- That Kirstin admitted cutting a man’s penis off and stuffing it down his throat. (Martin offered this information twice, both times without prompting by either side).
- That Kirstin worried about blood being in her car.
- That Kirstin had hit the man in his face and his teeth had come out.
- That Kirstin had picked the victim up on West Flamingo to get meth.
- That Kirstin referred to him as Darren (his real name is Duran Bailey).
- That Kirstin admitted stabbing the victim in his anus.
- That Kirstin was going to try and say that the victim tried to rape her.
- That Kirstin said the man’s pants were on when she killed him.
- That Kirstin said she went to her boyfriend or ex boyfriend’s afterward
- That Kirstin hit the victim in the car.
There are three factual items in that whole list that are not true according to every reconstruction of the crime scene. While Kirstin was not even present at the time (and could not have been, according to multiple witness testimonies), no evidence shows that he was harmed in her car or any car, nor that his member was ever put down his throat (it was not), and he was found with his pants down, not up. The rest of this information - including the facts about his pants - can be found in an article on July 25th, 2001 from the Las Vegas Review Journal (CUT RESULT OF AN ATTACK, TEEN SAYS). I’d link it but the search feature on http://www.reviewjournal.com/ only returns errors on the advanced search for that day. However, I have read the article, and can provide a scan of it on request.
Let’s be clear about what I am saying: every item that Martin got right was in the newspaper article or logically follows from the details in that article. Every item Martin asserted which was not supported by factual evidence was not to be found in any article, except for whether his pants were up or down. But someone could certainly vividly imagine these things might have happened even if the newspaper didn’t mention it.
But Martin denied reading any newspaper article, several times. And she called the detectives in charge of the case on August 1st, a week after that article (and several other articles detailing other facts) came out. Why did she make that call? She says because she “didn’t feel that [what she says Kirstin told her] was right”. That was the only reason she could give, and she was asked a couple of times. It must have been mere coincidence that this information fell into her oh-so-humanitarian lap at the same time she was throwing every option she possibly had on the table for her freedom. She was just following her conscience.
Yeah. Okay. Calling all skeptics.
Ahh, but she did keep a journal of their conversations, she says. But what happened to it? It was destroyed by the correctional center when she was transferred to another facility, she says, four months after she wrote it and four months after she talked to the police (and who apparently never asked to see it). And why was this potential evidence inconveniently destroyed when she was being transferred from a holding facility to prison? Well, she was asked in court, and said:
“You can only take personal letters, photos, and legal documents with you. The stuff my journal was on was the back of a notepad, the cardboard and they wouldn’t let me take none of that with me.”
So, the correctional center would not let her take anything other than letters, photos, and legal documents along. Funny, that’s not what they seem to think their policy is.
Here’s the important stuff regarding transfer of property between facilities:
711.01; 1.3.1: “All personal property within the limitations given by this regulation will be sent with the inmate.”
Section 711.08 details authorized inmate personal property. Read over it if you like, but it is a long and somewhat ambiguous list. There’s really no reason to think that her property would not have counted as “personal equipment” obtainable within the facility itself. Should we believe that they allow magazines, letters, and legal documents, not to mention a host of appliances and CDs and such, but not a single notepad which may serve as evidence in a later trial?
The long and short of it is that this inmate provided the only non-circumstantial evidence that connected Kirstin to the man who was killed – which is required for a verdict of guilty in a case that needs reasonable doubt. Martin is a self-serving and manipulative liar, and in her efforts to escape her incarceration, she gambled on leniency using the currency of another woman’s life and freedom. Recognizing that, the court has rightfully reopened Kirstin’s trial.
Please visit Kirstin Lobato’s website and forum. This is not over yet, and she could use all the support and help she can get. Really.