NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles

Other Guest

Jury Rights! Jury

Where Will We Get Our Food?

Tools No
Longer Valid


More Guest





PART 3 of 3

By Joseph Snook Investigative Journalist
September 12, 2014

West Palm Beach, Florida - PART 3 - 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

DUI Manslaughter

John Goodman had consumed alcohol before the accident. But was he impaired? He claims that he was not intoxicated, not even close. He had just wrapped up a charity event with professionals who were likely gracious givers. Goodman then went to a restaurant and bar for roughly one hour, before he headed home. When he closed his tab at 12:37 a.m., his bill was $212.00. 18 drinks were purchased. The state will argue that he was intoxicated, based off of this information alone. Goodman claims to have purchased nearly all of those drinks for friends, 16 of them were shots. That's the only answer that was given to this writer. So, without speculating, I ask, where is proof otherwise? There isn't.

The bartender, the manager, the valet crew, the servers, his friends, and the people in attendance, whom he didn't even know, won't say he was drunk. Not one of the witnesses at either establishment where Mr. Goodman was that night, will testify that he was drunk, or that he "drank several drinks." Is this because they are all liars? Doubtful. The state, fighting tooth and nail to get their assertions confirmed, reportedly threatened the bartender, among others. They continue to get nowhere. Could this be because Goodman was telling the truth? To assume different, would again be mere speculation.

According to Goodman he drank at a polo barn shortly after the accident. He informed Deputy Safford about going to the barn during their communication while they were driving back to the scene. Deputy Safford not only denies that this conversation ever took place, he still to this day denies ever going to Kris Kampsen's barn, where Goodman drank post crash.

Deputy Ricardo Safford

WPBSO - Deputy Ricardo Safford © The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA

Why would Deputy Safford lie? Could it possibly be due to the fact that Goodman consumed alcohol post crash? Wouldn't that ruin the state’s alleged .17 blood draw from Goodman while he was at Wellington Regional Hospital?

Three (1, 2, 3) witnesses have already stated on the record that Deputy Safford came to the property, where the polo barn was, went to each of their trailers and woke them up, and asked them questions around 3:30 a.m. on that day. But Deputy Safford still claims that he wasn't there.

Unfortunately for Deputy Safford, Goodman's defense is armed with more than two witnesses this time. Now, the third witness has been deposed and confirms what the other two have said all along. More importantly, Safford's own GPS unit from his patrol vehicle (click here to verify Safford's unit ID, then click here and scroll down to page 3, for 20100212034458ES, look at time and location, double check coordinates here, you will have to re-enter the coordinates under " Show Point from Latitude and Longitude") confirms that he was at the polo barn where Goodman was post crash (see image below). During Safford's deposition he agreed with every location his GPS indicated he was at that night, except for... the polo barn. Will he be charged with perjury? Doubtful. It seems that three witnesses, and a state owned GPS unit are no match for a sheriff's deputy's word in Florida.

Deputy Safford's GPS location, verified by

Deputy Safford's GPS location

WPBSO - Deputy Ricardo Safford's GPS location - Kris Kampsen's Polo Barn

So why wouldn't Goodman's defense just subpoena the deputies dash cam or audio/video camera? Easy, right? Well, there are no dash cam video's. Magically, it is all gone. There is no personal audio or video from Deputy Safford. It, too, has seemingly disappeared into thin air. Again, the state of Florida (Deputy Safford) has failed to do something as simple as preserve evidence. Or, did the deputies have this evidence, but it didn't confirm the lies they created, so they decided to cover it up?

Finally, the blood draw. Experts for both the prosecution and defense fought over the admissibility of this evidence. While at the hospital, Deputy Snelgrove's blood draw kit was not used in its entirety. Instead, a nurse drew Goodman's blood, using all of the contents from the deputies blood draw kit, except one thing - the needle. She used a smaller, 25 gauge butterfly needle. This might not seem like a big deal to a normal person, but it has proven to be significant. According to many doctors, including Dr. Adam Bromberg - who by the way was not retained by the defense - this needle issue presents a big problem. During a deposition, Dr. Adam Bromberg was asked if a smaller gauge needle could cause hemolysis in blood samples. Dr. Bromberg replied, "There's a lot of factors that cause hemolysis in blood samples. Needle size is definitely one of them." The destruction of red-blood cells, can cause inaccurate test results, like a .17 blood draw that the state maintains would be Mr. Goodman's at 3:30 a.m., almost 3 hours after the accident occurred.

Bottom line, experts state the blood draw procedure was inaccurate, and Goodman is said to be appealing its inclusion as evidence - something that could have far reaching effects on Florida law regarding blood draws. Regardless, If he had consumed everything the prosecution claims, John Goodman would have been so sloppy drunk upon leaving the bar that everyone would have noticed, yet not one witness claims he was intoxicated. So, Goodman had to have had drinks in the barn as he has maintained. This makes the state's charges of DUI at the time of the accident completely unprovable.

Deputy Snelgrove's Failure to Preserve Evidence

Apparently, not one single photo was taken by Deputy Snelgrove of Scott Wilson's car upside-down in the canal. Is it not important to document where Scott Wilson's car was found? According to the prosecution, it is considered "Hyperbole" to ask such a question.

As Deputy Snelgrove documented Goodman's belongings, he managed to take a photo of Goodman's bag, along with financial documents that were found in the back seat of his Bentley. But, the bag and documents have allegedly disappeared. According to West Palm Beach Sheriff's office, they were never there.

With a photograph taken showing they were there, followed by a claim they were never there, it shows the sheriff's department is perfectly capable of compulsively lying to obtain a conviction. It's either that or they are completely incompetent. Either way they can't be trusted.

Can Deputy Snelgrove, who can't even account for evidence which he took photos of, and can't even take photos of other pertinent evidence be relied upon to conduct an accurate accident reconstruction?

Prosecutor Sherri Collins - Obstruction of Justice?

Prosecutor Sherri Collins © The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA

During a bond violation hearing where Mr. Goodman was alleged to have "broken his ankle monitor," Collins outright threatened former West Palm Beach Deputy Bridgette Bott "not to testify." According to Bott, the threats occurred just outside the courtroom and kept her from testifying in the first hearing. However, an attorney (prior assistant prosecutor) who has no association with Goodman, also overheard the conversation and came forward, which allowed for another hearing on the matter, wherein Bott did testify.

Bott had been working as part of Goodman's court-ordered security detail and her account of Goodman allegedly breaking his monitor was significantly different from the other deputy who testified for the state. According to Bott, Goodman did not break his monitor as the other officer claimed. Her testimony proved that some members of the sheriff's department were willing to lie to put John Goodman behind bars.

Goodman was released from jail and his bond was reinstated.

As for prosecutor Sherri Collins threatening deputy Bott, she walked away scott-free, no punishment whatsoever. Sherri Collins is still part of the state’s prosecution team for Goodman's upcoming trial.

Deputy Bott has since been suspended by the Sheriff's Department, and has a pending lawsuit against West Palm Beach Sheriff Rick Bradshaw.

Judge Jeffrey Colbath

Photo: Judge Jeffrey Colbath © The Palm Beach Post/ZUMA

Judge Jeffrey Colbath Biased?

Judge Jeffrey Colbath is assigned to preside over Goodman's upcoming trial. Is Judge Colbath biased? If so, why? Colbath disallowed the blog, written by the state's main witness, Lisa Pembleton, from being entered as evidence for the jury to see in Goodman's first trail. This was evidence specific to her accounts of that night, yet the jury was not allowed to see it. Was this because she talked about a dream that happened before the events unfolded? Could Colbath have kept the jury from questioning the state's main witness' credibility?

I'm not one to delve into speculation, but why in the world would Goodman feel comfortable with Colbath presiding for a second time? Considering the following statements during Goodman's sentencing, after his original conviction, it would seem impossible to expect that Colbath could be a neutral referee in any further court proceedings involving Mr. Goodman.

Sentencing transcript of Judge Jeffrey Colbath:

" I agree with the jury's verdict... Mr. Goodman was extremely intoxicated. His blood alcohol level verified that... He had an opportunity to try to save Mr. Wilson... He could have gotten in that canal... He knew he pushed that car in the canal... He left to try to save himself... Mr. Goodman seems to me to be the perfect candidate to be a flight risk..."

Juror Misconduct

Juror misconduct is the reason for Mr. Goodman's new trial.

Two jurors wrote to the judge about their "pressure to render a guilty verdict." This was not disclosed to Goodman's defense until one of the jurors contacted them directly. Didn't Judge Colbath have a duty to inform both parties? Again, is this fair? It hardly shows impartiality.

Why would one juror lie during voir dire (jury selection), then vote to convict Goodman?

Closing Argument

This case exemplifies the saying, "It's hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

Sadly, a life has been lost, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Wilson family; yet certain facts still remain... Several people in charge of handling this case have consistently used speculation as fact in order to portray Goodman's guilt. Some of those very people even committed crimes in an attempt to obtain another "win."

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

One thing is sure, Scott Wilson was failed by some of the same people that claim Goodman is guilty. Perhaps, had they acted, Wilson would be here today.

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.

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.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3,

© 2014 Joe Snook - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Joe Snook is an investigative journalist for US Observer.

E-Mail: [email protected]




Could Bentley have encouraged Robert's to dispose of Goodman's vehicle? Could the Wilson's civil attorney have coordinated this? There is no excuse for her actions when it pertains to getting rid of crucial legal evidence.