With the information in the post below and additional evidence in my possession, I have enough evidence to prove Michelle Dickerman committed multiple criminal acts in 2006, resulting in me being railroaded by the Charlottesville law enforcement into accepting responsibility for a crime I did not commit. If my evidence were presented in court Michelle Dickerman would be found guilty of crimes ranging from Obstruction of Justice, Disorderly Conduct, and potentially even Perjury. The Obstruction and Disorderly charges would be justified as Felonies due to the actions of Dickerman, the damages inflicted upon my life, and her lawyer status demonstrating that she knew better than to commit such actions. Perjury is a Class 5 Felony by default. The Obstruction and Disorderly charges would be filed as Class 6 Felonies. Keep in mind that the Disorderly Conduct Felony relates to false evidence and testimony by Michelle Dickerman, and was a charge brought against Jussie Smollett due to the accusations against him of faking a hate crime. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have a statute of limitations against Felony charges, thus Michelle Annette Dickerman can be charged with her 2006 crime even to this day.
"In his brother’s face he finally saw real hate, and in that moment he learned a lesson that had evaded him all these decades. Guilliman had never hated him before ... Not until now. This was hate. This was hatred in totality, fueled by a fortune of pathos. This was a hatred deserved, and it was a hatred that would see Lorgar dead, with the song unfinished and the False Emperor still enthroned at the head of an empire he didn't - in his ignorance - deserve to lead."
- 'Betrayer' by Aaron Dembski-Bowden
"When evil strikes you, don't keep silent or let your foes find peace."
- Havamal 127
To avoid any confusion like I've had from someone in the past contacting me, this blog relates to the subject of Attorney Michelle Annette Dickerman of Falls Church VA, who has worked for Greenberg Traurig DC and the US Department of Treasury. More importantly it involves her actions during the case brought against me in 2006, as well as the actions of those working on her behalf. She was previously known as Michelle Annette Manweiler during the time of the legal dispute in Charlottesville.
The other parties who are just as guilty as her, are Charlottesville prosecutors Joseph Platania and Warner Chapman, Detective Nicholas Rudman of the Charlottesville PD, and my former counsel William Johnson. There are also minor individuals involved in their own way who have been brought up throughout this blog. This includes such individuals as Ms. Manweiler's parents Gregory and Carole Manweiler, and former Daily Progress court reporter Liesel Nowak (now Crosier) who printed false information about the case and even put words in my mouth that were never said by me. Gregory Manweiler may not however be a minor player in this, and may have potentially had just as much of an effect on the path this case took as his daughter and the prosecutors. I may discuss this further in the post on my former attorney.
The primary focus is of course on Michelle Manweiler/Dickerman. She has always been the ringleader and the primary source of the problem. All fingers point back at her, even from the prosecution. While Charlottesville law enforcement committed a cover-up in her name (though just as much to protect themselves), things would not have gone as far if Michelle Manweiler had not lied about events that took place. Manweiler falsely claimed I visited her home in Charlottesville (a claim she contradicted months later by admitting she was aware I never knew her location), and tampered with the emails to hide how long she had actually waited to alert police. This resulted in Charlottesville over-reacting to a threat that never existed anywhere but in Michelle Manweiler's own head. While Joe Platania and Warner Chapman "ran the ball down the field", Ms. Manweiler is the one who handed them that ball in the first place.
The reason I refer to her as Michelle Manweiler in this blog is due to the fact that this was her name prior to her marriage to John C Dickerman. Manweiler is not only the name I knew her by for years, but it was still her last name when the events of 2006 took place. It is also the name she went by when I first started this blog. Out of habit and for the sake of consistency with older posts, I still continue to refer to her as Ms. Manweiler. It also doesn't make sense to call her Dickerman when the title of this blog is a play on the Manweiler name - a nickname used by our next door neighbor who attended the hearings with my mother (Ms. Rottweiler was the nickname).
I also do not refer to her in this blog by her first name alone - I refer to her as Ms. Manweiler, Manweiler, or Michelle Manweiler. I took issue in 2006 with her referring to me informally by my first name in official court documents. She and I are not on a first name basis - we have never been friends, we are instead enemies (though that term doesn't even scratch the surface after 2006). She is not Michelle to me, just as I am not Richard or Rick to her. So you'll have to bear with me when I keep using her last name or full name.
Since the very beginnings of this dispute everyone has pointed the finger of blame at Michelle Manweiler for everything that went on. It was always said that she was the one pulling the strings and causing problems. At first I was the only person not pointing a finger at her. Instead I attempted to get Ms. Manweiler's side of the story rather than listen to everything I was being told. For this I was treated as though I'm not even a human being. I'm sure Ms. Manweiler would claim it is everyone else that is lying and not her, but nothing she has done has ever proven any of those people to be liars. Quite the opposite in fact, she usually ended up doing something that matches what everyone else accused her of doing. As I said, for a long time I didn't accept that she was doing the things people accused her of doing. I gave her the benefit of the doubt for years, far longer than she deserved. I never would have tried so hard to talk things over with her peacefully had I completely accepted all I was being told at the time.
I've posted the evidence from my lawyer that shows Manweiler accused me of having made in-person contact with her at Charlottesville. Michelle Manweiler knows there was never any in person contact between us in Charlottesville, hell the two of us hadn't even been face-to-face since 1999 until the 2006 preliminary hearing. Multiple sources say Michelle Manweiler was behind that lie of Charlottesville contact - police and the court, not just my former attorney. What possible reason would I have to believe Michelle Manweiler if she denied lying about that? Or maybe she wouldn't deny it, though considering her false statement to law enforcement and the court was a criminal act, I can't see her actually fessing up to it. She has also shown that taking responsibility for her actions isn't something she is capable of doing, so I have no reason to believe Manweiler would ever admit to making the false statement.
How does someone lie in court about the actions of an individual, hide evidence proving the person didn't commit the felony, gets overwhelming and blatant special treatment for her status (and being a lawyer means knowing this is exactly the case), pushes for inexcusable punishments for a charge she knew to be false - and then assumes that the person she did it to would ever let her walk away from that? Especially when all the evidence of what she and her family did is in the hands of that person?
Before 2006 what I mainly had was the word of other people to go on, not much more than that. Sure there was bad behavior on her part, but nothing that 100% proved she was the one who did everything others accused her of doing. Then Michelle Manweiler had to go and prove everyone right. In her victim impact statement (VIS) she made the same lies about the past that other people accused her of making back then. And I can prove it didn't happen as she claimed in the VIS, using her own letters that she wrote to me in that time period. It is impossible to claim you didn't lie in your impact statement when your own handwritten letters contradict your statements.
As mentioned earlier, multiple sources in 2006 reported that Manweiler claimed I went to her home in Charlottesville, and then she admits months later in her VIS that I never even knew where she lived. I knew I never went to Charlottesville, but her admission helps to prove this to other people. I also have evidence of blatant tampering of the emails she provided to police, as I'll demonstrate in this post. Thanks to her efforts in 2006 I no longer have just the word of others, instead I have actual evidence to prove what kind of person I'm dealing with. If Ms. Manweiler's intention behind the events of 2006 was to validate all the bad things people said of her and give me more justification than I have ever had in my life, well then mission accomplished.
When it comes to that evidence, I didn't just have one source telling me how Manweiler accused me of coming to her home in Charlottesville. My lawyer's notes from the protective order hearing, statements from the investigating officer, and the court paperwork all state the very same accusation. That's three different sources all pointing the same finger her way, so I'm not sure how Ms. Manweiler could ever deny concocting this lie. I know that I was never even aware of where she lived in Charlottesville let alone the fact I never make the drive up there, and yet Manweiler is delusional enough to think I'm ever letting go of that lie of hers?
That lie was a big excuse for them to bump a misdemeanor charge to a felony on a guy with not even a speeding ticket to his name. The lie of personal contact at her Charlottesville home gave them something they could point to for justification, even if that still wouldn't be an acceptable reason. Michelle Manweiler knew she needed that lie of in person contact to cause that much harm. Because you can't even remotely claim a bump to a felony was acceptable on a guy with absolutely no criminal record, when he never even bothered to find out where the "victim" lived in the first place. You don't even remotely have proof of intent if the guy didn't even care to find the "victim's" location in the roughly seven months it took Manweiler to get the police involved. Yet another reason the prosecution wanted to threaten me into the charge rather than risk court, though that isn't the primary reason that Joe Platania and Warner Chapman wanted to avoid a trial.
Which brings us to the point of this particular post. The false claim of Charlottesville contact isn't even remotely the only lies and criminal actions committed by Michelle Manweiler during the 2006 legal proceedings. The evidence against me had been blatantly tampered and manipulated by her in 2006. It was so obvious that I have a very strong case of criminal negligence and malfeasance on the part of the Charlottesville police, magistrate and prosecution for their inability to spot it.
This evidence has already been presented previously on this blog, but I'm going to post it and explain it in a more concise easier to follow manner than what I originally wrote. I'll use cropped sections to focus on the problems with the emails, rather than show an entire sheet and try to explain it just in text.
Tampering of Evidence and Obstruction by Michelle Dickerman
I'll first things I'll show are two sheets that I will reference in my explanation. The first of the two sheets are the notes my lawyer made on the email evidence provided by the prosecution, where even he noticed a major discrepancy in the emails. The second is a seminar list from UVA showing when they had their spring break in 2006 (this will be important to prove Michelle Manweiler lied about when she received a claimed email from me). To look at the two sheets in a larger size, simply click on them to expand them.
You'll notice some discoloration on some spots, these are from a yellow highlighter I used in the inquiries against William Johnson, Michelle Manweiler, Joseph Platania, and Warner Chapman that I filed with the Virginia State Bar. These documents were in a large binder, that surprised the people at the VSB when I handed it to them, and I had used the highlighter to call attention to certain parts of the evidence while I referenced those documents in the write-up.
The scans you see were made from copies that I distributed to the VSB, when I filed inquiry requests. The original untouched documents were stored away in a safe location when I filed my inquiry to the VSB, where they have remained since that time. The highlighter marks are not present on the original copies. I was concerned that as soon as the Charlottesville prosecution got wind of the evidence in my possession, they might attempt a search of my home to take this evidence from me. Granted with me being off probation by that time they had lost the ability of warrant-less searches, but I learned the hard way that you can not trust the Charlottesville law enforcement.
Should they have gotten a warrant and taken all my legal documentation, the police department would conveniently "lose" all this evidence they took, just as they managed to "lose" and "damage" critical evidence during the case in 2006. After all they claimed the tape of my interview with Detective Rudman was somehow "lost" after the prosecution listened to it (this allowed Joseph Platania to lie in court that I had confessed to everything when the tapes would have proven otherwise), and they claimed they "damaged" my computer hard drive so badly it would take nine months of repair work before they could get anything off of it (allowing them to never verify the emails Michelle Manweiler printed up and handed them). Both these losses of evidence are admitted to freely by my former attorney on the tape recordings my mother made during their meetings.
The original documents from my lawyer are in safe keeping where they will remain, which means I only have the VSB copies in my current possession. I have no intention of ever letting them take the original copies, which means that I'm not going to risk them by retrieving them just for a blog post.
Former counsel William Johnson's notes on the email evidence provided by prosecution:
Listing of Seminars for a UVA class in 2006, showing when UVA had their spring break:
The prosecution claimed they had more emails but did not provide them to my lawyer (in defiance of a motion of discovery filed in court), and for whatever reason (laziness most likely) Johnson did not push for the rest of the emails.
The first piece of evidence to call attention to should be obvious when you look over Johnson's notes. Specifically, this little gem:
I don't think in this day and age I'd have to explain to anyone how email works, but I need to make sure I'm thorough in this post. When you send an email to another person, it enters their inbox saying "From" you. Look at your own email inbox and you'll see every message labeled as "From" the person you received it from. Any email you send out will say "To" the recipient of your outgoing email when you look in your sent messages folder. This is how email works - period. It is a simple format that is the universal norm for all emails. Even letters and gifts are labeled "From" and "To" in order to indicate sender and recipient.
Michelle Manweiler provided this email to police, claiming the email was sent by me in February. Thus for me to have sent it to her she would have to have printed it from her inbox. The problem is that this email she printed up has a very odd departure from the typical email norm:
As my former attorney noted, the email says "To Rick" when it should be "From Rick". If this was actually an email sent to Ms. Manweiler by me and printed from Michelle Manweiler's inbox, which is exactly what Ms. Manweiler was claiming it to be, it would say "From Rick". That is how email works. You already knew something wasn't right with that email when you looked at it.
I would love to hear the fumbling from Michelle Manweiler attempting to explain this one. As I already pointed out, my former lawyer William Johnson noticed this and it concerned him enough to write it down. My mother confronted him on a tape recording she made during a meeting about this issue as well. Johnson admits that yes the email does say "To Rick" when it should say "From Rick", and he admits he has no explanation for why Michelle Manweiler's evidence has this discrepancy.
This evidence is very serious for those in Charlottesville, because it proves criminal negligence against the Charlottesville law enforcement. You are telling me one lawyer noticed it right away the first time he looked these emails over - but a police detective, a magistrate, and two prosecutors didn't notice this in the nearly five months this crap went on? Four trained officials of the Charlottesville court system didn't notice something for months that one lawyer noticed the first day he looked at it? That is either incompetence or negligence on the part of all officials involved.
At minimum that is grounds for being removed from their positions and sued for damages. It is so obvious to see this discrepancy that they cannot claim to have been paying any attention to what they were reading if they didn't see this. And they wouldn't possibly be stupid enough to admit to having noticed it. After all, think about the consequences of admitting that they knew evidence they never verified had blatant discrepancies that casts doubt on the true contents of that evidence, and yet they continued prosecution and violated civil rights based entirely on evidence they knew was corrupted. That kind of admission would end every single one of their careers, land them in prison, and result in a sizable lawsuit against the city.
I kind of wish they were that stupid, but I suspect the Charlottesville law enforcement isn't that brain dead to admit to something like that. So they would be forced to say they never noticed any of the obvious problems with these emails. Which itself is criminal negligence without argument by four trained legal professionals with years, even decades, of experience. Getting slapped with negligence wouldn't amount to nearly the same amount of harm that they would receive by admitting they noticed the tampering of the evidence and still continued prosecution. But to admit they jailed me after missing something that blatant would have meant consequences back in 2006, which is why they were inclined to avoid trial by threatening me out of my civil rights.
So when it comes to the "To Rick" discrepancy, the simple fact is that this was not an email that Michelle Manweiler printed from her inbox. It simply isn't possible given how emails work. Try as hard as you'd like, you'll never get an email in your inbox to say "To" the person who sent it to you. There are no explanations or stories Michelle Manweiler could come up with - the fact is this email she handed to the police could not be an email directly sent by me, and she never printed it from her inbox. So where exactly did she get this email then? Before we dive into where she printed this email up, we need to go into the evidence a bit further first.
You'll notice my lawyer notes that the other three emails came from a fake Michelle Manweiler site. He also comments that the February email was deleted after Manweiler blocked my Rick profile. During my initial contact with Ms. Manweiler, I grew bored and decided I didn't need to talk to Manweiler any further. So I told her to go ahead and block me on Myspace, and explained to her exactly how to do this. Ms. Manweiler then followed through and blocked me afterwards. Keep that fact in mind - she never blocked me on her own. I actually suggested it and she followed through only after I brought it up. I have a hard time believing a high school valedictorian attending a flagship university couldn't have figured out how to do it herself, so I'd love to see her try to explain why she didn't attempt it earlier.
There was an issue however that neither of us expected. Emails on Myspace only existed as a link between two profiles. If you sent messages to an individual and they later delete their Myspace profile, all messages between you two are deleted. If you block a profile, Myspace treats it as if the other person's profile was deleted (and your profile appears deleted to the person you blocked). In turn, when Michelle Manweiler blocked me it deleted every single email in her inbox that was sent by me - she even admitted it to the police and prosecution, since my former attorney already had it written down after he left the prosecution's office.
Not only did it delete the emails on her end, it also deleted them on my end. I didn't discover this deletion of emails was a feature of blocking someone before, as I never had any reason to block anyone at the time. So the next day when I went to check the "read email" indication in my sent messages folder, I was surprised to see the email to Michelle Manweiler completely gone. I'd imagine Ms. Manweiler was just as surprised after it happened. Or maybe she wasn't that surprised. What do I mean by that, and why is this deletion of emails after the block an important thing to discuss? The answer to both will connect back into why the February email says "To Rick".
One big result of this blocking of my Myspace profile, is that it confirmed something for me that I hadn't quite known for certain before. While Myspace told me Michelle Manweiler was opening my emails, there was no way for me to know if she was bothering to actually read them. In fact the "read email" indication showed even if the email was deleted without opening if I recall correctly. But after Manweiler had clearly blocked me after I suggested she do so in my last email, I knew that she was at least somewhat paying attention to my messages up to that point (though I was never certain how much she was actually paying attention to them, not until my arrest happened).
I'll admit this revelation made me angry. For some reason, having my emails deleted without reading wasn't a problem for me, as I was primarily using them as a way to vent. I had wanted to initially stop contact with her at the time because I had lost interest in writing to her again, not because I had gotten everything off my chest. But realizing she had read the emails and was just ignoring everything I told her about (how her actions had affected my life, her comments on the suicide attempt, the threats I received, etc) with no response - that did make me angry at the time. I had brought up painful memories, as well as discussed events that caused lasting scars and doubts about myself that took me years to overcome (some of them have never been overcome). All of that harm falls directly on the shoulders of Michelle Manweiler. Yet for that to be considered as nothing to this woman, at the time it just ended up feeding that furnace again.
Given that Michelle Manweiler has lied to my face before and never honored her own word, I decided I didn't owe her the upholding of my word either. Re-initiating contact with her again through my Rick profile was no longer possible however, so I had to make a new profile. This is where that fake Michelle Manweiler profile comes in. I made a second profile, one using Ms. Manweiler's own name. I had also used a photo of her I found on the internet as the profile pic, the very photo that touched a nerve with me as I had mentioned in that long post of mine titled "The Long War".
Yes I know re-initiating contact again was a dumb idea, as was even contacting her in the first place, but I was angry and wanting to vent at someone who had caused me great pain in the past - I've never claimed that any of that had been a good idea.
This fake profile is where we start answering those two questions I brought up a few paragraphs earlier. As I mentioned, I never created the fake profile prior to being blocked. There wasn't a need to create a second profile to bypass a block earlier, when I had complete ability to contact her through my main account. All further emails to Manweiler came from this fake profile, which my lawyer recorded. On the surface you wouldn't know this was a fake account, given it had her name and photo. Obviously Ms. Manweiler and I would know, but nobody else would have known that the name and photo were just being used by me. I even ended up with friends of hers sending invites to that fake account. This fake account and the auto-deletion after blocking are very important to remember.
This auto-deletion from blocking me means that the February email did not exist after I created the fake Manweiler profile, because by Manweiler's own admission it was deleted after she blocked my Rick account. The problem with the February email being deleted prior to the existence of the April and May emails is this - the February, April and May emails all have the same exact date on their printer time stamps. See below:
Now I'll get into the evidence proving that March 12th time stamp is true further on in this post, as well as pointing out the problem of a March time stamp on April and May emails, but that would be getting ahead of myself. The fact is that clearly the February email was printed by Michelle Manweiler on the same exact same day as the claimed April and May emails. But the February email was deleted before those two emails were ever created.
Manweiler blocked me and the February email was deleted from her inbox. The April and May claimed emails, sent by the fake Michelle Manweiler profile (again refer to my lawyer's notes), weren't even created back when the February email was still sitting in Manweiler's inbox. Manweiler hadn't blocked me when she still had possession of the February email, so no second profile was needed to bypass a block. So given that the February email was already deleted, how in the hell did she still have it in her inbox to print up at the same time as the April and May emails?
Anyone want to explain how Michelle Manweiler still had that email to print up in March, when she admitted it was deleted after she blocked me - which was before the April and May emails ever existed? I can tell you exactly how Manweiler still had that email - that Rick profile isn't mine and she didn't print the February email from her inbox.
Returning to the issue of "To Rick" instead of from Rick, the only folder that Ms. Manweiler could print something up and have it say "To" is inside her sent messages folder. Again, you already know that's how email works. If you send an outgoing email to someone and look in your sent messages folder, it will say "To" the person you were emailing. An outgoing email is the only email that would have ever said "To" someone on Michelle Manweiler's account. So the February email is obviously an outgoing email that Manweiler printed up from her sent messages folder. It simply isn't possible to be anything other than an outgoing email, because that is the only way all email is setup to work. Again, it is a universal truth that mail in your inbox says "From" the sender, and emails in your sent messages folder say "To" the recipient. So Michelle Manweiler printed this email from her sent messages folder and not her inbox, because that is the only way to explain the "To" notation on an email she printed up.
So given the February email is definitely an outgoing email from Manweiler's sent messages folder (again, that's the only way email is setup to work), that must mean it was something Michelle Manweiler sent to me right? Wrong. At no point did I receive any communication from Manweiler in 2006. And had she been forwarding my own emails back to me, I would have been immediately suspicious that something was up. Especially in 2006 after hearing of the "To Rick" and March time stamp discrepancies, I would have raised hell with the prosecution and even gone to the news media with the story. The prosecution would have then been forced to verify all emails from Michelle Manweiler via another source, or forced to drop prosecution. Since Manweiler never forwarded a single message back to me (and those forwarded emails would have been deleted after blocking me anyway), that means the Rick profile you are seeing in her evidence isn't my profile. It is a fake profile setup by Michelle Manweiler to save the email messages I sent her (and I'm accusing her of tampering with those messages as she did this).
Clearly I wasn't the first person to create a fake Myspace profile of the other party - Michelle Annette Manweiler beat me to it. The only way for that email to say "To Rick" instead of "From Rick", and the only way she could have still had it to print up on the same day as emails created after its deletion by blocking my profile, was if Manweiler had forwarded my emails to another account to hang onto them. All you have to do is slap on my profile pic and write my name, and you have yourself a fake account. Just like I did with the Michelle Manweiler account. She could easily copy my background and profile text, and make a profile look exactly like mine. It wouldn't have my friends or their comments on it, but you don't get to see that in the email she printed up, do you? You only see a profile pic and my name, something which is easily faked - observe:
That's Manweiler's first name and her photo of the time - but that isn't her profile. That was the fake one I created, and this was the claimed June email that was printed up by Manweiler and handed to police. But had I not told you this, had I just posted this as a claimed email sent to me by Michelle Manweiler - you wouldn't have known any different would you? Just as the Charlottesville law enforcement wouldn't have known that Rick profile wasn't mine just by the profile pic and name. Not unless they clicked on the link to the profile, and you obviously can't do that with a piece of paper. So Michelle Manweiler created a fake profile, and was forwarding my emails to this profile. Apparently she must have not forwarded the email back to her main profile so she could print it from her inbox, so she had to go into her sent messages and print it up from there. So why was she clearly forwarding my emails to a fake profile made to look like mine?
Maybe she foresaw a potential loss of the email records and did it for safe keeping - had she not made the profile look like mine, it would call everything she forwarded into question. Just as likely however, she wanted to do something to those emails. Something that would help her push a false story to police - like altering the contents of the emails. Since we can prove that Manweiler printed that February email from her sent messages folder (that's the only reason it would say "To Rick"), we know that she forwarded the email to a fake account (because she wasn't forwarding them to me). But there is a problem. If you were to forward an email in your inbox right now, you'll notice some new notation. The subject line will say FW and the contents of the body will be pushed down - likely with some separation of the old message like dashes. But you don't see those notations in the email, despite the fact it is clearly forwarded. Why is this?
If you test out forwarding an email right now, you'll notice you have complete editing freedom. You can remove formatting like the "FW" in the subject line, and you can completely re-write the body of the email. You could make that email say anything you want - just as Michelle Manweiler could. I told my lawyer from the first time I saw these emails that there were things in there I never recall saying. He admits to it in his notes and on the recordings from my mother, but he just shrugs the statement off.
Not recalling things from these emails alone doesn't prove she was re-writing the contents of the emails. But given that I can prove without a doubt that this email was forwarded to a fake account (because that is the only explanation based on the evidence), and she would have complete freedom to edit the message, Michelle Annette Manweiler had every opportunity to make these emails say whatever the hell she wanted them to say. She could make these emails say anything, and this means that none of the evidence she printed up and handed to police can be trusted at all. There is such a thing as "chain of custody" when it comes to evidence, and Manweiler cut up that chain in a big way by forwarding them to a fake account made to look like mine. The Charlottesville law enforcement should have only initiated a search warrant on my computer and verified the emails through a second source, before ever filing charges and jailing me. The fact that they jailed me and bumped a misdemeanor to a felony, on nothing more than evidence Manweiler printed up and handed to them, was the equivalent of Manweiler pointing a finger at me and the CPD cracking me over the head on her word alone. The entire legal case of 2006 was at its core based on nothing more than the assumption that Michelle Annette Dickerman (Manweiler) had enough integrity to not lie about a guy she hated. I've already shown ample evidence on this blog that she does not possess the integrity to be honest about what actually took place in this dispute.
I can prove further tampering of evidence by Michelle Manweiler, which more than suggests she knowingly committed criminal acts. This in turn serves to demonstrate that Manweiler's intentions behind forwarding the emails to a fake account were not innocent in nature. But before I get into that evidence, let's sum up the situation connected to the evidence we've discussed so far:
- The February email printed by Michelle Manweiler has "To Rick" instead of "From Rick". This means the email could not have been in her inbox when printing it, because that is the way email works. Emails in an inbox universally say "From" the sender when present in a recipient's inbox. This is an undisputed fact.
- Manweiler admitted the February email was deleted after blocking my Rick profile, after I had told her to block my profile in an email. I can confirm that deletion to be true, because it also deleted the emails on my end at the same time.
- The April and May emails were sent via the fake Michelle Manweiler account created by me, as recorded by my lawyer.
- I created the fake Manweiler profile for the sole purpose of circumventing the block on my Rick profile. There was no reason for it to exist prior to the block, given it was only intended to bypass the block. Otherwise contact would have just been maintained through my main account. This means that the April and May emails did not exist until after the deletion of the February email.
- The February, April and May emails all have the same printer time stamp date. While I can prove the March time stamp is a true date, even without that we still have to accept that the February, April and May emails were printed up at the same time from Michelle Manweiler's Myspace profile.
- The February email was deleted due to the block before the April and May emails came into existence. Thus it isn't possible for Manweiler to still possess the original February email in her inbox to print up alongside the April and May emails, as February's email was destroyed before I ever typed up any emails in April, May or even March.
- The only way to explain the "To Rick" discrepancy, is that Michelle Manweiler forwarded this email and printed it from her sent messages folder. An email can only say "To" on a given person's account in the outgoing mail folder. So the only way Manweiler could print an email that says "To" someone is if it was an outgoing email present in her sent messages folder. Again, this is just how email works and can not be disputed.
- Given that Michelle Manweiler was clearly forwarding my emails (again "To Rick" instead of "From Rick"), and that at no time did she ever reply or forward any messages back to me, this means the Rick profile from the February email can not be my profile. Any email forwarded by Manweiler to my actual account would have been deleted during the block regardless, thus still negating its presence on her account after the block. For her to still possess it post-block, that Rick profile would have to be a fake profile created by Michelle Manweiler. Creating a fake account with just a first name and profile photo is laughably easy, and there would be no way for law enforcement to know of the fake account on a piece of paper handed to them by Michelle Manweiler.
- Forwarding my messages to a fake account under her control, is the only possible explanation for why Manweiler still had access to the February email to print it on the same day as the April and May dated emails. By her own admission Manweiler blocked my Rick profile and thus accidentally deleted the February email. The original February email would not have still been present on her profile when the April and May emails were created. Thus the original February email I sent her could not possibly have been printed on the same day as the April and May dated emails - it no longer existed by that time. The only way she would still have it is if she saved a copy by forwarding it to another account before blocking me, which would have kept the email in her sent messages folder. Blocking me would not affect emails she had forwarded to another account under her control.
- Considering no forwarding notation exists on the February email despite clearly having to have been forwarded, this means Manweiler edited this notation out. Given that Manweiler had complete control over the contents of the forwarded email, and could thus edit it any way she chooses, nothing in the February email could have been trusted in a court of law. At no point did Manweiler tell the police about the forwarding of the emails, otherwise they would have been insane to build a case on them. For Charlottesville law enforcement to be dumb enough to file charges even after being told of it being forwarded (and thus freely open to tampering) would carry serious legal consequences for all involved in the filing and prosecution. Since it is unlikely that the Charlottesville police department, district attorney's office and magistrate's office would be stupid enough to try something like that, it is fairly safe to say that they were never told that the emails had been forwarded to another account under her control. Thus Michelle Manweiler deliberately withheld critical information from law enforcement to serve her own ends.
- Since there is no way to know what emails were forwarded and what weren't, none of the emails printed up by Michelle Manweiler can be trusted. Nor could they have been submitted in a court of law under these circumstances in 2006. The police claimed they damaged my computer hard drive, requiring nine months of repair before they could recover anything from it. This means the paper printouts, severely compromised by Michelle Manweiler's actions, were never verified through an independent source. Thus emails whose credibility is non- existent are the only basis for the criminal charges brought against me. The entire criminal case was built on lies and blatantly tampered evidence - evidence that Manweiler had every opportunity to alter when she was forwarding them to a fake account she created in my name.
- Michelle Manweiler took down her Myspace profile right after hearing of my arrest, thus deleting all emails on her account. I still possess a news article that reports this act by Ms. Manweiler. My lawyer also stated that Michelle Manweiler personally told him she deleted her profile at the protective order hearing, and he records this in his notes (shown in a previous post). After seeing the article's comment on Ms. Manweiler's Myspace profile being deleted, my mother attempted to confirm that she indeed deleted her profile. The only Manweiler profile my mother could find was the fake profile I created - Michelle Manweiler's real profile was missing. My lawyer confirms on the tape recordings my mother took of their meetings that Manweiler did indeed remove her profile. When my mother later pushes my lawyer on this problem, he admits that "she was wrong, she shouldn't have done that". Given Ms. Manweiler's status as an attorney, she would have full knowledge that this act was not acceptable when she committed it. She would also have had full knowledge that this act could be perceived as obstruction, especially since there is more than enough evidence to prove she was doing something to these emails that damages their credibility in court.
- By deleting her Myspace profile, Michelle Manweiler not only conveniently destroyed the original emails I sent her, but also prevented anyone from finding out she was forwarding the emails, potentially tampering with the contents, and withholding exculpatory evidence from police. As stated in point 12, as a lawyer Ms. Manweiler would know this destruction of evidence during a criminal case was not acceptable. By committing this deletion of evidence, this meant the only evidence law enforcement could rely upon was the print outs Manweiler handed to them.
- This deletion of her profile also prevented me from obtaining evidence of my innocence that Manweiler deliberately withheld from police. There were only two other sources left for the original emails - my computer and Myspace's servers. The Charlottesville law enforcement claimed they damaged my computer hard drive, preventing recovery of the original emails. This is confirmed by my lawyer on tape recordings, and I personally witnessed the prosecutor admit to this happening in court. Obtaining emails from Myspace's server records were not a guarantee after Manweiler's deletion, and would have required further legal effort and resources. The prosecution and police were not interested in expending those resources. This meant that the entire case was based on evidence I can prove to have been tampered with by Michelle Manweiler.
A lawyer, even one just graduating law school, would know better than to delete important evidence while an investigation was going on. A lawyer would know that submitting evidence she tampered with, even in a minor way, was a criminal act. A lawyer would know that giving evidence to police without telling them it was compromised through her actions is a very big issue.
In fact Michelle Manweiler instead appears to have used her legal knowledge for the express purpose of subverting the criminal justice system for her own gain. Now that very legal knowledge puts her in a position where she cannot defend her actions and decisions. The claim "I didn't know any better" isn't going to work for her.
So what further evidence can we show of Michelle Manweiler's criminal actions? Well you recall how I pointed out that the April and May emails have a March 12th printer time stamp, correct? It is quite clear that it is not possible to print up April and May emails back in March, unless Michelle Manweiler is in possession of a time machine. So how do we explain this problem? Some might claim that maybe it was a computer glitch, that the printer had the wrong date when it printed the emails. Here is the problem with this theory - when is the last time you ever saw a computer with the date that messed up? That's not off by a matter of days, it would off by months.
In addition, the time stamp on the June email is correct for the time period that she would have received the June email, so we know her computer's clock wasn't glitched. Besides, do you really think Michelle Manweiler attended law school with a computer that was so screwed up it didn't even show the correct date? Of course not. On top of all this, I can actually prove that the March 12th printer time stamp is a true and correct time stamp. One of the reasons I can prove it is because one of the emails actually says it was sent to Manweiler on March 12th in the body of the email. So here's the proof of the true time stamp below.
You'll notice that the April and May email have the same exact time of print, versus the February email which shows it was printed mere minutes later. This is because the April and May email are actually one single email. If you put the April and May email together, they actually read as a single email. Both go over the same exact subject matter. More importantly however, they not only split a paragraph between the two emails but they also split a sentence between them.
If you put the May email in front of the April email and read it straight through from beginning to end, it reads as one single email all the way through. This proves beyond all doubt that the emails are not two separate emails sent on different months- they are actually the same email. Michelle Manweiler split them up to make it appear as though she had more emails in her possession than what she had actually received from me (thus prompting heavier response from law enforcement towards me).
In addition, this split when combined actually shows exculpatory evidence. I clearly state to Michelle Manweiler in that sentence that I'm not threatening violence against her, because I'm not the type of person to do that sort of thing to someone. By splitting this sentence between two supposedly separate emails, it hides evidence that actually proves I was never threatening violence against her - thus Manweiler was concealing evidence of my innocence on the felony charge through this act. This demonstrates Manweiler's criminal intent in her actions even further.
Returning to the emails, the two emails even say "page 2" and "page 3" out of a single email, thanks to Manweiler's printer having actually stamped this on the sheets. I believe Manweiler probably claimed page 1 as a separate email as well, and the prosecution just never gave it to my lawyer.
Michelle Manweiler put the April date on Page 3, while the May date is on Page 2 of the same email. In doing this, when someone reads the emails in chronological order it shuffles those two pages. This proves Manweiler was deliberately attempting to mislead any law enforcement reading these emails (thus knowingly committing a crime), because shuffling the pages out of order made it difficult to determine that you were actually reading the same email, unless you are paying close attention to what you are reading. As I mentioned earlier, there was exculpatory evidence towards me in this sentence that was split, and by shuffling the pages out of order Manweiler conveniently hid this evidence. So not only does her shuffling of these sheets show she was deliberately trying to hide her tampering, but it also shows she was hiding evidence proving she was never threatened physically by me.
This isn't the only evidence however showing that the April and May emails are one email (though you can't argue when both emails clearly read as one email when you put them together). Both the April and May emails also had the same Myspace message ID number. Every email you sent through Myspace had its own ID number. Here is the message ID number that Ms. Manweiler's printer stamped on the February 22nd email:
The message ID on the February email started with "35866767". Now here are the message ID stamps from the April and May emails:
As stated before, you can look at the "Evidence Against Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler) Part 2" to see the emails which will show where all these time stamps are located on the sheets. I didn't bother reposting the message ID number for the June email, but if you look back at that old post you'll see that the June email has a different message ID number from any of the other emails.
You can clearly see that the April and May emails both have a message ID number that starts with "44954452". This would of course be different from the February and June emails, since that is a separate email. But if the April and May emails were really separate emails, they should have different message ID numbers - not the same exact number. At the time that the legal dispute with Michelle Manweiler took place, Myspace was reaching the height of its popularity. It was advertised by Myspace that their users were sending a million plus messages a day to each other back in 2006. So how do two emails sent a month apart end up with the same message ID number?
Any of the Manweilers want to explain that one? What are the odds that with a million messages sent a day, Michelle Manweiler would have two emails a month apart with the same exact message ID number? Regardless of the extremely unlikely odds (you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery), the reality is that it would be completely impossible for two different messages to have the same exact ID given how computers work. You can't have two computer files sharing the same exact file name on your computer, and that's essentially what a message ID number would be for Myspace's servers. And how come the February and June emails have differing message ID numbers, but the "April" and "May" emails share the exact same number?
It's obvious to any competent person that with this evidence, it is clear that these were not separate emails sent to Michelle Manweiler - they were in fact a single email. So Manweiler clearly lied about about what dates these emails were sent to her, and she lied about them being separate emails. We can prove this without a doubt using the very emails Manweiler provided to law enforcement. Her own evidence proves both her criminal actions and the intent behind those actions.
So considering we can prove this is one email and not two, which date is the correct date for this single email? Is it April 7th or May 11th? The answer is neither date is correct. Remember Michelle Manweiler's printer time stamp that said she printed it on March 12, 2006? That is the correct date the email was sent to her. How can I prove that this time stamp is the correct date of the email? Because the email actually says it was sent to Michelle Manweiler on March 12th, as I'll prove below.
Please excuse some of the language below, and keep in mind this was directed at someone whose lies and actions in the past were a big part of making life as a teenager a living hell for me. I was not going to be nice to someone who would do the kind of things Manweiler had done to me, just as I am not being nice now to someone who lied to the police to have me slammed with a false felony and ridiculous punishments.
While this comment says that there was a bet with a friend over whether she would attempt to speak to me over her college spring break, the reality is there was never any such discussion or bet going on. I had made this statement because I was dropping a hint that I was open to talking this dispute over peacefully at the time. Despite having a lot of unresolved anger over the abuse Ms. Manweiler had leveled at me in the past, in 2006 I was still open to burying the hatchet in a peaceful manner had Ms. Manweiler made the effort back then.
I wasn't going to beg this woman to talk, but I was also aware at the time that my comments and anger wasn't likely to lead to any talks either. Given that my attempts of the past to politely ask Manweiler to talk it out only resulted in her spreading even more rumors, I never expected her to take the hint and talk it over anyway, regardless of whether I was nice or not in my comments. And deep down I'll admit that even back then I've wanted her to keep doing the same exact behavior she has always done, because it validated the anger I held towards her. Had she actually tried talking to me and cleared up all the things I had been told about her, it would have meant I spent years hating the woman for the wrong reasons. But the very validation of that deserved hatred I have towards her seems to be Michelle Manweiler's only true talent in life, as she consistently manages to do things that only prove me right about her and escalate the dispute further.
The emails back in 2006 were mostly a release valve for all that anger towards Manweiler. Unleashing all the hostility in a convenient and easy manner at the very target who caused it was actually surprisingly therapeutic at the time. By the time Ms. Manweiler had actually gotten around to contacting police after my final email, I had stopped even thinking of her and had felt far better about the dispute than I ever had before. Perhaps that was another reason for Manweiler's timing of her contact with police, maybe she saw I was losing interest in the dispute and knew she had to act quickly while she still possessed ammo to get back at me.
Returning back to the point, as you can see the email itself clearly states it was sent on a Sunday, specifically the Sunday at the end of spring break for UVA. Michelle Manweiler claims this email was sent to her on May 11, 2006 in her own handwritten notation on the email. The problem is that her claimed date doesn't even fall on a Sunday back in 2006 - May 11th was a Thursday. Go ahead and check that. Either use the calendar on your computer to look back at that year, or look up May 11, 2006 in a Google search. Here, I'll save you a bit of time:
In addition, everyone knows college students have their spring breaks in March - not in May. So I looked up when UVA's spring break occurred in 2006, and lo and behold I found a UVA class seminar list (posted in full earlier) from a Bio-mechanical engineering course; a list which would work perfectly for proving when spring break was in 2006. Every seminar was held on a Friday. The seminar list mentions no lecture on Friday March 10th because of Spring Break.
So spring break was indeed in March, not in May. Since Friday March 10th of 2006 was on spring break week, then that means that Sunday was March 12th 2006 - the exact date of the printer time stamp at the bottom of the email. Go ahead and check what days March 10th and March 12th fell on back in 2006. Once again I'll save you some time:
All of this proves beyond all doubt that the March 12, 2006 time stamp - and not Ms. Manweiler's handwritten claimed date of May 11th - is the correct date that the email was sent to her. She printed the email on the very same day she received it. She can't lie about the date anymore, when the email itself clearly says it was sent to her on a completely different date than what she claimed.
So we have Michelle Manweiler claiming false dates in her own handwriting, and we can prove these dates were lies using the very emails she provided to police herself. We can also prove it was not two emails, but page 2 and 3 of a single three page email. Does anyone think a high school valedictorian with a law degree from a flagship university would screw that up, especially on something she supposedly considered to be so important at the time? How convenient that this tampering just happened to help her sell a lie and get worse punishment inflicted on me. How convenient that writing these fake dates helped her hide how long she waited to go to police - which incidentally would have completely shot down her claim that these comments made her fear bodily harm.
This act by Ms. Manweiler becomes even more serious given the prosecution's threats. As posted before on this blog, the prosecution threatened me with a felony count for every email sent to Ms. Manweiler, and stated they would send me to the most violent prison in the area if I attempted to go to trial. A first felony charge gets a suspended sentence, but conviction on multiple counts mean spending years in prison. This threat was made because the prosecution knew Ms. Manweiler lied to them and compromised the evidence, so they did not wish for a trial where the risk was too great that Ms. Manweiler's actions would be uncovered (in addition to an act by the prosecutions that I'll discuss further in this blog).
Unfortunately I just didn't know what Ms. Manweiler had done to the emails at the time, and had no way to prove anything until after the legal dispute was resolved to my determent. This threat was also repeated by the prosecution when I attempted to fire my attorney due to his incompetence and unwillingness to do his job. Had the judge not accepted the plea deal, the prosecution stated they would also carry out the threat in that event.
Prosecutor Joe Platania stated that he would file a felony count for each email that Ms. Manweiler received. Given that I can prove Michelle Manweiler split up individual pages of singular emails and claimed them to be multiple emails, I could have potentially received multiple counts for what was in fact a single email. In turn this specific criminal act by Michelle Manweiler would have had a serious and direct impact on my life and personal safety had the prosecution carried out their threats.
Ms. Manweiler can't claim this was just a mistake either, since she actually paraphrases a comment in each specific email sheet when she writes what date it was sent to her. I don't know why Manweiler didn't use the exact quote, but it is blatantly clear she is paraphrasing a comment on the very sheet she writes the date on. So she clearly intended to claim these sheets were emails sent to her in April and May.
Again, that means without a doubt that Michelle Manweiler lied about what date this singular email was sent to her. Why did she do this? It is because she couldn't say that she was in fear of her safety, when the primary email claiming to be a threat of violence was actually sent to her back in March - and she didn't go to the cops until June. That is a considerable amount of time to wait when you claim you were so in fear of your safety. By claiming she received it in May, it places the incident closer to when she went to the cops and helps her sell a fake narrative to them. As I said, it is really hard to claim you believed you were in danger of bodily harm when you received the supposed threat back in March, and didn't do a single thing about it until June - after you had conveniently finished law school.
It also would completely shoot down the Charlottesville law enforcement's justification for taking a misdemeanor charge and arbitrarily bumping it up to a felony, though they didn't have justification for it even with the false May date. This is another reason Ms. Manweiler wanted to hide the length of time she actually waited, because as a lawyer she knew it would be much harder for law enforcement to justify their actions. Manweiler knows that Charlottesville has charged others who have violent criminal histories with misdemeanors on this charge, and I believe she was fully aware of this back in 2006.
Based on records for the court system in Virginia I seem to be the first in this state to get a felony for this charge, and certainly a first for Charlottesville. A guy with not even parking tickets, no history of violence, and was never even in this woman's presence since 1999 - that gets a misdemeanor bumped to a felony when no other individual in the entire state has ever deserved it? It is blatantly obvious what went on here, and the Manweiler family knows it. Hell they not only know it, they pulled strings to make it happen. Everyone around her knows what when on behind the scenes here, to deny it would be delusional when I appear to be the only person in Virginia with a felony for it.
When it comes to waiting from March to June to take action, and that over-dramatized victim impact statement, I guess all those loved ones Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler) claimed she believed were in such danger the entire time took LOW PRIORITY compared to getting that law degree wrapped up huh?
Think about this - let's say you received an email back in March that you believed to be a threat of bodily harm, and you not only believed it but feared for the safety of loved ones. Would you wait to go to the cops, to prevent that injury to you and your family, until June - after you graduated law school? I'm betting no one reading this blog would have waited as long as Michelle Manweiler. What kind of a nutjob would put people they care about in jeopardy of physical harm for months just to wait until it is convenient for them to do something? Clearly Ms. Manweiler's career is more important to her than the safety of her supposed loved ones, if she still claims to have been truthful in her victim impact statement.
So we are left with only two options here. Either Manweiler deliberately allowed people she claims to care about to remain in danger for far longer than necessary, until it suited her schedule to actually do something about it. Or she completely lied about her concerns to law enforcement and made it all up in her victim impact statement just to cause more harm to me - which means she absolutely knew there was no justification for the felony charge brought against me in her name. Neither of those two options are the actions of a mentally healthy individual.
I would never have waited so long to act if I actually believed my family or my life were in danger, but apparently I'm the "crazy" one here, despite all the evidence showing that Michelle Manweiler has serious mental issues. Just the evidence I have shown in this single post is proof on it's own that Michelle Manweiler deliberately altered the evidence she provided to the Charlottesville police. This is evidence she committed a criminal act by lying to police and the courts. She committed an act of criminal obstruction of a police investigation, just to get a false felony charge on a guy she didn't like. Someone has to be pretty twisted in the head to commit that level of criminal dishonesty just to get back at someone.
But of course Rick is just crazy right? Or maybe people on her side still denying her wrongdoing have the real issues here. Any person who would tamper with evidence and lie in court to get someone false charges has to have some very damaged wiring in their skull. Anyone who would support an individual that does this sort of thing has at the very least a massively screwed up moral compass themselves. I even demonstrated in a previous post how multiple sources (law enforcement and courts included) state that Manweiler had falsely claimed that I made in person contact with her in Charlottesville at her place of residence. Then she forgot the lie months later, and admitted in her victim statement that she was aware I never even knew where she lived the whole time. So she greatly inflated a story to prompt serious legal injury to someone, on charges she knew to be completely false, because she not only lied but tampered with the evidence to make that charge happen. That's mental illness folks, there isn't any way to dodge that.
Hell I could never do something like that to anyone, and yet this woman claims me to be Satan incarnate. So what does that make her? As an example: as much as I can't stand thieves, if someone burglarized my home, I wouldn't falsely claim the criminal pulled a gun on me or held me against my will. I definitely would not have a problem with the criminal getting a burglary charge, but I'm not going to make things up to get them charges they never committed. I'm also not going to have my parents pull strings to get someone to lean on law enforcement for heavy handed penalties that person doesn't deserve.
The punishment should fit the actual crime - that's all there is to it. Michelle Manweiler, by the prosecution's own admission, fully agreed with ridiculous terms of a plea deal that other lawyers described as "sick". Being that Michelle Manweiler is a lawyer herself she knows those terms are sick as well, she just doesn't give a damn since it personally benefited her. Yet I'm betting the hypocrite would try to claim she believes in equal punishment and equal protection in other cases - just not when it works out in her favor. When it plays out in her benefit, Manweiler is all too willing to look the other way. A man that Michelle Manweiler didn't like did not receive equal punishment due to her efforts (again, I appear to be the only person in VA with a felony for this), and she received protection far in excess of any other American simply because of her status (UVA student, lawyer, and with a banker father who was also a UVA alumni and donor to the university).
Michelle Manweiler's life is no more valuable than that of any other American citizen, yet the Charlottesville law enforcement and court system held her life as being more valuable than anyone else. Prosecutor Joe Platania admitted a 20 years good behavior sentence on a plea deal was the most ever handed out before in Charlottesville circuit court - a court that handles murders, manslaughters, rapes and molesters. None of those far greater crimes deserved 20 years tacked onto a plea deal, but sending emails to a woman who had never even been in my presence since 1999 earns that level of punishment. Michelle Manweiler received more protection than a raped woman or a molested child in Charlottesville - all because she was a UVA student and daddy has money. She should be ashamed of herself, but of course she is not.
Michelle Manweiler knows that my statements are true - she just couldn't care less that they are true. Like I said, she's a hypocrite and those who support her are at least equally hypocritical. Actually I'd say her supporters more so - after all Ms. Manweiler can claim her decisions are clouded by her anger and hate towards me. But those supporting her are doing it on nothing more than her word alone, while ignoring substantial evidence proving that she has done quite a bit of wrong.
More than a hypocrite however, a normal and mentally sound person wouldn't do what Michelle Manweiler has done. All of this lying, and all of the false statements to officials, was done just to get back at someone for a handful of angry emails - sent by a guy she never even laid eyes on until the preliminary hearing. A guy she made up stories about in the distant past that as a kid caused him to be harassed, bullied and mocked by others. And then she has the audacity to be angry that this person later lashed out at her for it. You can criticize me for lashing out so long after the fact, but none of you know what I went through because of this woman's lies back then, just as you have no idea the level of harm she has inflicted with those lies in 2006 and beyond.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Manweiler's behavior and choices have been quite sociopathic. Maybe she's a high functioning sociopath and this is what has allowed her to skate by for so long without getting caught. But I can't see Manweiler's ability to lie to police on the level of what she did in 2006, done without even the slightest bit of remorse or empathy on her part, and still have her be considered a mentally sound individual. I've never shied away from the fact that I certainly have my own issues, but clearly Michelle Manweiler needs a visit to a psychiatrist if she actually believes her actions this entire time have been okay.
Her actions and behavior have never been okay and never will be okay. These actions weren't done out of any desire to protect anyone as I've already pointed out, she instead made the choices she did out of pure viciousness. If she isn't capable of taking responsibility for what she has done, then as far as I'm concerned she has deserved every bad thing that has happened to her and far worse. Why should I feel bad about the things I've done to her, when she has never felt bad about any of the mean and vindictive things she's done to me since the start of this fight?
One thing about the evidence presented here that I'm interested in following up on, involves a suspicion I have about the Charlottesville prosecution. I've stated before that it is my firm belief that prosecutors Joseph Platania and Warner Chapman became aware of Manweiler's evidence tampering during the case. That is just one of the reasons they threatened me into the charge, but it is a pretty big reason. If there was a trial and Manweiler's tampered evidence was presented to a jury, there is a substantial chance that the tampering would be spotted by someone on the jury. Once it was spotted and pointed out the entire case would unravel - especially since Manweiler deleted evidence on her end and the Charlottesville law enforcement claimed they damaged my hard drive. They would then have to dismiss the charges due to their incompetence and lack of untampered evidence, opening up legal repercussions via a civil suit from me against the city. The entire Charlottesville law enforcement would also be publicly embarrassed after being tricked by a law school student.
Avoiding a trial by denying my civil rights helps prevent this problem. If I hadn't caved to the threat at the time and a trial was certain, Joe Platania and Warner Chapman would be left with only one option to avoid Manweiler's tampering of evidence being seen by a jury. They would have to commit a crime by removing the evidence of Michelle Manweiler's tampering. The March 12th time stamp and the "To Rick" errors at a minimum would have to be removed by the prosecution. By hiding evidence of Michelle Manweiler's crime, Platania and Chapman would face serious consequences if caught in an act of obstruction just to continue their prosecution of me. They faced far more than just lawsuits if anyone caught them in the act, and understandably they would want to avoid having to cover up for Manweiler to that extent. There is just one thing however - I believe both prosecutors committed this criminal act anyway.
There was a grand jury hearing, and the evidence also had to be present to the presiding judge. This increases the chance of Ms. Manweiler's tampering being detected. But not if the evidence I presented in this post had been removed before the emails were shown to any of these parties. It is my firm belief that the district attorney's office of Charlottesville removed evidence of Manweiler's tampering to avoid their mistake being discovered, thus making both prosecutors guilty of a criminal act. One way of discovering the truth of this is to see the evidence as it was presented in court, and there may be an excellent source of these documents.
When I viewed my circuit court file after my release from probation, I saw a manila envelope that was physically sealed under a judge's order. I believe the evidence presented in court by Joe Platania is within this envelope, and I'm very interested in seeing the contents. I have overwhelming proof to show the discrepancies I've demonstrated in this blog were present on the original evidence given to my lawyer by the prosecution.
As I've said before on this blog, my former attorney was an idiot but he was an idiot in love with his own voice, and he freely admits on tape to all of the claims I've made. My mother confronted him about the time stamps and the "To Rick" issue, and he confesses on tape that these are present on the emails he received from the prosecution. If I see that these discrepancies are missing from the evidence Joe Plantia presented in court, I have more than enough to present to the state attorney general's office and the media. I would at that point not cease until criminal charges were brought against both Joseph Platania and Warner Chapman.
You're probably thinking it is a bad idea to announce an intention like this. I am completely unconcerned however, just as I'm not concerned about showing some of the evidence proving Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler) tampered with the evidence she presented to the police. In the case of the evidence against Michelle Manweiler, she has no ability to explain away any of my evidence, and I have more than enough proof thanks to my lawyer that these issues existed on the emails. As for the evidence sitting in that envelope in my court file, that is sealed by a judge's order. Platania and Chapman cannot access what is in that envelope without requesting a judge to unseal it. Whether this involves a hearing or is done through written motions filed in court, the fact is that this leaves a paper trail. People would question why the prosecution suddenly needed to access the original court evidence years after the case ended, and only after I brought up the accusation against them. There would be some explaining to do on the part of Warner Chapman and Joe Platania.
This criminal case against me and the actions of the Charlottesville law enforcement were not some grand conspiracy or any nonsense like that. Yes, Charlottesville demonstrates blatant and clear favoritism towards UVA students and nobody bats an eye. The Andrew Alsten verdict shows that rather clearly. However, hiding evidence of a student's criminal act, especially when it shows incompetence by law enforcement, is a completely different matter. The reality is that Michelle Manweiler's criminal act was known only by a handful of people - the very people who stood to lose big if anyone else found out.
It is probable that the only people in the Charlottesville law enforcement who knew of Michelle Manweiler's tampering of evidence were the following: prosecutors Warner Chapman and Joe Platania, Detective Nicolas Rudman, Rudman's police supervisor, and potentially the chief of police at the time Timothy Longo. These individuals stood to personally gain from hiding Michelle Manweiler's tampering of evidence, and they also stand to lose considerably if her actions were ever revealed publicly. I do not believe that anyone in the court system outside of these five individuals ever knew of Manweiler's tampering, or of the subsequent cover-up to hide her actions.
It's really easy to pull off a stunt like this when the only people who know about it control all the evidence, and are the very people who would suffer if any of this came out. But if Joe Platania and Warner Chapman try to get at the evidence within the envelope without a judge's order (the only way they can avoid the paper trail), they would have to start pulling other people into their machinations. The more people that get involved, the more likely that something will go wrong. They would have to involve the clerk at the court for example. And if that clerk doesn't want to commit an act that could bring legal consequences, Chapman and Platania have no other recourse than to request the judge unseal it (thus leaving that paper trail).
What would the prosecution even do were they able to get that envelope open? Years ago I contacted detective Rudman and was informed the evidence against me that was in the police and prosecution's possession was disposed of in less than a year. So the prosecution no longer has access to the original evidence. I certainly wouldn't hand them what I have, and attempting to execute a search warrant on me would not only result in them not obtaining the originals, but would again result in a paper trail along with attention from the media. And I would definitely take advantage of that attention from the media to push forward this case, which is not something beneficial to the Charlottesville law enforcement or the Manweiler family. Michelle Manweiler likely doesn't have the original evidence anymore either. Even if she did, it would be very stupid of Manweiler to help the prosecution.
At the moment it is probable that no criminal charges could be brought against Michelle Manweiler for her actions in 2006 after all this time. If the prosecutors were criminally charged for covering up her crime in 2006, none of that would cause Manweiler to receive any criminal charges related to their actions. However, were she to aid the prosecutors with obstruction by altering court records, and the prosecutors were caught in the act, Manweiler could at that point potentially face criminal consequences for aiding them. Ms. Manweiler's status as a lawyer would work against her, as she could not claim ignorance of the criminality of the act. It would be idiotic of Michelle Manweiler to aid the prosecution in manipulating any documentation within court files. While Manweiler certainly has made many dumb decisions involving this dispute, I can't see her sticking her neck out to protect prosecutors who were pointing the finger of blame at her and her family during the 2006 case. Ms. Manweiler apparently only cares about herself and her career, and I don't see her endangering either for her family let alone for two prosecutors.
Even if the prosecution managed to replace the emails to show the missing discrepancies again, how does that not still work out in my favor? If the emails in the court case file show "To Rick" and the March 12th time stamp, that proves the case of negligence against law enforcement for not noticing something that blatant. In either scenario the emails in that envelope would work in my favor. So no, I'm not worried about mentioning this on here. Not to mention that the contents of that envelope will not influence the plans I have regardless of the result.
In addition to the evidence against Michelle Manweiler, I wanted to include some additional pieces of evidence that further backup the things I've claimed. One such claim involves the psychiatric evaluation that the judge ordered for the bond hearings.
At the first bond hearing, the judge presiding over it in the district court ordered an evaluation before he would make any decision. A psychiatrist was brought in who had an impressive resume, a psychiatrist that even the prosecution used often (ironic given prosecutor Joe Platania's rather pathetic attempts to challenge the psychiatrist's competency). I discussed the entire history of this dispute with the psychiatrist, every last detail.
My former attorney told me that the psychiatrist's exact words to him over the phone were "He's as harmless as an amoeba". The psychiatrist continued to keep in touch with my mother about the progress of the case. He was very bothered when he heard what the prosecution and Manweilers were doing, his comment to my mother was "They are just causing more harm and making things worse" (funny how everyone else was smart enough to see that except Ms. Valedictorian). The psychiatrist was upset enough about the situation that he asked my mother to bring me by his office after my release so he could talk to me. At his office he told me about a friend of his who received a felony after a mistake made a long time ago in his past. The friend's comment about his felony was "It's just a blip on the oscilloscope of life, it doesn't define who I am". A close family friend who lived down the road from my parents made a similar comment in 2006 about the term felon - "Tell him that's just a label, that doesn't make him who he is".
Neither of those comments provided any help to me, though I appreciate the efforts. The problem is that the false felony Ms. Manweiler created through her lies hasn't been her only attempt to define me to other people. Throughout high school I had to put up with her claiming things that never took place. I walked around with another false label hung around my neck through her lies, all because she was too much of an arrogant ass to simply talk it out peacefully.
Then, as I've demonstrated above, her lies slapped another false label on me that everyone has been judging me by whenever they learn of it. I had my mugshot flashed across a TV screen while ridiculous claims were made about me. My name was dragged through the mud. Even to this day, I continue to deal with problems thanks to the label of "Felon" plastered to my forehead. If I'm going to be labeled as something I wasn't by the Manweiler family, and have everyone else judge me because of that label no matter what I do, then I wonder if maybe I should be the very monster Ms. Manweiler has been portraying me as in her fairy tales.
The kid that Michelle Manweiler had hammered by law enforcement in 2006 was never a threat to her or anyone around her, the "monster" was all in her own head at the time. But perhaps it would help if I actually posted the psychiatrist's own words, rather than just claiming it without evidence. I debated heavily whether I wanted to include this entry. It is very personal information obviously. But as I said, I need to show what he said, not just claim it. Not to mention that as I recall, the entire report is part of the paperwork stored in my court file when I went through it years ago. So this information is already public anyway unfortunately.
Another piece of evidence I wanted to include comes from my former lawyer's notes, it involves claims I made in my post "The Long War" about the history of this situation. In particular, my lawyer wrote down where I told him about the contact I received during Ms. Manweiler's time at William and Mary.
I mentioned in the Long War post that an event occurred while the dispute during Manweiler's William and Mary years was in full swing. I received messages through AOL instant messenger from someone claiming they were attending college with Michelle Manweiler. They issued a warning to me that Ms. Manweiler give my address to some guys who were threatening to attack me, along with this individual passing on an insult Manweiler made about something I revealed to her that happened in high school. This individual had information on the dispute that certainly showed they were someone who at least had some knowledge of the fight.
My mother believes it was Michelle Manweiler who was actually contacting me to threaten me indirectly, though I'm not quite convinced of this. Michelle Manweiler prefers letting others do her dirty work for her, and has never had the backbone to directly engage me in a conversation like the kind I took part in with this individual. Ms. Manweiler's threats and insults towards me have only ever come when she is able to hide behind others. Hell I've never had a conversation with this woman that lasted more than 30 seconds, so if this person was actually Manweiler then that messenger talk would be a record.
Even her comments on this blog have amounted to nothing more than her attempting to leave an anonymous insult, she didn't even have the guts to sign her name on the comment. Her actions have always been the complete opposite of mine - I have never said anything to or about Manweiler that I wouldn't say to her face, and I have never once tried to hide behind anonymity. Every time I said something to her online there was never a moment where I didn't clearly identify myself. Returning to the subject of the person contacting me, there was never a moment during the conversation where I thought "This has to be Michelle Manweiler". Regardless of the identity of this individual, I took this threat of violence from Manweiler seriously. After all it wasn't the only time she's ever tried to threaten me physically, as I detailed in the Long War post.
I told my former attorney about this incident back in 2006, and I even brought it up in the emails I was sending to Michelle Manweiler during that time. My lawyer recorded it in his notes, though once again I'm angered by the fact that he apparently wasn't paying attention to anything I said to get the information correct. I didn't receive an email, I engaged with this informant via a chat messenger program. Then again, Johnson likely never even used programs like that in 2006 and probably only knew what Myspace was through news reports, so maybe the fool had no understanding of what I was even talking about. The part about Manweiler contacting the male friends of hers seems to be saying she sent an email to them. This is massively incorrect and again another piece of evidence showing just how little my former attorney actually listened to me. I was informed by the individual who contacted me that this was a face-to-face conversation Ms. Manweiler had with these male friends.
As you can see, what I relayed in The Long War post was not something new - I've been talking about it for years. The simple fact is that Michelle Annette Dickerman (Manweiler) is the first and only one of us who has threatened violence against the other person in this dispute in 2006. The first time I was ever blatantly threatened with physical violence by Michelle Manweiler was back in high school. It was when I asked her to meet me in the school library (full of witnesses) so we could talk this dispute over peacefully. Manweiler decided to show up with eight guys in tow and pretended to do homework while these guys sat at the table with her as guards. There is only one statement that can be made when you have eight male friends guarding you after I asked you to meet with me for a discussion. It was as blatant of a violent threat as it gets, and that's exactly what I believed it to be at the time in 12th grade.
After we graduated and butted heads while she was at William and Mary, I received the second threat of violence originating from Ms. Manweiler. I took the threat seriously, to the point that I changed many of my routines and habits, and exercised much more caution when walking my dog in my own neighborhood. With the officer handling the case refusing to listen to anything I said to him, I had no recourse other than to be more vigilant about my safety. As I said, Michelle Manweiler is the first and only individual in this dispute to ever make violent threats of physical harm when the legal dispute of 2006 occurred.
Then in 2006 Ms. Manweiler went to the police with a false story. She lied to the police with the intent of causing substantial damage to my life with the evidence she manipulated, and as far as I'm concerned she committed an act of physical violence against me in doing this. Siccing police on a person is frankly a violent act, you are using the threat of government violence and force against another person to gain compliance. Using police as a tool to harm another person while lying the entire time about what actually took place, makes this an act of violence committed by Manweiler and her family. Manweiler's violent act of 2006 didn't just permanently scar me (mentally and physically) and wreck my life, it has scarred members of my family and deeply affects them to this day. This makes her the first and only one of us in this dispute to actually inflict physical and violent harm on the other party. The fact that Michelle Manweiler has committed a violent act causing genuine physical harm to me and my family is not something I'm going to forget or let go, anymore than I'm going to forget the violence she has threatened against me more than once in the past.
So given the rather blatant tampering of the emails and the fact my lawyer noticed it, the first question that is raised is why he decided not to do something about it. This is actually an easy thing to understand once you know what kind of individual William Johnson is and what his actions were during the case. I plan on discussing this in an additional write-up, as this post is quite long already and I don't wish to delay it any further. I'm not going to give a timeline for when I'll publish that write-up, but I don't intend on it being as long as this post so hopefully I'll be able to get it out in a reasonable time frame.
The old post follows below:
This post relates to the fact that there are two posts on evidence against Michelle Annette Dickerman (Manweiler), both a Part 1 and a Part 2. Please read for additional information.
Part 1 merely shows proof that Ms. Manweiler has been visiting my blog so that readers didn't think I was just being paranoid. Part 2 however involves the criminal evidence against Michelle Annette Manweiler - evidence that would have sent Ms. Manweiler to jail had it been discovered during the criminal case against me in 2006. This evidence still could send Ms. Manweiler to jail. Keep in mind that I have not included all that I have against this person. The documents and evidence I have posted on this blog are merely a small portion of what I have, as I'm not about to give my whole hand away. I have only showed enough evidence in Part 2 to prove that I'm not just blowing smoke about having criminal evidence against Ms. Manweiler.
Here is the listing for the two parts so that others can easily locate both sections:
Evidence Against Michelle Manweiler: Part 1 - Evidence showing Michelle Annette Manweiler has been viewing this blog.
Evidence Against Michelle Manweiler: Part 2 - Evidence of Michelle Annette Manweiler's crime that could potentially send her to jail even to this day. In this post I have demonstrated that I have proof that Ms. Manweiler fabricated the evidence she provided to the Charlottesville Police in order to get false charges brought against me. This is the second time she made false statements to police. The first time involves physical evidence, witnesses and even a police report.