Read Me First!
Stratagems of the Devil: How Florida Prosecutors Created and Used Some of the Most Dangerous MeToo False Accusers in the World
Stratagem: an elaborate or deceitful scheme contrived to deceive or evade. Basically, it consists of a method and an effect. The effect is what you see. The method is the secret behind the effect and allows the effect to take place. Magicians know this by another name: Conjuring Trick.
It has been said that when you write your first book you should write about something you know. This is my attempt. I know the subject well.
I am in the process of writing, Stratagems of the Devil: How Florida Prosecutors Created and Used Some of the Most Dangerous MeToo False Accusers in the World. It is a true story based upon what happened to me. Here is a very short summary:
Juanita Meek was my girlfriend of 21 months. We had a kinky type of sexual relationship. She had sexual fantasies that we would engage in which included bondage, sex with multiple partners simulated rape, simulating enemas and other such type of fantasies. Sometimes I would verbalize these fantasies to her while we were having sex and sometimes we would act them out utilizing sex toys.
Between March, 1994 and December, 1995 Juanita wrote me numerous letters. Some of these letters included the following statements:
"I've never known love, trust, devotion and unbridled passion like we've had ...I've never loved and trusted anyone with my secrets and fantasies before, and I never will again."
"I've longed for a relationship and a love like we have for a long time. Please don't let your fears destroy what we have."
"I can only hope that we don't become complacent ...I promise you I will always try and keep our love new and alive...You know me and my oral fixation, but I wanted to taste your skin and feel you in my mouth."
"I feel for the first time in my life I have the person who is capable of giving me the kind of love and the relationship I've always craved."
"It's kind of like starving to death and someone gives you one bite of food. I need an entire meal now and regular feedings. If you get my drift." ..."Even though I like sexual dominance, I rebel strongly against being dominated anywhere else."
"I've left my husband, my home, my child, my possessions, I'm planning to leave my home town, my family, my friends, and everything that's been a part of my life for 45 years to be with you. All of this I've done freely and of my own free will, because I love you that much. I've changed my views on a relationship, on living with someone, and yes even marriage because of my love for you ...we keep tearing at each other and chipping away at the most incredible relationship I've ever had."
"I don't know what I would ever do if you cheated on me. In spite of the fact that I've cheated with you I think it is an incredibly shitty thing to do."
During the early morning hours of December 14, 1995 Juanita discovered I was having an affair on her with a woman by the name of Paula Robertson. Paula was just as kinky as Juanita. Juanita broke up with me and I called her repeatedly, trying to convince her to come back to me.
On Saturday, December 16, 1995 Juanita faxed me a letter from where she worked. She was letting me know, in writing, the relationship was over. The letter contained a blatant threat and warning. It stated: "Please don't do things to make me get you into trouble and you know that I can," and added, "Please don't make me add to your problems."
Not to be deterred, I continued to repeatedly call and pester Juanita until she agreed to come back to me.
On December 25, 1995 Juniata Meek came to my apartment in Largo, Florida. There we acted out one of her sexual fantasies. This included giving her a typed letter that we referred to as "Last Night" which was the name we had given to this particular fantasy. This Last Night fantasy letter outlined the night's activities and was designed to put Juanita in the mindset of the fantasy. The fantasy also included tying her to a bed; performing various sex acts on her; giving her a simulated enema; and photographing the encounter. Juanita said she wanted the photos taken so she could use them later as a source of sexual arousal when she was alone and masturbated.
The very next morning Juanita Meek strolled into the Largo Police Department in Largo, Florida with her friend, Linda Sheppard in tow. Juanita told Detective Joan Short that I lured her to my apartment where I pulled a knife on her, tied her to a bed, inserted an enema tube into her rectum, photographed her, and repeatedly raped her. She also asserted that she cut her thumb on the knife when she reached up and grabbed it. As proof, Juanita gave Detective Short the fantasy letter without telling Short what the letter was. Significantly there was nothing typed on the letter indicating the name of the fantasy or the letter was called or named "Last Night." As you will see that fact becomes important later when Juanita Meek is deposed.
Largo Police Officers Leonard Ward and John Ferraro then came to my apartment to arrest me. I, however, was not there; I had left my apartment and walked to the Boston Market for lunch. The Boston Market was just an intersection away from my apartment. I left the door unlocked when I left.
Ward and Ferraro knocked on my door but received no answer. They then entered my unlocked apartment looking for me. When they could not find me they searched the apartment and found the tom bed sheets tied to the bed that I used to tie Juanita and the photographs I took of her which were in a drawer of a night stand. They then summoned Detective Short to the scene. They had a problem.
Ward and Ferraro had entered my apartment and searched it without lawful authority, legal justification or my consent. They had to do something.
In order to cover up their illegal entry and search Ward and Ferraro conspired to manufacture that I ran from them and they believed I ran into my apartment which gave them "exigent circumstances" to enter the apartment without a warrant to search for me, only looking under the bed and in the closet.
Detective Short then went to see Pinellas County, Florida Assistant State Attorney Magda McSwain to have McSwain draft a search warrant and supporting sworn affidavit for Short to sign, utilizing the manufactured evidence that I ran from police as one of the grounds for obtaining the warrant. A Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge then issued the warrant and Short went back to my apartment and seized the evidence which had previously been discovered by Ward and Ferraro.
On December 27, 1995 Detective Short received a police report where I had been arrested and charged with the false imprisonment and rape of Brenda XXXX in 1993. The charges were dropped because the State Attorney for Manatee County, Florida did not believe he could ever prove I raped Brenda, because the State Attorney did not believe a reasonable juror would believe Brenda and the facts of the case indicated at least a strong probability that she consented, including the fact that Brenda admitted to having an orgasm. The police report also noted that 1) Brenda initially said nothing about being raped, and 2) Brenda claimed a female had called her and "asked her if she had considered dropping the charges." The call was recorded. There was no threats or coercion. It was simply a question. Police even knew who made the phone call, from what number, and where it originated but they did not even pursue any type of action against this person because this person did nothing wrong. To this day I still do not know who this person was.
Juanita Meek had second thoughts about what she had done. On December 27, 1995 Juanita called my 1-800 number and left the following message on my answering service. "Gary, this is Juanita. Please call me we have to talk." The time that she called was logged on my 1-800 inbound phone bill.
Sometime after that phone call to me, Juanita Meek contacted Detective Short and asked the detective to drop her complaint. Largo Police, however, were already in over their heads with manufacturing that I ran from them and covering up their illegal entry and initial search of my apartment. Short could not just let Juanita drop her complaint; the State Attorney would not now let her do so, especially since McSwain drafted a warrant and affidavit based upon falsified information. There would simply be too many questions which could not be answered without revealing what police had done which would open up a whole new can of worms.
Detective Short had to do something. In an attempt to terrify Juanita and ensure that she would continue with her complaint Detective Short, and quite possibly prosecutors, informed Juanita that I ran from police when they came to arrest me; that I had been charged with these crimes before and had coerced and frightened other people; and told her that I may try to kill her if released. Short never informed Juanita why previous charges were not pursued and that no one had coerced or threatened BH.
Detective Short's attempts at influencing Juanita Meek worked, probably better than Detective Short had ever hoped. Juanita Meek was now not only scared to death but was now adamantly pursuing charges against me. What Short and prosecutors did not count on was Juanita letting that cat out of the bag during a Bond Reduction Hearing on January 2, 1996. Unfortunately my attorney failed to notice what Juanita said at the time she said it.
After Juanita called and left that message on December 27th I tried to call her. She did not answer her phone and did not return my calls. Unbeknownst to me Juanita had already talked to Detective Short and was now scared to death of me.
On December 28, 1995 I gave Detective Short a tape recorded statement wherein I asserted that I, in concert with Juanita Meek, acted out one of her sexual fantasies which consisted of giving her a fantasy letter to put her in the mindset of the fantasy; tying her to a bed, doing various sexual things to her including giving her a simulated enema, and photographing her. I further asserted that Juanita was lying about being raped; and that her thumb was cut as a result of an accident that occurred in the kitchen. I told police that Juanita Meek had numerous sexual fantasies that she shared with me and that we acted upon them. Detective Short accused me of lying to her. She also accused me of running from police when they came to arrest me and I called them a liar, asserting that I ran from no one and had no idea what they were talking about. I told them that I went to lunch and when I returned police were already in my apartment; that I sat on a picnic table and watched them search it; and that I left the area and called an attorney, further explaining why I called one.
I was then promptly placed under arrest.
Detective Short transcribed my tape recorded statement. In doing so she conveniently failed to transcribe over an hour and a half of it leaving crucial and critical portions omitted from the transcribed version. Pinellas County prosecutors were well aware she did this and were well aware of this omitted material. Prosecutors knowingly withheld the omitted material from my attorney. (I obtained copies of the original tape recording of my statement following trial from the Largo P.D., which clearly contain the omitted portions. When I wrote to the Largo Police Department and questioned them about this an LPD Captain responded and indicated I was correct and that the Captain had "no explanation for this.").
Largo Police Officers Leonard Ward and John Ferraro asserted in their written reports - which were not completed until after I gave my statement to Detective Short, and asserted in deposition and again at my trial that I ran from them and that this gave them "exigent circumstances" to enter my apartment without a search warrant. They claimed they did not conduct any type of search until after they obtained a search warrant. Assistant State Attorneys Robert Lewis and Magda McSwain used this testimony at my criminal trial to argue in their closing arguments that I ran because I was guilty.
There was just one problem.
Ward and Ferraro lied. They outright lied and prosecutors Lewis and McSwain knew they were lying and not only allowed them to lie, they capitalized on these lies in their closing arguments.
How do I know they lied and prosecutors knew they were lying?
Following trial I obtained the official Largo Police Call Notes. The call notes were exculpatory and withheld from my attorney by the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office, specifically Assistant State Attorneys Robert Lewis and Magda McSwain. These call notes clearly show that police were instructed to make contact with me; that they entered my apartment; that they then radio "Subject appears to be GOA;" and that they then conducted a warrantless search wherein they discovered "evidence."
"GOA" stands for Gone On Arrival of police. If I am already gone on arrival of police I obviously cannot be running from them. The call notes further disclose that no one runs from anyone at any time. The call notes specifically read in relevant part:
12:46:29 Code three on 5 - Bottom Floor Apt. - Prevent anyone from leaving the Apt. per S6.12:59:14 Units moving in to make contact.13:01:13 Units inside the apt - Appears clear so far.13:02:42 Door was unlocked per 38 - apt number is confirmed.13:03:23 Requesting more units.13:05:43 162 apt secure.13:07:41 Subject appears to be GOA.13:08:39 Appears to be beige stuff attached to headboard - photographing.
(Emphasis added).
Police then searched the neighborhood for me because they have no idea where I went.
What really happened per the call notes was that Officer Ward and Officer Ferraro were instructed to make contact with me at my apartment. Thinking I was inside but not answering my door they entered my apartment without lawful authority, legal justification or my consent. Once they found out I was not there they requested more units because they had no idea where I went. They then realized I was gone by the time they arrived at my apartment hence the broadcast that I was "GOA."
Ward and Ferraro then conducted a warrantless search of my apartment finding the beige colored bed ties tied to the headboard and the photographs of Juanita Meek which were in the drawer of a bedroom night stand. Well aware they now have a problem and must explain why they entered my apartment and searched it without a warrant, Ward and Ferraro summoned Detective Short to the scene and the three of them conspired together to manufacture that I ran from Ward and Ferraro in order to cover up their illegal entry of my apartment, cover up their illegal search of my apartment, and cover up their illegal discovery of "evidence" within my apartment.
Dirty crooked cops doing dirty crooked deeds and doing them dirty crooked cheap! Welcome to the Largo Police Department and the Pinellas County, Florida State Attorney's Office.
On January 2, 1996 Juanita Meek appeared at my Bond Reduction Hearing. I was not present. It was here, during this Bond Reduction Hearing, that Juanita Meek let the cat out of the bag:
JUANITA MEEK: Your Honor, I would like for you to know I feel Gary is a very dangerous man. I've known him for some time, and I did not know this man apparently. It's true I did come to his apartment on Christmas night, but in no way did I have any kind of idea he would ever do what he did to me. He has violated me in the most unspeakable ways you can imagine.
I'm terrified if he gets out he may do it again or worse, or worse, or possible kill me. I'm terrified of him. I have been hiding at my mother's. He ran from the police when they came to arrest him and I was hiding for several days until he came in.
THE COURT: Tell me about how he ran from the police.
JUANITA MEEK: They came to arrest him and he ran.
THE COURT: Where was that?
JUANITA MEEK: In Largo.
THE COURT: In his place?
JUANITA MEEK: Yes...Gary has been charged with these crimes before and from what I have been told has coerced or frightened other people.
THE COURT: So you had some sort of prior relationship with him prior to this incident?
JUANITA MEEK: Yes, I did.
THE COURT: And you all had broke up?
JUANITA MEEK: I had broke up with him two weeks prior and came up at Christmas. He asked me to come up so he didn't have to be alone. And we were going to discuss some financial matters and talk about it as adults and part as friends is what the premise was. And I came up there for that reason.
THE COURT: And he held you against you will for how long?
JUANITA MEEK: It started -- I came there and I stayed, I was going to stay overnight there. I had come there and he had -- I would have, I don't know, maybe I shouldn't be saying all this, I don't know, telling him stuff that they don't want me to yet, but I went to bed, and when we went to bed he produced a letter, said he wanted me to read this letter.
And in this letter he's telling me these things that he's going to do to me. He's going to have his way. He's going to be in control. I've been in control of this relationship all along and now he's in control. He's going to hurt me. This was not making love.
I offered to make love to him and I told him that he didn't have to do it this way, this was not necessary for him to do this. And he proceeded to pin me down. And I fought him. I scratched him and fought him and bit him. He proceeded to pull a knife out of the side drawer of the table and hold it to my throat and tied me and did unspeakable things to me.
THE COURT: How long did he keep you in the apartment?
JUANITA MEEK: I stayed through the night because I was afraid he would do it again. He untied me and I stayed the next morning. I was going to work and I convinced him I would come back the following night, that everything would be okay and we would work on the relationship.
THE COURT: And you reported it then?
JUANITA MEEK: Yes. When I left I went straight to the police department.
THE COURT: Well, these are not death penalty offenses so he will see the light of day. Even if he's convicted he'll be getting out.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: When [Mr. Perrot] turned himself in there were no scratches on him or bite marks. The police were informed that he was bitten on his chest. They took photographs. There were no marks on his chest.
(Emphasis added).
Clearly Juanita Meek had been fed facts and information in an attempt to influence her. And clearly, if convicted, I was supposed to get out of prison. Moreover, there were no marks on me as Juanita Meek testified.
I did not obtain these bond hearing transcripts until well after my trial was over and as a product of my own investigation.
On January 4, 1996 Juanita Meek completed a written statement. In it she stated in part, "On December 14, 1995 I told Gary Perrot I wasn't going to see him anymore and that I didn't want to talk to him. I told him that I would never have a sexual relationship with him again. He continued to call and pressure me to reconsider..."
On January 7, 1996 according to jail records, Stacey Binning came to see me in the county jail. Stacey lived in my apartment complex directly across from me. Stacey, Juanita and I would routinely sit out by the complex pool, go swimming together, talk and generally have a good time. Sometimes we talked about sex, kinky sex, bondage and fantasies.
Stacey informed me that she had entered my apartment just after the police had finished with it and emptied the trash cans and cleaned it up a little from the mess the police made. She told me the police returned and ran her out. She said she thought I might need to know this.
I asked Stacey to call Juanita, telling Stacey that Juanita had called me on December 27th and left a message on my answering service telling me we needed to talk. I later called Stacey. Stacey told me that she talked to Juanita and Juanita said she tried to drop the charges but police told her she could not do so. Juanita also told Stacey that police also told her that I had been charged with rape before; that I might try and kill her if released; that the State was out to get me; and that she was afraid of me. Paula Robertson also talked to Stacey and Stacey told her much of the same thing.
On January 16, 1996 Assistant State Attorney Magda McSwain talked with Juanita Meek during the State Attorney's Investigation. Juanita Meek told McSwain that she never had any sexual secrets or sexual fantasies; that she never acted out any sexual fantasies; that all the sexual fantasies were mine; that she broke up with me two weeks before Christmas and we never got back together; that I lured her to my apartment under the pretext of discussing some money that I owed her; and that what happened Christmas night was not a sexual fantasy of hers but was a rape.
McSwain wrote in her Investigative Report that she, "discussed extensively the difficulties with this case with Ms. Meek and Ms. Meek understands it looks bad, and that it will be a one on one kind of description because hers is not the traditional rape situation but she is adamant that it happened this way. I believe that this is pretty much how it happened and she was pretty well taken in by him in this relationship and she was probably subject to his whims." (Emphasis added).
McSwain's statements show that McSwain was well aware that there were some very serious problems in the case and with Juanita Meek's allegations and that even McSwain had some doubts.
In order to strengthen their case, beginning on or about January 18, 1996 and continuing until approximately February 26, 1996 and unbeknownst to me at the time, prosecutors Robert Lewis, Magda McSwain and investigator Scott Hopkins from the Pinellas County, Florida State Attorney's Office, and Detective Joan Short from the Largo Police Department, tracked down and contacted my ex-wives and ex-girlfriends including my last ex-wife, Elizabeth George, as well as Paula Robertson, the woman I was having the affair with. In an attempt to terrify these individuals and obtain their cooperation through fear and camaraderie, Lewis, McSwain, Hopkins and Short informed these individuals, at a minimum, that I had been charged with rape before and escaped punishment; that I was dangerous; that I ran from police when they came to arrest me for raping Juanita Meek; that I may try to kill Ms. Meek if released, and that they wanted to put me away for the rest of my life and they needed their help to do it. They then spoon-fed these individuals the details of what Juanita Meek told police I allegedly did to her. In other words they leaked information to these individuals that was not made public.
First, where I had previously been arrested no charges were filed or the charges were dropped because, after a thorough investigation, the Assistant State Attorney involved did not believe he could prove any of the allegations because the facts of the case revealed that the alleged victim consented, might very well have consented, that no reasonable juror would believe the alleged victim or believe her allegations; and/or that the allegations "were false in nature to begin with." In spite of this, these corrupt prosecutors and Detective Short never told any of my ex-wives and ex-girlfriends, Juanita Meek or Paula Robertson the truth about why the previous charges were not pursued. Significantly, not a single one of these previous arrests occurred in Pinellas County, Florida which merely goes to show just how dirty and corrupt Pinellas County State Attorneys and police really are. Second, you now know that I ran from no one and the police lied when they said I did. Prosecutors knew this too but they still lied to my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Paula Robertson telling them that I ran from police. Third, I had no reason to want Juanita Meek or anyone else dead and killing her or anyone else would have only added to my problems. It was really a stupid thing for police and prosecutors to tell Ms. Meek, my ex's and Paula Robertson but it was effective none-the-less.
Lewis, McSwain, Hopkins and Short then inquired if I had ever done anything similar to these individuals including Paula Robertson, assuring them if I had and they would testify against me that prosecutors would guarantee their locations and addresses would remain secret and free from disclosure. Each and every one of these individuals, now scared to death by prosecutors and knowing I would never know where they were located, said that I had. Yet, there is not a single conviction, there is not a single arrest, there is not a single police report, and there is not a single piece of paper that exists anywhere which supports any of their allegations.
On February 13, 1995 I was officially charged with Kidnapping, Four Counts of Armed Sexual Battery and Witness Tampering on Juanita Meek.
On February 26, 1996 prosecutors blocked the jail phones so I could not call Paula Robertson.
Lewis and McSwain then listed my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Paula Robertson as witnesses against me, asserting that I committed other uncharged crimes and bad acts against them - specifically kidnapping and rape. Lewis and McSwain then filed a motion to keep their locations secret and free from disclosure asserting that these individuals were afraid of me. The court granted the motion.
If the initial contact with these individuals was not bad enough, Lewis, McSwain and Hopkins then continued to brief each of these individuals on what each other individual was saying up until my October 22, 1996 trial. In other words they now continued to leak manufactured facts and information they gleaned from one individual to each of the other individuals. They continued to do this for each of these individuals, including Juanita Meek and Paula Robertson, creating a round robin effect of manufactured evidence.
In sum ASA Robert Lewis, ASA Magda McSwain, Investigator Scott Hopkins and Detective Joan Short conspired with Juanita Meek and my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Paula Robertson to manufacture false allegations against me, made them terrified of me, and quite possibly made them believe I might try and kill each and every one of them if released.
How do I know they did all this?
First: After prosecutors blocked the jail phones on February 26, 1996 so that I could not call Paula Robertson, it took me a few days but on Saturday, March 2, 1996 I was able to locate a phone that was not blocked and I called her. Paula was shocked when I called. She said that she had to go in on Monday, March 4, 1996 to give an official, sworn statement. Paula told me that Lewis, McSwain, Hopkins and Short had already talked to her a number of times. They located her from the jail logs from when she would come to visit me. She told me what prosecutors were doing, said, and had done, including telling her that I might even try to kill her if released. Paula and I then had several long conversations during which I explained much to her.
Paula told me prosecutors tried to get her to say I raped her too and fed her facts and information and then threatened her. At first she was scared to death. She was originally going to falsely accuse me of rape too but after I spoke to her and explained everything she changed her mind. She then walked a fence between me and the State. In addition to telling me what was going on, she also wrote me letters. The letters stated in relevant part:
I am truly terrified of the State and what they can do to me more than anything they have told me that you could, might and probably will do to me or some other woman if you were still out on the street. I have never seen so many people so sure you are a terrible person. Even Detective Short said you are so terrible that when I hear all the allegations against you I will be thoroughly disgusted and glad you are where they intend to keep you...
I am afraid to tell you anything. I am afraid to come and see you. I now live with the fear that if I do anything for you the State will come after me. I cannot take that risk. The State says I am walking on a fence and if I cross over that fence to the wrong side they will come after me as bad as they are after you...I was then issued a subpoena to give a statement...
When I spoke to Detective Short she said they did not have anything on me except possibly the witness situation which she advised was a felony, but suggested that I would have to contact the State to see if they have any problem with me coming to see you.
Regarding the first [jail telephone] block. After I was questioned for more than three hours and they told me some of the things from your past I did not know and never heard about, I was scared at that point both of and for you and moreso what the State could do to me. When it was suggested that I not have anything to do with you, we go back on the fence here, I asked what was I supposed to do when you called me, they said don't take his calls. I said I can't do that. I don't know what is true and what is not but if they are wrong and you are innocent of all this, I cannot turn my back on you. You are a person and although no one seems to care that they have taken your life away, I do and I am the only one with the information you need to defend yourself and how can I just not take your calls or turn my back. Their answer was to change my number because if I talked to you and told you too much I was back on the fence. They then said they could block my number and that way I would not have to decide what side of the fence I wanted to stand on. At that point they made their position very clear, so of course I agreed to let them block my phone "with my permission." When I got your call Saturday I was totally startled. On Monday I told them you got through and we talked seven times. They were livid and asked me how. I told them I had no idea. The State then told me to put the block back on and now it can only be lifted in writing and it must go through the State.
What I told the State was our first night and my fantasy, our last night and the discussion you and I had. Everything in detail.
***
You have never kidnapped me, confined me against my will or raped me. The original discussion I had with the state was not a pleasant one ... I began my session being very hardnosed ... Scott [Hopkins] told me they had enough proof to charge me with aiding and abetting ... Then I heard a list of many of the things you have and are being and will be accused of prior to [Juanita Meek] and I ... I became disgusted and scared. You were not readily available to ask about all of this and with all the things I was told, I wondered if I was wrong and you really were the terrible person they want to prove you are. But I remembered how gentle you were with me and how careful you were with me and how you were always concerned about hurting me or scaring me ... Unfortunately I am not and have never been good at playing in this kind of game. Some of the information given the first time was given out of fear and disgust ...
When I said no to you that morning and you smacked me on the butt and told me never to tell you no, you did in fact stop what you were doing and changed what we were doing so that I no longer was uncomfortable or in any kind of pain. Does it say that in my statement? Of course not. Did I ask you to stop and untie my hands or let me go? Did I say that in my statement? Of course not because it never happened. I never asked you to let me go or untie me because I didn't want you to. The bondage was my idea from the start of the relationship between you and I. Was that in my statement? Of course not. At no time did I feel that I was in a dangerous situation with you. Is that in my statement? But they know all of this. I told them all of this.
By the time I was called in for my (official) statement, I had read a great deal more about you, talked with you and your parents and friends and neighbors. I got nothing but good things told to me by everyone and as Scott [Hopkins] admits, my statement is a watered down version of what I originally said. He was so mad at me he couldn't see straight. The questions asked of me at the time of my statement were based only on what they wanted me to say in the statement for their use.
They feel they have enough against you that you are not going to get out so I guess they really don't care what you say to me anymore...On my last visit to the State I prefaced the entire conversation with the fact that...I do not feel that you raped anyone ever and that I still believe in you.
(Emphasis added).
To begin with prosecutors could not charge Paula with anything. She did nothing which would warrant a criminal charge. They were bluffing, scaring her into testifying against me.
Did you notice that statement in the letter, "and will be accused of prior to [Juanita Meek] and I"?
"...and will be accused of..."
When I asked Paula about this statement she told me that Scott Hopkins and Robert Lewis said they still had to convince at least one more person to testify against me but this person was hesitant because she did not want to do what they wanted her to do. Lewis and Hopkins said they were going to continue to work on her. I asked Paula what that was and who this woman was but she said they did not tell her and she did not want to press the issue.
Second: Lewis, McSwain and Hopkins admitted to doing it during a post-conviction evidentiary hearing. Prosecutors would have had absolutely no reason to feed facts and information to individuals and brief them on what each other was saying unless it was to influence them and their testimony and allow them to manufacture false allegations of kidnapping and rape. To justify their actions Scott Hopkins, the Investigator for the Pinellas County State Attorney, told the court:
SCOTT HOPKINS: No two witnesses were ever talked together at the same time about the facts of the case as it pertained to them.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Were witnesses briefed on what other witnesses were saying?
SCOTT HOPKINS: Oh, absolutely ... You have to understand that Mr. Perrot is a prolific rapist. So you can't just -- you just can't -- that is what the FBI used to do, they would say, tell me everything you know and give you nothing. Of course these victims were told. They were told by me how the case was progressing and there was dialogue. That is how we found out much of the information that we did find out.
THE COURT: Okay. And was that prior to the trial beginning or when did that occur?
SCOTT HOPKINS: That was prior to the trial.
Scott Hopkins not only admitted in his deposition, and during the evidentiary hearing, to telling my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, Juanita Meek and Paula Robertson what was going on in the case prior to trial, he also admitted to telling them what Paula Robertson said and what she recanted:
THE COURT: How did the witnesses become aware of what Paula Robertson had said and what she recanted?
SCOTT HOPKINS: Before the trial? I told them.
(Emphasis added).
This merely allowed my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Juanita Meek to more align their testimony with each other for trial. Indeed, a review of the other crimes and bad acts notice compared to the depositions, and both compared to the trial testimony of these individuals, shows major, clear, discrepancies rectified by the time of trial - the only answer to which comes from the ongoing manipulation of my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Juanita Meek by prosecutors. Robertson also testified during the evidentiary hearing. She stated, "Mr. Perrot never raped me. He never did anything to me that I did not allow him to do."
Hopkin's testimony during that evidentiary hearing also added credibility to what Paula Robertson was telling me that prosecutors were doing to her, telling her, and how they manipulated her into giving false and misleading testimony. Remember Paula's statement in her letter to me: "The questions asked of me at the time of my statement were based only on what they wanted me to say in the statement for their use."
In the closing arguments of that evidentiary hearing, Assistant State Attorney Robert Lewis told the court:
ASA ROBERT LEWIS: ...there is absolutely nothing wrong with the State talking with a witness about the evidence in this case ... I'm sure we talked to the witnesses at other times ... But there wouldn't be anything wrong with it ... We talked about the testimony of other things with the witnesses. There's just nothing wrong with it ... the prosecutor talks to the witnesses after they read the deposition after they take the deposition … I have never said nor would any prosecutor that we did not talk to the witnesses in this case about the good points, the bad points, the weak points, the strategy ... We do that in every single case. No prosecutor would do it differently ... The real bottom line in this particular case is that the testimony for it is done by the prosecutors long before the jury is ever selected. Prosecutors always do it before then, always do it after depositions. I've been saying that since the first day. There was no reason to talk with the witnesses or the testimony on that particular occasion during that recess after court because the prosecutors already done that. They've already prepped the case as they do in every single case, and they've done it properly exactly like we've been trained to do it ... You heard Ms. McSwain tell you that just as a matter of the way she does it she never discusses the testimony of witnesses between themselves. In other words the two witnesses standing there.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And I guess now we're sort of taking at face value an implication that the State talked to the witnesses at other times and they changed their testimony at other times.
(Emphasis added).
At my sentencing on October 23, 1996 Juanita Meek told the court:
JUANITA MEEK: Your Honor, I came to know that Gary Perrot is a very bad, very evil man. I know now all of the things that he has done in his past. And from what I understand, as bad as my experience was with him, as devastating as it has been for me, that I was treated the best of all of the women that have ever been in his life. (Emphasis added).
(October 23, 1996 Trial Transcripts, p. T-615).
This is simply more evidence that Juanita Meek was told by prosecutors what my ex-wives and ex-girlfriends manufactured and falsely accused me of doing.
Indeed, prosecutors brief each witness and tell each witness what each other witness is saying. It's corrupt. Its crooked. It allowed my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Juanita Meek to lie and manufacture false allegations against me and it has cost me over 25 years of my life.
By the time I discovered everything prosecutors had done it was too late for me to do anything about it. My time for filing for a new trial had expired.
On July 19, 1996 (prior to my October 22, 1996 trial), my attorney deposed Juanita Meek. Significantly Ms. Meek testified as follows:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Tell me what happens when you get to Mr. Perrot's apartment.
JUANITA MEEK: Let's see. I went in and I gave him his food. He had a letter that he had written to me, a handwritten letter telling --
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Is this the letter referred to as "Last Night?"
JUANITA MEEK: No. Not the typed one that he gave me. This is the handwritten letter.
***
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did [Mr. Perrot] ever indicate to you Christmas night that this [typed] letter was a fantasy letter?
JUANITA MEEK: Never.
(Emphasis added).
Stop! Now wait just a minute. Hold your horses. Read again what Juanita Meek just said.
How did Juanita Meek know that the typed letter I gave her Christmas night was the letter referred to as Last Night if she did not know the letter was the fantasy letter? Remember, there was nothing on that letter to indicate the name of the fantasy or that the fantasy letter was known as "Last Night."
Ops! Talk about a Freudian slip!
Common sense would tell you that if Juanita Meek was telling the truth about being raped and that we did not act out a sexual fantasy of hers she should have said something along the lines of "Last Night? What are you talking about?"
But she didn't. She says, "No. Not the typed one that he gave me." She knew the typed letter was the fantasy letter that she and I referred to as Last Night.
Juanita Meek was lying. She was lying when she said she did not consent, she was lying when she said that we did not act out a sexual fantasy of hers, she was lying when she testified that I pulled a knife on her and held it to her throat, she was lying when she said she was raped, and she continued to lie and continues to lie to this day.
Prosecutors Robert Lewis and Magda McSwain knew Juanita Meek was lying and still permitted her to get on the witness stand and knowingly commit perjury. Unfortunately, my own attorney never questioned Juanita about her Freudian slip in the deposition. Had he done so Juanita Meek would have been trapped.
I named Stacey Binning as an official defense witness and furnished notice to the State. I planned to call Stacey to testify about the conversations she and I had with Juanita about kinky sex and fantasies and testify that she called Juanita Meek and the contents of that conversation.
Back on March 4, 1996 Paula Robertson gave a statement to Prosecutor Robert Lewis. At one point Lewis was questioning Robertson about Stacey Binning and about Stacey calling Juanita Meek and Juanita telling Stacey that she tried to drop the charges:
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: Has there been a relationship between (Mr. Perrot and Ms. Binning)?
PAULA ROBERTSON: No.
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: And as I understand from what you were saying he talked with her about calling Juanita and she did and then she told you -- let me try that again. She made the call but she told him she didn't call?
PAULA ROBERSTON: She did not get a hold of Juanita.
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: But she told you, yes, I actually did and I talked to her about it and Juanita told me that the day after this alleged rape she went back to Largo and tried to drop the charges but the police told her she could not?
PAULA ROBERTSON: Correct.
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: And of course you don't know if that's true because you weren't there?
PAULA ROBERTSON: (Witness shakes her head negatively)
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: All right. I think were done.
After I named Stacey Binning as a defense witness Investigator Scott Hopkins secretly contacted Ms. Binning, secretly talked to her, and then had her secretly come to the State Attorney's Office without subpoenaing her.
On August 7, 1996 Stacey Binning secretly slipped into the State Attorney's Office. There, prosecutors Lewis and McSwain and investigator Hopkins first talked with her again "off the record." They did so in order to get Binning to change her testimony. As reflected in the transcripts of that statement:
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: You and I have had a few minutes to talk here and you've met Magda and we talked for a few minutes before the court reporter came in?
STACEY BINNING: Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR LEWIS: I understand you're here because your name was given to us by the defense as a possible defense witness and Scott Hopkins gave you a call and you agreed to come in and talk with us?
STACEY BINNING: Yes, sir.
They then placed Stacey under oath and, using a question and answer format, had her give a "statement" without notifying the defense and without me or my attorney being present. In essence they conducted a deposition of her. The transcripts reflect that prosecutor Robert Lewis does nothing but ask Stacey Binning specific leading questions, questions that he has already prepared based upon information he already received from Stacey prior to her being sworn in for her statement, and that he already knows the answers to and that he wants. All of a sudden Stacey Binning changes what she previously told me and Paula. She now tells prosecutors that she called Juanita Meek but claims that Juanita Meek told her she could not talk about anything but that Juanita said, "It did happen." She said Juanita asked Stacey not to call her anymore. Stacey acknowledged that we would sit by the pool but said that neither I nor Juanita ever mentioned anything about kinky sex or fantasies and that Juanita "was a lady." She also testified that we never talked about sex, fantasies or anything else like that and that I only mentioned fantasies and the like to her only after my arrest. She admitted that Paula Robertson had talked to her on a number of occasions.
Here is the interesting part of Stacey's statement: If Prosecutor Lewis and Scott Hopkins did not first talk with Stacey and learn that we would sit out by the pool and talk about sex and fantasies, then where did Lewis even get the information from to begin with so that he could ask her leading questions about it and get Stacey to change her testimony from what actually happened? Lewis would have had no reason to even ask Stacey about all of us sitting poolside unless Stacey first told Lewis that we would sit by the pool and talk about sex and fantasies.
Here's another interesting question: Why did prosecutors not subpoena Stacey Binning and depose her like they are supposed to do and like is normally done in each and every other case? She was a listed defense witness. They are supposed to subpoena her and only talk with her while my attorney is present. This way my attorney can asked questions, clarify answers and dig into what may have taken place with prosecutors off the record. Why first secretly contact her and have secret conversations with her off the record before they swear her in and question her without notifying the defense and without my attorney being present?
I will tell you why.
Once they manipulated Stacey and her testimony and manufactured what they wanted her to say and she said it under oath with no opportunity for my attorney to ask questions, clarify her answers or find out what happened off the record, she could not then go back and change her testimony without committing perjury. Even if my attorney could have talked to her or called her to testify after-the-fact and Stacey would have told the truth about what really happened, prosecutors would have simply said that I or my attorney had gotten to her and had her change her testimony and that she was now lying and committing perjury. Prosecutors just knowingly screwed me out of a very crucial witness for my defense. I could not even use her now.
Robert Lewis, Magda McSwain and Scott Hopkins have played Juanita Meek, Stacey Binning and my ex-wives and girlfriends like fine-tuned fiddles and fools. And if you think that this is all there is to this story I hate to disappoint you; you are mistaken. It's only the beginning. There is much, much, much more. That is why there will be a tell-all book.
All that evil needs to win is the consent of the people. I have news for the Pinellas County State Attorney and all of his minions: You are corrupt and I am no longer consenting.
Stratagems of the Devil exposes the evil within the Office of the State Attorney for Pinellas County, Florida. It describes how prosecutors manufactured and withheld evidence and suborned perjury resulting in my criminal convictions.
Remember the Bond Hearing from above? That judge said that I, even if convicted, would be getting out. Yet look at what occurred:
At my 1996 trial ASA Robert Lewis practically begged my judge to sentence me to life in prison. Judge Raymond Gross then stated, on the record:
JUDGE GROSS: Mr. Perrot, in 95-21453, Count Two, Three, Four and Five the Court will hereby adjudicate you guilty. Your conduct that has been presented to this Court during the last several days during the trial and hearings has painted a picture of an individual who's both vile and depraved. One who's behavior doesn't know the meaning of dignity and human life. Your conduct of exercising power, controlling humiliation over some of the weaker members of our society, by use of your own physical force, coupled with weapons, whether they be firearm or guns, is unacceptable.
As a result of your behavior, you have forfeited your right to walk among the citizens of this State as a free human. And if this Court has its way, you will never again walk among the citizens as a free individual.
Judge Gross then sentenced me to Three natural life sentences followed by a Fourth natural life sentence. (See October 23, 1996 Sentencing Transcripts pp. 616-617. See also Perrot v. State, 712 So.2d 797; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 7554; 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1554 June 26, 1998).
It sets forth how it took me ten years to get those natural life sentences overturned and be resentenced to 259 months imprisonment, only to have prosecutors then seek to civilly commit me indefinitely as a sexually violent predator at the completion of my sentence when their life sentences did not work out. Prosecutors did so in order to make good on their promise to put me away for the rest of my life, and since I was supposed to be released they are doing so in order to keep me quiet.
Robert Lewis, Magda McSwain, Scott Hopkins, Joan Short and now Bruce Bartlett the State Attorney and Kendall Davidson his Assistant State Attorney have so terrified poor Juanita Meek and my poor ex-wives and ex-girlfriends that these individuals simply do not know what to do and will say anything to keep prosecutors happy and keep me locked up. I cannot help but feel sorry for Ms. Meek and my ex-wives and girlfriends in spite of their false allegations against me. I certainly would not get out and hurt or kill any of them, or anyone else for that matter, regardless of what Pinellas County prosecutors would like or have them to believe.
Prosecutors Bruce Bartlett and Kendall Davidson are now knowingly using the false allegations of my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Juanita Meek in an attempt to civilly commit me. Bruce Bartlett was the Chief Assistant State Attorney during my criminal proceedings in 1996. Bartlett is now the State Attorney. The corruption continues.
How do I know this?
Because, with the exception of Paula Robertson who came forward in my criminal case to advise me what prosecutors were doing, Bartlett and Davidson listed my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and Juanita Meek against me as kidnap and rape victims in my civil commitment case. They did not list Paula Robertson. Four years after they listed their witnesses Ms. Robertson passed away. I offered to settle the commitment case with Bartlett and Davidson so that we could all end this horseshit and go on with our lives. They would not even talk to me, let alone talk about a settlement. The only thing ASA Kendall Davidson told Circuit Court Judge Paul Levine was "nothing good could come from having a conversation with Mr. Perrot."
Oh, Yeah? Read my book!
I am just sorry that Bartlett, Davidson and the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office are re-victimizing Juanita Meek and my ex-wives and girlfriends in more ways than one, including as false accusers; playing them once again like fine-tuned fiddles and fools.
For my defense in my civil commitment case I took a Penile Plethysmograph that disclosed no abnormal sexual responses to any of the sexual stimuli including those related to children and those involving rape and forced sex. I have a neuropsychologist who actually did neuropsychological testing on me which revealed I have no problems with my brain. I have been independently evaluated by three different psychologists and a psychiatrist. Each and every one of these individuals say that I do not have any type of mental abnormality or personality disorder which would make me likely to commit acts of sexual violence if not confined for long term care, control and treatment and thus, I do not meet the criteria for civil commitment. These factors so upset Bruce Bartlett and Kendall Davidson that Davidson had to go doctor shopping until he found a doctor willing to write the kind of report that they wanted written so they could commit me.
No doubt Bartlett and Davidson believe that if they were to put me away for the rest of my life then their dirty little secrets and corrupt activities of the State Attorney's Office would not come to light. However just the opposite has occurred. Had they settled, this website and Stratagems of the Devil would have never materialized as I would have gone on with my life, left the State of Florida, and never looked back. In essence it is because Bartlett and Davidson refused to speak with me that they and their fellow prosecutors are now being exposed as corrupt, that the Largo police are now being exposed as dirty, that my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, Juanita Meek and Elizabeth George and the rest of their witnesses are now being exposed as false accusers, and which has made this website and Stratagems of the Devil possible. In those respects I suppose I should thank them. You should too.
The conspiracy and the manufacturing of false allegations, however, have not stopped and, in fact, unbelievably continue to thicken.
In recent depositions I took of some of my ex's, some them have continued to have contact with each other. The allegations of my former wives, girlfriends and Juanita Meek, to this day, keep changing. As just one example:
My first ex-wife claimed in her 1996 deposition that I routinely broke into her residence some 30 times when she lived in Akron and Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio and would rape her, sometimes at gun point, and claims she called police and that in each instance they responded, completed a report and arrested me. Pinellas County Prosecutors, since 1996, have been unable to produce a single piece of paper to support her allegations. My investigator can also find nothing. A criminal records check in Ohio shows I was never arrested for any type of burglary, property, personal, sex or violent crime in Ohio. The reason is simple. My first ex-wife, like all these other individuals, is lying. The incidents simply never occurred and prosecutors know this.
In 2018 I deposed this ex-wife again. She now testified she called police on me over 300 times because I broke into her residence and raped her and that I was never arrested because I was never there when police arrived. She further asserted that the police refused to go and arrest me because they were afraid I would get out, come back and ''finish the job." (Whatever the hell that means).
She also testified that she went to the Summit County, Ohio Prosecutor's Office and spoke to the prosecutor for Summit County and tried to prosecute me for burglary and rape. She claims that the head prosecutor himself said he would not prosecute because I worked for his security company and because, even though we were divorced, she was still my property.
To begin with no police agency can produce a single piece of paper where this ex-wife called them on or about me or where they took a report at any time. Second, no police agency would refuse to go and arrest a suspected rapist because they were afraid that person would get out of jail and return and "finish the job." Third, a records check shows the Summit County, Ohio State Attorney owned no security company. Fourth, no prosecutor, not even Bruce Bartlett or Kendall Davidson as corrupt as they are, would ever tell a reported rape victim that they would not prosecute their rapist because, even though divorced, she was still his property. It is absolutely nuts and absurd to even think a prosecutor would do so. Which pretty much describes my first ex-wife and her allegations.
Additionally, this same ex-wife now claims for the first time in that 2018 deposition that in one instance I "pistol whipped" my then three year old son before I raped her, that she called Akron police, and that she then took my son to Akron Children's Hospital in Akron, Ohio where doctors examined him and found him to be "okay." Yet my son's medical records obtained from Akron Children's Hospital not only show that no such medical records exist where he was looked at or treated for being pistol whipped, they don't even show where he was treated for anything between the ages of one and a half and thirteen years old! And of course no police report exists for this incident either - Not for burglary, not for rape, not for aggravated assault, not for aggravated battery, not for pistol whipping, not for anything! And yet prosecutors Bruce Bartlett and Kendall Davidson are still going to use this ex-wife against me knowing that she is lying and will commit perjury. Of course neither Bartlett nor Davidson will prosecute her for committing perjury because it was their office which allowed her to manufacture her allegations to begin with, and they couldn't very well prosecute her for something they know is manufactured and that their own office was involved in manufacturing. It would not only make them look bad, my ex-wife just might scream bloody murder if they did.
Keep in mind that these are just some of the things that just one of the State's false accusers is saying. Not only is there much more for this individual, there are other false accusers who also testify to other allegations which are just as absurd and are demonstrably false.
The problem that Bartlett and Davidson fail to realize is that now, whether they win or lose my civil commitment trial my book; this website; exposing my ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, Juanita Meek and Elizabeth George as false accusers; and exposing them and the other Pinellas County prosecutors as corrupt will be public and will remain public until the cows come home and probably a hellava lot longer than that. Additionally, if Bartlett and Davidson now win at trial they will make me a martyr and if they lose they will make me a hero because I have exposed them as corrupt and exposed their witnesses as false accusers. Either way it's now a win-win for me and a lose-lose for Bartlett, Davidson and each and every one of their fellow prosecutors and their "witnesses."
Let them laugh at that.
Stratagems of the Devil covers only the time up to and including my release from prison. It does not cover my actual civil commitment proceedings which will be covered in detail in my second book, Stratagems of the Devil 2, no matter the outcome of my commitment trial.
I have now been confined for over 25 years based upon false allegations and prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by corrupt prosecutors from the Pinellas County, Florida State Attorney's Office. This book exposes the truth behind my convictions and backs it up with solid evidence and documentation. My evidence speaks for itself.
Stratagems of the Devil will be a tell-all book, will go into great and specific detail, and will contain graphic sexual content regarding my sex life with former wives and girlfriends and some individuals who were involved in sexual relationships with us. The book will detail sexual encounters, including threesomes, that some of these individuals have had and names everyone involved. It will describe sexual fantasies of bondage, anal sex, rape and enemas that some of these individuals have. It names each and every person involved including Juanita Meek, Elizabeth George and my ex-wives and ex-girlfriends. This book is not intended for minors.
Why is all this detailed and important?
You will have to read the book to find out. I promise you won't be disappointed.
Stratagems of the Devil, when finished, will contain a citation to a website where the reader can go to find links to supporting evidence and documentation.
My intent in publishing this website and writing Stratagems of the Devil is to educate the public about corrupt prosecutors and false accusers and hopefully motivate people to tell the truth, so that what happened to me does not happen to you. It is not my intent to hurt, harm, or ruin anyone by this website or the publication of my book. However, the complete story, when published, may have that unfortunate result as it may affect the lives, relationships, employment, business, and standing in the community of some of these individuals.
This is not the first time that the Pinellas County, Florida State Attorney and his assistants have been accused of misconduct and being corrupt. In October, 2020 the ABC television program 20/20 ran an entire program related to the corrupt misconduct of prosecutors in a story titled, The Perfect Liar. The Perfect Liar explained how Pinellas County prosecutors conspired with a single, lying snitch to put some 35 people in prison and on death row. People who are claiming their innocence.
If you would like to read some of the potential material that is expected to be included in Stratagems of the Devil, please click the button labeled "Excerpts." Then, simply click the name of entry for the summary or excerpt you would like to read. Please keep in mind that these summaries and excerpts will be greatly expanded upon in the book.
If you would like to contact or arrange an interview with me click the button labeled "Contact Me."
Thank you. And keep checking this website for updates on Stratagems of the Devil as well as additional summaries, excerpts and other information.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please enter your comments here: