FLORIDA'S JOHN B. GOODMAN
IS NOT GUILTY
PART 2 of 3
By Joseph Snook Investigative Journalist
September 12, 2014
West Palm Beach, Florida - PART 2 - Now, you will finally be able to read about “Polo Mogul” John Goodman's case from a significantly unique perspective based on the evidence. This is not what the assigned West Palm Beach Prosecutors and a few deputies have reported to the mainstream media to pass on to the public. This reporting is the result of months of digging through evidence, testimony and communication with eye-witnesses and experts.
John Goodman © The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA
Failure to Render Aid
Shortly after hitting his head during the accident, Goodman regained consciousness. As he stepped out of his car, he stated that at first, he thought it was a hit and run, as there was no other vehicle in sight. Visibility was reportedly very poor. He then thought that perhaps he'd hit a horse trailer being pulled by another vehicle, and it continued, leaving the scene. He reached for his phone to call someone for help, but it was dead. This was later confirmed through phone records and also by responding Deputy Ricardo Safford.
His car was totaled and his phone was dead. Being in the Wellington, Florida countryside at almost 1 o'clock in the morning, staying on the dark road waiting for someone to drive by didn't seem to be the best option. His next thought was, find a phone. Still shaky and disoriented from the accident, Goodman started walking down a dirt road, having seen what he thought was a light in the distance. It was later determined to be a large polo barn. Goodman walked around the bottom level of the barn, thinking there should be a land-line phone, which is common in polo barns in case of emergencies. Goodman found nothing.
As he continued to search, he found stairs that went to the upper level. Finding the upstairs door unlocked, he went inside to what he described as a "man-cave" with a fully furnished office, a large flat-screen television mounted on the wall, desks, and a shelf with liquor. Injured and thirsty, Goodman looked for water, but there was none. He consumed alcohol from the bar in an attempt to ease his pain as he continued searching for a phone. As he walked around the upstairs portion of the barn, he saw photos of his friend Kris Kampsen on the wall, and finally realized where he was. Knowing now there was no phone, he looked from the balcony and saw another light in the distance. Goodman left the barn and headed toward this next place where he could hopefully get assistance.
Goodman approached the light and saw it was a small horse stable, he continued through the stable unable to find a phone. Next, he continued walking past the stable, and noticed a small trailer. Goodman knocked and opened the door. Lisa Pembleton (now Del Mundo) was inside the trailer, and John asked her if he could use her phone. She was obviously cautious and startled, as a complete stranger had just entered her trailer, but she provided her phone. Goodman's first call was to his girlfriend. He informed her of his accident, completely unaware that there was another vehicle at the scene. Next, he called 911. It was reported that 54 minutes had elapsed between the time Goodman left the scene, to find a phone, and when he made his 911 call.
During his conversation with 911, Goodman was informed that the Sheriff's deputies were looking for him. Goodman then flagged down the deputy as he left Pembleton's trailer. At this time Goodman was informed there was another vehicle at the scene of the accident.
If you did not know there was another vehicle involved, who would you call first? During a discussion with others regarding Mr. Goodman not knowing there was another vehicle at the scene, I was told their first call would be to a close family member or friend, next would likely be to insurance, followed by a tow truck and/or 911. I personally know from past vehicle accidents, my insurance company has always asked that I contact them first, if the accident is not life threatening.
Pembleton later became the state's main witness after speaking at length with deputies and prosecutors. She also allegedly had her legal counsel provided, free of charge, by an attorney friend of the Wilson family's civil attorney. Conflict? Interestingly, Pembleton also wrote about the night in question on a blog. She stated, "I had a dream the week prior of a guy coming into my camper, saying he was in an accident and needed a phone…" Maybe she did have that dream, maybe not? Would you give much weight to Pembleton's testimony given these statements?
Meanwhile, there had already been four other civilians who stopped at the scene. Two of them actually called 911 before deputies arrived. The first witness was Nicole Ocoro. She was returning home when she found Goodman's Bentley "crashed on the side of the road." Ocoro was asked "what did it hit" four separate times during her call to 911. First, Ocoro stated, "I -- I don't even know; I just saw it pulled off on the side of the road." Ocoro, again, was asked twice what it hit before she gave her second answer. She stated, "I have no -- It looks like another car hit it. There's like (unintelligible)." Finally, Ocoro stated, "It -- It must've been something else that hit it because there's a nasty, like -- the inside is all banged up and the wheel is at a slant. Like, it looks terrible."
Ocoro never mentioned seeing another vehicle during her 911 call, and to this day, states that she never saw Wilson's vehicle before she left the scene.
Shortly after Ocoro left, Eli DeRosa and Stephen Chiappa stopped at the scene and called 911. During their call to 911 there was no mention of another vehicle. This is important, because these two witnesses were on location when deputy Mitch Reiger and Ricardo Safford arrived. Their names, information and a statement was reportedly never taken by responding deputies Reiger, Snelgrove or Safford.
Another witness, a young female, who asked to remain anonymous, also arrived on the scene shortly after the two boys, just minutes before deputies. She stated she found Wilson's vehicle in the canal, and the boys called 911 for a second time. This was the first time Wilson's vehicle was discovered. According to transcripts, the boy who called was told by 911 dispatch, "I don't want you going into the canal."
I talked directly to the girl who stated she found Wilson's vehicle.
She said, "I was there, they didn't take my information... It still haunts me, that night, because no one helped."
"Did you in fact state to the deputy on the scene that
you wanted to help save the person in the canal?"
A: "Yes, of course! Who wouldn't want to try and help? There was a car flipped over."
Q: "Were you at any time instructed not to try and help?”
It was also reported that one deputy stated he would not enter into the canal because he was concerned with getting, "pesticide poisoning."
None of these witnesses were ever mentioned in any law enforcement report, other than dispatch records. Does that cause concern?
The facts show that the witnesses were likely on scene 8 - 15 minutes after the accident. Law enforcement was likely on the scene within 15 - 18 minutes after the accident. Since it was determined that Scott Wilson drowned, wouldn't it be safe to consider that Wilson could likely have been alive when the witnesses and/or sheriff's deputies first arrived? And, NO ONE helped him!!! It is outrageous and in my opinion criminal, that the state is trying to make John Goodman the fall guy and accountable for something only speculation can imply - claiming he saw the vehicle, when others, not just having been in a traumatic accident, did not. The fact is, 911 was informed of it and they advised the bystanders to do nothing. The police saw it, and did NOTHING. Where are their criminal charges of failure to render aid?
None of the nine Fire and Rescue responders found Wilson in the canal. It was reported that one responder put on a wet suit (no mask or oxygen tank) and felt around the car with his hands. He claimed no one was in the vehicle. Did they fail to render proper aid? None of them were charged with a crime, yet they reportedly failed to do their job. Interestingly, two rescue responders, out of the nine on scene, were disciplined. One responder received a "written warning." The other received a "written reprimand." "A written warning, said Fire Rescue Public Information Officer Don DeLucia, is the mildest form of punishment for firefighters." Is there a double standard here?
An hour and a half passed before the tow truck pulled Wilson's car out of the canal. At 2:31:52 am, Scott Wilson's body was discovered. "CONFIRMED, S/7.. THERE WAS A BODY IN THE VEH..."
Other than speculating that Goodman was completely aware of Wilson's car being in the canal, only one piece of evidence I've seen thus far erroneously suggests Goodman knew Wilson's car was in the canal before he left the scene - Deputy Snelgrove's co-authored article, with animation attached. According to the article, Snelgrove created an animation that is "worth a million" words. As Snelgrove reconstructed the scene, his article stated that "Although this information and technology was compelling, Snelgrove still wondered how he could validate the scanner's representation of evidence. He DECIDED that by overlaying the 2D diagrams on top of the 3D scanned crash scene, this would provide the VERIFICATION SNELGROVE NEEDED."
Did his reconstruction represent fact, or was it created to allusively prove Deputy Snelgrove's unfounded assumptions?
Deputy Troy Snelgrove WPBSO - Deputy Troy Snelgrove © The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA
Snelgrove's animation "showed that Goodman spent approximately six seconds in front of his vehicle, standing in the sand on the top of the canal bank, presumably watching the Hyundai sink into the water." Wow... What scientific algorithm did Snelgrove use to determine the exact time Goodman stood there? Maybe Snelgrove has a crystal ball that we could use to see everything Goodman did after the crash, not just the 6 seconds he allegedly stood in front of his car. Snelgrove's "determination" is nothing more than pure speculation.
It is also important to note that John Goodman, now almost 51 years of age, had NO CRIMINAL HISTORY prior to this accident. He has never had a DUI. He has never had a speeding ticket as an adult, and he had never been arrested prior to this tragic accident. Does that sound like a person who fails to render aid? Remember, Goodman had sustained several injuries himself, and his phone was dead. So I ask, how was he to help, especially considering he did not know about Wilson's vehicle? It is an absolute fact that Goodman sought out a phone and called 911 after the accident. At this point, the only logical answer would be to indict everyone involved, or drop Goodman's Failure to Render Aid charges.
Don't forget to read Part 3 of Florida's John B. Goodman Not Guilty!
The evidence in this case justifies a "Not Guilty" verdict. It is the state's burden to prove Goodman's guilt, and they have failed miserably to do so.
Editors Note: For those who still have doubt, or would like to see something that is not made available through our hyperlinks, please email: [email protected]. We will gladly supply you with more evidence. For part two click below.
© 2014 Joe Snook - All Rights Reserved
Snook is an investigative journalist for US Observer.
E-Mail: [email protected]