Virginia made certain lifestyle choices which came back to haunt her in the eyes of the jurors. The witnesses has also made some poor lifestyle choices. They had criminal exposure which provided a motive to lie. The State gave them the opportunity. Their freedom was at Virginia's expense and that of JUSTICE.

Within an hour of Norman Larzelere's death on 8 March 1991, Virginia Larzelere was named a suspect in a telephone call to the Edgewater Police Department. The call came from a family associate of a major burglary organization. This call reinforced the predisposed opinions of officials that Virginia was somehow involved in Norman's murder. To allege that Norman Larzelere was the victim of a "contract murder" made good press. The self-serving headline stories victimized Virginia although she co-operated from the start of the investigation. Even at this time, she and Jason offer to share my discoveries with law enforcement, so there was never a time wherein Virginia remained silent.

Unbeknownst to Virginia, the lifestyle choices of the immunized witnesses, Kristen Palmieri and Steven Heidle, provided more than enough motive for them to lie. Aside from the criminal penalties they faced, it was necessary to preserve their well being with family members. By their own admissions, they were involved. The State gave them opportunity, motive and made every effort to accommodate their deceptions. The prosecutor even admitted knowing they lied during the trial, an issue for appeal. Today, the evidence is overwhelming that the witnesses committed perjury. Unfortunately, the State continues to be a willing participant and justice is obstructed.

The investigation by my firm and its associates was predicated on discoveries made by the police. For example, Kristen Palmieri stated that she traveled from the Orlando area with Ted Goodman, her then boyfriend, to West Palm Beach in search of a "hit man" at the request of Virginia Larzelere. They led authorities to believe they met Tony Marconi in West Palm Beach. The State would later admit they had no interest as to the true identity or whereabouts of Tony Marconi. Their reasoning; "we had a good suspect." So, after limiting their own investigation to approximately five (5) hours, they were full speed ahead to frame the evidence against Virginia and Jason. I would later take their initial leads and pursue the identity of Marconi, under the assumption the State's witnesses misled authorities to protect an accomplice using the name of Tony Marconi.

Between 8 March and 3 May 1991, Palmieri and Heidle each gave no less that seven (7) "sworn statements." From those statements Virginia and Jason were arrested on 5 May 1991. Virginia was convicted of first degree murder and awaits the death penalty. Jason's trial would follow Virginia's. Fortunately, Jason learned from his mistakes of his mother and counsel. In doing so, he sought new counsel and my assistance. Today the trial record is complete with contradictions as clear as the conflict in the verdicts, knowing the alleged gunman is innocent, but the alleged conspirator, Virginia, is guilty. Commonsense would cause anyone to look at the evidence and trial records and search for the perpetrator. Yet, there is no interest by the enforcement to pursue available leads. That task has been accepted by this firm.

To the trained observer there is very little difference between the charges against Virginia and Jason. The State's evidence remains the same. Unfortunately for Virginia, she assumed her attorney's would vigorously defend her innocence. To this day, it is difficult for me to accept that the defense attorney's did not summon the FORTY (40) plus defense witnesses available. Instead, they brought the trial to conclusion after ONLY FOUR (4) HOURS OF DEFENSE TESTIMONY. In the words of one juror, they were "pompous"; had they "provided us another theory for the murder" we would have most likely "voted for acquittal." By comparison, Jason's trial lawyer, William Lasley, worked closely with myself based on my experience and knowledge of the case. He summoned in excess of twenty (20) defense witnesses and reviewed every piece of evidence provided by the State. His homework gave him an insight into the shortcomings of the State's case and was an asset in the cross-examination of witnesses which devastated the State's case. A review of the testimony provides clear and convincing evidence that the State was attempting to develop evidence to fit a theory in lieu of following available leads as to the identity of Marconi, origin of the Heidle/Palmieri weapons and Goodman relationships. Had the State investigated the crime as a burglary gone bad the case would have been solved.