Thank you, Rick.  I've printed out, & am sharing your input w/our daughter.
Only got your 1/11 message today: still had problems on my end, then the BBS
had problems.  Enough about minor hurdles.
I see I do need to fill in. I'll do it now.  With so little to go on, your
grasp of the case, and subsequent input, is valued: If you'll kindly favor
us with reading more, we would welcome your further insights. We took steps
immediately, as you urged, to seek a new attorney now: below is more on that.
Kriseya never knew the judge or present DA personally.  Her first attorney,
Doug, was so compromised with other work that he was often ineffective for 
s,
but is a wonderful man we still esteem.  He cared about Kriseya. He'd helped
elect the ex-DA, Holmes, & like many others in the Reno, NV, legal community,
was dismayed at her performance.  Judge Lane was disgusted that Holmes was
stretching the law to include someone who did not commit any deed. Newspaper
quote: "As district attorney in 1989, Lane spoke before the Assembly Judi-
ciary committee about changing Nevada's law regarding child abuse and murder.
...he said, for a person to be accused of murder in such a manner, the sus-
pect had to either abuse the child herself or encourage someone else to do
so.  'I think what you have to have is something more than simple neglect--
more than simply sitting and doing nothing,' Lane said.  But...second star
witness, also under subpoena, was not allowed to testify.  [DA]...Holmes com-
plained that ...Gammick's testimony would violate attorney-client privilege.
(Dorothy) Nash Holmes fired Gammick last month after he announced he would
run for [DA] in 1994. ...'Counsel wants him to testify about the thought pro-
cesses that went on in the DA's office..."
Doug Nicholson knew that neither Gammick nor Lane could politically risk a
voluntary testimony, so he subpoenaed them.  The political dynamics: Mrs.
Holmes was good at PR, gaining support going after deadbeat dads & a tough
stance on crime, esp. child abuse. With election nearby, she became increas-
ingly rough (and wrong): went after Champion Chevrolet & many employees for
fraud (case was tossed from court several times & now it's a dead issue> they
were more fortunate than we.  The public, therefore, was still fooled, but
the legal community despised her.  Doug told us that the Lane & Gammick dis-
agreed w/what Holmes had done to K, but would only testify if subpoenaed.  So
it wasn't exactly a personal support.
I did try to establish contact w/Lane & Gammick.  Lane is always gracious
when I go to his office (when in Reno), & politely answers our letters: "I'm
sure Vivian [she replaced Doug] will do fine...I'm satisfied will make a good
presentation of your daughter's case."  More politics: Lane & Gammick worked
together in the 80's when Lane was DA & admire each other. I wrote Gammick a
few times, but he didn't answer. Maybe he feels he's in a delicate position.
What encourages us is that Gammick has been consistent. There was a child
abuse murder done by the father, then the mother went along with disposing of
the body. (This case resulted in an investigation of child services in Reno.)
Again, a news quote: "Gammick said his office dropped murder charges (brought
by former DA Holmes) against Tara Gutierrez because the law requires her to
have actively done something to kill her daughter.  Evidence in the case
indicates she failed to intervene....failed to seek medical attention..., but
did nothing herself to hurt her daughter, Gammick said.  Neglect is not the
same as abuse, Gammick said.  'You have to be an active participant in com-
mitting that abuse...Those elements may not be proven as to her. What she did
is child neglect and child endangerment. There's no question about that.'"
I agree w/your analysis that Lane & Gammick are Aces of some kind, but we
don't know how to exploit them, having made some attempts.  We had some kind
of hope that Gammick's ascension to office would be synonymous w/dropping the
charges, but that didn't happen.  A DA from his office dutifully showed up &
argued the appeal.  Some of what he said was not good, but in one exchange, a
justice said, "I thought I heard you say there was a great deal of evidence
[that if the jury had chosen to believe that, they could have acquitted]. DA:
"Oh, I may have..It's one of those expressions that kind of slips out..."
Judge: "Well, if that's the case, why wasn't she entitled to be acquitted as
a matter of law?"
There were definitely favorable points at the oral.  Still, for some reason
we don't know, Vivian never argued against the neglect conviction, even
saying she'd not have taken the case if it had been neglect, and not an
improperly charged murder.
We do feel there's a good chance at an overturned verdict--at least on the
murder.  Because no one considers it a big deal--beside the murder conviction
--exoneration for the neglect may come harder.  So, why are we concerned if
we feel K's murder conviction may be overturned?
Well, it's one thing to rationally discuss this on paper, etc.: it's another
for Kriseya to have lived through the horror of having her baby killed by the
man she "knew" loved them both--her trust betrayed--and during the depths of
her enormous pain, to be falsely accused of an abuse she did not even know
was happening.  It is another thing to be imprisoned for 3 years (since Jan.
9, 1993) for ignorance, trust and naivete which robbed _her_ of the life most
precious to her--her baby's.  Coping with a loss like this in prison is far
different from coping with it out here.  Because of her courage, her sorrow,
and her unfailing help to others inside, Kriseya has mercifully encountered
respect, but prison is demeaning and hard, and a few still whisper behind her
back.  Fortunately, her supporters are more.  Even a few guards (at visiting)
have told us "I read her case--she doesn't belong here."
The other reasons we are pursuing more contacts and greater justice is that,
because of Kriseya, we've learned that injustice is very common.  (Wish we
could get statistics on how common.)  We want to help stop false accusations
from ruining others' lives.  We want our tragedy to make a difference.
A new lead came to us just days ago--a man in WA involved w/justice coali-
tions.  We asked him about lawyers, and he indicated he could help us look
for one after he sees some info about Kriseya.  He says he was involved w/the
Wenatchee (?) case--spreading the word.  Said he posts things on an internet
site called "witchhunt".  I'll try to find it on a BBS here which carries
such sites.  Anyway, that's a first stab at a lawyer.  We asked Kriseya to
ask about a public defender.  We feel, perhaps unjustifiably, that since we
spent more than $45,000 ($15 for Doug, 30 for Viv) without getting Kriseya
freed and without the legal care it should have bought, perhaps a pro bono
lawyer would do it because he honestly cared.  Above all, we need somone who
cares about truth, people and justice.  If he or she proves true, we'd hock
the next few years of work to show our appreciation.
This is a long epistle, & there's more to it, but perhaps a little at a time
is best.  You have no idea how excited I was to see your post to me, and how
frantic I became when I couldn't get it!  All's well that ends well.  Thank
you, Rick.  Vfalsac is the best forum I've found for sheer helpful info. Am
trying to get Ch.AbuseIssues at this BBS--the Sysop said another echo has a
similar name: he'll try.     Thank you from my heart for the grace of your
help.  I need to write to Valery, too.
I'll look for another post from you when you get a chance.  Blessings from
                                           Clara
 * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 18
 * Silver Xpress V4.01
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------