bennett, Brake and Gargaro. The Judge ruled against the defense in all of those pleas. Copies of Denver Police Officers Bennett and Brake's controversial statements are provided here for public examination. · Matthaeus Jaehnig, the murderer, had an extensive criminal record. Matthaeus Jaehnig by the age 25 was known by the District Attorney Bill Ritter to be an avowed white supremacist with a propensity for violence, and who had an extensive criminal record that included aggression against police. In addition to his numerous concealed weapon violations, Jaehnig had also been convicted of slashing the tires of an off duty Denver police officer that had arrested one of his buddies. In another incident, Jaehnig reached for a loaded handgun under his car seat while being questioned about an armed robbery by a Denver police officer. Jaehnig had even been convicted in 1993 of an assault on Denver Police Officer Bruce VanderJagt, the officer he ultimately shot to death on November 12, 1997. Lisl is not a skinhead or a racist. Although Lisl Auman was branded as a skinhead, that characterization was and is completely false. Lisl Auman is not and has never been a skinhead. Lisl did not associate with skinheads and her peer group was not comprised of any skinheads. Lisl had no prior arrest record. At the time of her arrest, Lisl Auman had no criminal record on file. Initial media reports, which stated that Lisl had previously been arrested for burglary, were untrue. (DP 11-14-97 p 22A). Back to TopOther participants, granted immunity from prosecution, received token sentences. Demetria Soriano and Dion Gerze, in exchange for their testimony at Lisl's trial, were granted immunity from prosecution on all other charges and were allowed to plea-bargain to 2nd degree burglary. Gerze was sentenced to 2 years probation, while Soriano served 30-days work release in addition to 2 years probation. Ironically, the plea-bargains were allowed to stand even though the judge labeled Soriano and Gerze "hostile witnesses" during Lisl's trial. Lisl was offered a plea bargain that would have resulted in her spending a minimum of thirty years in prison. Lisl Auman's attorneys were approached on one occasion with a plea bargain offer. That proposal would have required Lisl to plead guilty to three counts, 1st degree assault on a police officer (Felony Class-3; 10-32 years mandatory), 1st degree burglary (F-3; 10-32 years mandatory), and accessory to murder after the fact (F-3; 10-32 years mandatory), with the understanding that she spend a minimum of 30 years in prison. Lisl would have then finally been allowed to apply for parole, but being granted parole would certainly have proven to be an arduous task. Public Defenders in Denver are inclined to plea-bargain in cases were extensive prison sentences and multiple charges are involved, even when the defendant is innocent. Even though Lisl's case, with ten charges and a 'life sentence' looming over her, would normally merit active negotiations, Lisl's public defenders felt they could not conscionably advise Lisl to accept the harsh one-time 'take it or leave it' offer, and Lisl did not accept it. The community demanded action from prosecutors and they made it clear to Lisl's attorneys that they wanted to address the public's concerns in a courtroom. Two days after Lisl was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, the Rocky Mountain News reported, "Talk about a plea bargain didn't get far, prosecutors said. "They wouldn't agree to any reasonable length of prison sentence," said prosecutor Henry Cooper. "They made it clear to us they didn't want her to spend much time in prison," Cooper said. The article continued, "Public defender Cy Callum said Auman was unwilling to agree to a plea bargain that carried a prison sentence of 30 years or more." (RMN -11-19-1998) Back to TopAbout the plea offer, Westword reported, "Lisl would have had to plead guilty to assaulting the officer when she took the wheel," says Angela Kruse, Lisl's defense attorney. "She would have had to plead guilty to knowing that Matthaeus Jaehnig had weapons in his car. These things would have been with her for life when she didn't do them." In exchange for these pleas, Auman would have received a thirty-year prison sentence." (WW - 05-15-1999) After the highly publicized May 15, 2001 "FREE LISL Rally," rumors began to circulate that Lisl that was offered a plea bargain of a substantially reduced prison term, one awkward attempt going so far as to state, "her own lawyers contemptuously spurned a generous plea bargain, ...arrogantly insisting that probation was the most they would accept". A March 19, 2002 Denver Post editorial, ironically entitled, "Truth in Sentencing" added to the mystery speculation by stating, "Auman refused the (initial 30-year) plea bargain as well as a later offer by Ritter that could have let her apply for parole after just six years." The editorial clearly contradicted all previous valid reports, including the Post's May 2000 report that quoted the Chief Prosecuting D.A. Henry Cooper as stating, "Though the negotiations never reached the point of a formal offer, Cooper said they were discussing a 'rough number' of 30 years in prison in exchange for a guilty verdict on a lesser charge." Calls to the paper about the editorial's plea bargain inaccuracies resulted in the Post issuing a clarification, published on March 29, 2002. There was no such offer(s). By all legitimate accounts, Lisl was never offered any sentencing concessions or a second plea bargain in the one offer. Furthermore, it defies all logic that someone who pleads guilty to first-degree assault on a police officer, first-degree burglary, and accessory to murder after the fact, could possibly be parole eligible in just 6 years. Back to TopHow much time should Lisl serve in prison? "Lisl Auman Should Not be in Prison" Many legal observers believe that Lisl Auman should not be in prison and should have never been prosecuted to begin with. Supporters of the "Free Lisl!" movement believe that she should not be in prison. The group, comprising of prominent citizens from Colorado and nationwide, believe that the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is insanely unjust for whatever role Lisl might have played. They are convinced that Lisl was unjustly or unconstitutionally convicted and that she did not receive a fair trial. Renowned Denver Post columnist and radio talk show host Reggie Rivers was disturbed by what he considered to be prejudicial treatment of Lisl in the media and by the judicial system. In his column entitled "Lisl Auman should not be in jail," he describes how he believed early on that Lisl "was a scapegoat..." He felt strongly enough that he thoroughly investigated Lisl's case for himself. In doing so, Mr. Rivers became resolute in his belief that "Lisl Auman should not be in prison." Mr. Rivers writes, "This was the story of a relationship breakup..." and he hopes more recent media investigations "...will help educate the public about Lisl Auman's situation and put pressure on the justice system to do the right thing." (DP - May 3, 2000) Supporters also emphasize that the other participants in the alleged theft were allowed to plead guilty to 2nd degree burglary. Considering that Lisl's actions paled in comparison to theirs, they wonder how Lisl could be charged with any crime at all. Area residents may recall similar incidents in Denver in which people were never charged. The most notable case was that of the politically connected Colorado Senate Majority Leader Doug Dean. In that case, Dean went over a fence and used a screwdriver to break in through the basement window of his ex-girlfriend's home, as he claims, to retrieve his cell phone charger. He then waited in the darkened residence for a half-hour until 1:00 a.m., for the ex-girlfriend to return home. Being horrified at Dean's appearance in the home in which she had just changed the locks, she ran down the street screaming for neighbors to call police. The irony of the comparison of the two cases is not lost on some people. Wayne Laugesen, a Boulder Weekly Columnist, is very direct. He states, "Powerful white Republican men in suits get a whole different treatment for retrieving their stuff." "The difference between this and what Auman did is stark: Auman didn't enter with force; Dean did." Laugesen noted, "Police made no arrest. Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, the same guy who worked so hard to send Auman away for life, sees no crime here." (Boulder Weekly May 31 - June 6, 2001) Why was Lisl charged with serious crimes when no one else was? When D.A. Ritter was asked if the other people involved could have been charged with felony murder, he stated, "No, because the defenses that relate to felony murder don't apply to them. In terms of proof, we could not prove their level of knowledge in respect to how Matthaeus Jaehnig was armed. We could prove that with Lisl. Because she was in the car with him. She rode up with him, and rode back with him. We knew that from her statement and because he was so heavily armed that's how you prove it. He was armed with two different rifles, and a shotgun in the passenger compartment of a Trans Am. This is not something you can mistake. As well as a machete. We could not prove the level of knowledge. Had we been able to prove those other individuals had the same level of knowledge as to respect as to how he was armed, we may very well have had charged them with felony murder." Charging Lisl Auman with the officer's murder diverted media attention
away from examining other issues such as how Jaehnig family social and
political connections in the affluent University Park setting may have
allowed Matthaeus Jaehnig to receive preferential treatment in his numerous
court appearances. One unanswered question persists, 'Would Officer VanderJagt
still be alive today if Jaehnig had been held accountable for his crimes? Back to Top |