Monday, November 26, 2012

Prosecutor Steven Kay Caught Letting Serial Rapist Go In Exchange For Lying In Other Cases

This article is posted on susanatkins.org by James Whitehouse.

This is the only news article we could find on the case:
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-11/news/mn-121_1_jailhouse-informant

--------------------------------------------

At Susan's 2009 Parole Hearing Jay Sebring's nephew, Anthony DiMaria, stated that prosecutor Steven Kay was his "hero" because Steven Kay had spent his entire career with the DA's Office prosecuting cases and advocating Susan's continued incarceration, and had even passed up promotions to do so.

The truth is Steven Kay did not "pass up promotions" in order to continue as a prosecutor,  he was promoted to a high ranking administrator in the LA DA's Office when it was discovered that some of his biggest court-room victories were achieved by making deals to release a diagnosed serial sexual predator. The evidence suggests Kay was demoted back to a prosecutor  once these deals were discovered by the media.

In an article by Los Angeles Times writer Ted Rohrlich, it was disclosed that at least ten women were kidnapped or raped because Steven Kay and the LA DA's Office got Stephen Jesse Cisneros released... twice.

Cisneros had already been in prison as a mentally disordered sex offender sentenced to 1-14 years in prison in a maximum security mental hospital. He had been released after 4 years. Only months later he was arrested for  attempted rape. This is what he was in jail for  when the LA Sheriff's Office moved a suspect in another case into his area of the jail because that "section of the jail [was] reserved for informants."  In what Cisneros later called his "big break"  he was told if he stated the suspect had given him "all the gory details" he would be freed. In one of the continuing farces in American Justice, District Attorneys are still allowed to pay jail-house informants with absolute immunity for their past crimes if they testify under oath that someone else in jail spontaneously "confessed" to them. Steven Kay himself wrote the letter to the Judge confessing that without Cisneros's claims of a confession Kay might not have been successful in convicting the other men. (One was given 45 years in prison, the other is on death row.)

The Judge in the case stated that before Kay intervened the Judge was convinced Cisneros belonged in prison, and only "reluctantly" agreed to set him free and only due to Kay's request. Even LA prosecutors state Cisneros was looking at imprisonment "for as long as [we] can keep him in prison," and the prosecutor handling Cisneros's case said he was someone with "a high potential for danger."

In addition to this, when Kay had Cisneros released, there were the reports of three court appointed psychiatrists that Cisneros should be back in a hospital, the request of the State Probation Department who did not want him out, and more than ten other physicians and outpatient programs all of whom agreed that "the general consensus... is that the defendant is not suitable or amenable to outpatient therapy" and that allowing him access to the public would be a danger to the community. The Probation Department investigator noted candidly that they did not have the ability to supervise someone like Cisneros.

In April 1980 Cisneros was released at Kay's request, and according to Court records within a few months Cisneros was attacking women again. He was arrested in early 1981 for more sexual assaults.  But now he knew how to get out.

Cisneros contacted the DA's Office and claimed he had a confession from a murder suspect. Though the DA's Office later admitted they did not need Cisneros's testimony, they decided it would help their case. By this time at least two more psychiatrists had informed the DA's Office that Cisneros was a "pathological liar." The DA's Office used his testimony anyway. (The suspect was convicted and sentenced to life.)

Cisneros was released again as part of deals with the DA's Office which the Court Commissioner stated "horrified" him.

Cisneros was arrested again for raping and robbing in 1984, but the DA's Office declined to prosecute. He claims this was because of his prior testimony. He was finally arrested in 1985 as the "Riverbed Rapist," and was sentenced to 70 years in prison.

Cisneros now admits all the "confessions" he gave Kay and the DA's Office were lies. He says he gave them simply because the DA's Office promised he'd be freed if he testified their suspects confessed to him..

When confronted with his successful attempts to have Cisneros released, Kay stated that the two men he was trying to convict (who he'd confessed a  jury might not have believed were guilty without Cisneros) were more dangerous, and that the ten women who were assaulted, kidnapped and raped were "just a small, teeny little offshoot."

It was shortly after this story was uncovered, I believe, that the "hero" Steven Kay was demoted back to a prosecutor - a position he never again rose above in his 30+ year career with the LA DA's Office. I was told he was also transferred to the DA's Compton office, which also represented a fall as far from the high-profile LA cases as was humanly possible without being fired.





14 comments:

orwhut said...

Isn't Steven Kay the one who dated Sandy Good, leaving Sandy unimpressed?

Matt said...

I think they were both equally unimpressed.

Jason said...

Wow, Lynn Curtis, chill out!

ST. Circumstance said...

I have spent many many hours reading what KAY and now SEQUEIRA have done during the parole hearings and it is criminal. The facts alone would be enough to make the case to keep them in. I have always been on the side that they should never be paroled. I have argued it fiercely at times. I would not be honest though if I did not say that at times it amazes me what they say and do in regards to keeping them in. As just one example- in Bruce Davis' 2010 parole hearing when Bruce attorney read a statement from the State saying special consideration had been removed from his charge after they found Short's body and he was NOT headless as they had believed when they charged him..

Sequeria tried to object and say that when they found the body the head was separated from the rest of the body. He is still trying to imply to the parole commission that Shorty WAS decapitated. It is unreal... They literally make these kinds of charges to this day about a case that almost everyone knows the details of the commitment offenses for about 4 decades...

I believe both Kay and Sequeria had the best interests of the families at heart, but if they believe the things they say at these hearings they really dont know as much as half of us about this case, and that cant be whats going on... At least not in Kay's case..

ST. Circumstance said...

I borrowed this part of the parole transcript from Cielo Drive.com

( where I have been getting great information for 6 years)

you tell me what Sequeria is trying to do here ????


( Beckman is the attorney for Bruce Davis)


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I think the record would indicate that Mr. Shea was not decapitated; is that correct?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I've --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Actually the record should indicate that when the body was discovered, the head was separated from the rest of the body and that's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: But it was with the body?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I mean it was -- But it was separated.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So it wasn't -- The skeleton was not intact.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WELCH: Okay.

ST. Circumstance said...

I dont understand why they do things like this??

They both have been to numerous hearings and they have heard Clem- Bruce- Tex and one or two others all say they killed shorty during the day- but then over and over they bring Barbara out to say it happened at night? nobody denies it happened- why do they need to keep putting the one person up there who NOBODY else in in agreement with?? Even when telling on each other they say when it happened- I guess Barbra is the the one person who would make them STILL be liars? But why would three people admit to breaking the law and all lie about when they did it, and all lie the same way?? Were they going to get lighter sentence if it was bright out??

I wont go on and on about this :)

But- I think that, even though I am no lawyer, I could make a good case for keeping them in without lying, misleading and misrepresenting the terrible facts of what happened...

They were terr bile enough for me as they were

orwhut said...

The head was detatched. Was it cut off, or did it rot off?

orwhut said...

If it was chopped off there should have been hack marks on the neck bones. Has anyone seen an autopsy report?

ST. Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ST. Circumstance said...

His head was not chopped off-

that was sort of the point. They know that as well, and at most of the hearings they spring things like this up out of nowhere it seems.

Like with Hoyt- they know what they are doing when they bring things like this up which are not based in fact but can have another kind of effect on people like those who serve on the commission whom are not as studied as we on what really happened.... It sounds better and makes the case more outrageous. 5 guys jumping Shorty in broad daylight and killing him is not as scary as Barbara hearing tortured screams in the middle of the night while they chop his head off under the moonlight in a satanic ritual...

The DA's spend 10% of there time talking about suitability and 90% of it retelling the crimes at these hearings and they take many liberties doing so...

I think the victims families probably say fight fire with fire.

I personally dont give a frogs fat ass.

But it is what it is and when I have read page after page, year after year- I have to call it like I see it...

these guys cheat and lie to accomplish there goals of keeping them in jail.

So when one is faced with the choice of believing someone like-

Alisa Statman lets say :)

or one of them - I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone I do not know for sure has lied...

orwhut said...

I accept that his head was not chopped off but, I'd still like to know what evidence indicates this.

ST. Circumstance said...

I hear ya orwhut...

I am a big believer in reading/seeing for myself when it comes to most things

The Manson Family today site went offline. I spent two years reading everything on that site two or three times over. I am not sure where else you can find parole hearing transcripts from that far back. there are some more recent ones on Ceilodrive.com and they may be on other sites I am not aware of. But Steve Grogans hearing when he was given a date was the first place I read the state ( not a book author or blog post) officially saying the body was indeed NOT decapitated. I forget and cant go back to check if they used an exhumation report or did a postmortum autopsy?? I just cant remember the specifics- I read it literally years ago, and have read volumes of info since..

but after that hearing- they officially took off the special consideration charges, and they used this new information in part to grant parole to Grogan. Every book printed or published after this made note of it as well, so I am quite sure that they found the head intact to the body. It has been accepted truth that he was NOT beheaded at every parole hearing involving any of them after that until I read this last one from Bruce in 2010. I am going back to check if he has ever brought that up at another hearing, and dont have the same access I used to- but so far haven't seen it anywhere else since Grogan led them to the body. If there was no proof the body wasn't decapitated- wouldn't Kay/Sequeria have been screaming that at every hearing all along?

Sequieria had no autopsy report to back up what he said either, and he would have had no trouble obtaining a document which proved the head was separated from the body if one existed. Bruce's attorney was able to demonstrate charges were reduced after the body was found. This point had never been in question before. He felt Bruce was getting closer and grabbed a new straw out of his hat, and one which could not be backed up with proof. as well- that isn't the point at all of these hearings and just taking in that direction is a win for the DA's office. They are not supposed to be retrying the case. These hearings are solely to determine suitability....

sorry thats the best I can do and all that I got lol

orwhut said...

St.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
When I learned that the head was detatched, I thought it might have been found somewhere other than at the top of Shorty's body. This lead me to believe he might have been decapitated after all. Had I read some of the misleading information that you mentioned was presented to the parole board, I'd have been doubly confused.
I found the autopsy report. If memory serves, it was on, The Truth About Tate-LaBianca Blog. I couldn't make out some of the hand writing but, the typed parts and diagrams didn't indicate any tool marks in the neck area. This satisfied my curiosity.

ST. Circumstance said...

Another great site for information...

:)