Comment to Article: Jury Denies Lawyer Big Judgement

NOTE: After a 5 day trial, the jury found in favor of Staples.

A READER FAMILIAR WITH SHERRY, THE TRIAL, AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE POSTED THE FOLLOWING COMMENT TO AN ARTICLE IN RICHMOND TIMES DISPATCH: 

According to an article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, the jury spokeswoman stated that it all came down to a matter of who was more credible, and that they FELT it was Staples.

Please show me the preponderance of EVIDENCE. FEELINGS come quickly; but studying the EVIDENCE takes time – and not just 45 minutes.

Sherry Netherland and Jeff Staples both testified that the incident began when Netherland told Staples she was breaking up with him and planning to return home to Virginia. Netherland said Staples became angry. Staples claimed that Netherland, who was the one planning to leave, became angry. Both agree that Staples hog-tied her and put duct tape over her mouth (he claims he did this to prevent her from biting him, but he admits her arms and legs were tied at the time) – for four hours.

He admits keeping her tied on the bed without her underwear on and lying on top of her (he claims he did this to keep Netherland still – Staples weighed almost 200 pounds; Netherland weighed 105 pounds).

The tape recordings, which Staples made after Netherland had been tied for hours (according to one of Staples’ three different versions of the incident, of which the jury heard only one), capture Netherland repeatedly begging Staples to call the police if he has a problem with her, begging him to stop hurting her, begging him to get off of her, and screaming of pain – obviously in response to whatever it was that Staples was doing to her. I call that torture.

The tape recordings clearly reveal that Netherland had a “noose” around her neck, rope in her mouth (as in a bit for a horse), and was tied to a stick. It is no wonder that Netherland testified that she couldn’t think of anything bad enough to call him during this ordeal. The tape recordings also capture Staples repeatedly refusing to contact the police.

According to Staples’ third version of events, at 2:20 a.m. Netherland tried to escape through the hatch, but he pulled her back down and re-tied her “for her own protection.” However, unbelievably, he claims that only 30 minutes later he decided to untie her, she ran and got into the dinghy, and he would have untied the dinghy, allowing her to drive to shore, if only she had asked. That doesn’t sound credible, much less civil.

Netherland testified that Staples threatened to destroy her life if she left and went to the police. He threatened to destroy all of her belongings, and claimed that his powerful friend/attorney, Murray Wright, would get her Virginia State Bar License pulled. So, one can understand why Netherland was afraid to leave the boat, or decided to wait for the right time to leave; I mean, if Staples would hog-tie, duct-tape, and torture her for simply breaking up with him, what would he do to her if he suspected that she wanted to jump ship and possibly expose what he had done? Interestingly, consistent with Staples’ threats, his lawyer has made a complaint against Netherland to the Virginia State Bar, an accusation which Netherland believes will be determined to be unfounded and frivolous. Indeed, it seems Staples has been very credible with regards to “making good” on his threats!

Netherland’s testimony was consistent with the report she made to the St. Vincent Police. While every single detail of the ordeal was not stated in the report, the report was consistent with Netherland’s trial testimony, and it should be noted that the officer who took down the statement admitted that he did not write down everything she told him, and that he merely summarized her statement. More importantly, the testimony of the two officers is highly suspicious considering the following: In February 2010 Staples met with Officer Harry in St. Vincent. In fact, Staples traveled to St. Vincent, meeting/speaking with the police officers and/or the Police Commissioner, in February, May and June prior to the August depositions. The other officer, Rohan Noel, revealed the taint of his testimony when he erroneously testified that when he went to the boat on February 16, the boat appeared “ransacked” as if a struggle had occurred. Officer Noel forgot that the incident had taken place two weeks prior to February 16, and it would not have appeared “ransacked “ at that time, even if that had been true on January 28 when the incident occurred. Clearly this officer went too far in his attempt to please Staples with his favorable testimony. Credible?

Another “credible” witness, a bookkeeper, admitted in court that she had wrongfully paid herself a full-time salary while working only part time for her employer; but then she claimed that she was going to make it up! She testified in astounding detail about events she claimed took place in June of 2008 (including alleged conversations between her and Netherland). This amazing feat was explained when Staples’ attorney asked her to refresh her “memory” by referring to Netherland’s journal! So, it was no surprise when this witness admitted to having spent six hours with Staples’ attorneys in preparation for her “moment in the spotlight.” Surely this woman would not have tailored her “story” to match up with events in Netherland’s journal!!

One witness admitted that Staples had written checks to the witness’s mother-in-law to pay the witness for work done for Staples by the witness – who feigned surprise at the suggestion that this scheme was done by Staples to help the witness avoid tax liabilities and/or the need for Staples to file a 1099 form with the IRS. Another credible witness?

In his (apparently successful) effort to convince the jury that Netherland had not been injured, Staples showed the jury a photo, which he claimed proved that he and Netherland had gone ashore for dinner the night following the ordeal. However, the metadata from the photo proved that was not true, and Staples was forced to admit that his claim was not true, and he was not sure when they had gone ashore. Please define credible.

Speaking of injuries, what is undisputed is that Netherland had injuries which were verified with surgery/MRI upon her return. The doctor who testified regarding her hand/wrist/arm injuries stated that the injuries would have begun to heal after about two weeks – exactly the time frame that Netherland testified she began to feel well enough to leave. The doctor further testified that her symptoms would become increasingly worse as she began to use her hands – exactly as Netherland reported had happened. The doctor who testified regarding the knee and shoulder injuries, stated that certain activities would have been uncomfortable but that it would not be unusual for active persons to “push through the pain” and continue on – exactly as Netherland did. Further, Netherland testified that she did experience a lot of pain and was taking pain medication in order to tolerate the activity. Injuries consistent with the incident/trauma. Surgeries. MRIs. Pushing through the pain. This is credible.

I just have to say, if there are some who do not understand that a woman who has been hog-tied like an animal, tortured and abused for hours, and seriously threatened (by an angry man nearly twice her size) – might be afraid to leave the boat, might block the horror from her mind and pretend everything is okay, and might not leave until she is back on American soil, with the support of her family, perhaps they need more education regarding domestic violence.