Drug conviction in Delco murder
11 months ago | 1626 views | 21 
| 49 
| 
| 
| 49 | |
F. Bruce Covington, 59, faces up to 12 years in prison and a fine of $107,500 when he is sentenced next month. He remains free on $2,500 cash bail pending his sentencing.
In September 2006, Covington brought crystal methamphetamine and gamma hydroxybutrate acid to the home of William F. Smithson. Shortly thereafter, Jason Shephard, a coworker of Smithson, was strangled to death inside the home.
In December 2008, Smithson was convicted of first-degree murder for Shephard’s death and sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecutors say Smithson strangled Shephard, 23, while trying to rape him.
However, supporters of Smithson say Covington’s actions haven’t been adequately investigated. They’re hoping Smithson will get a new trial, which would include a thorough probe into the actions of Covington.
On Sept. 9, Covington had a one-day bench trial on the drug charges. He also was charged with making false statements to police when he allegedly lied about his whereabouts on the night of Shephard’s death.
But Delaware County Common Pleas Judge James F. Nilon Jr. dismissed that charge because the statute of limitations had expired when Covington was charged.
Nilon announced the guilty verdicts during a separate proceeding Sept. 15.
Daniel Hall, a friend of Smithson, testified Sept. 9 that Covington brought crystal meth and GHB to the Smithson home about seven or eight times in the 18 months prior to Shephard’s death.
But defense attorney Steven C. Leach argued there was no credible testimony that Covington went to the Smithson residence on the evening of Sept. 18, 2006, to deliver illicit drugs to anyone.
Leach conceded that Covington had a vial of GHB in a duffle bag that he brought into Smithson’s house. But Leach said Covington fell asleep in the basement and didn’t deliver drugs to anyone.
When Covington awoke, he noticed that less GHB was inside the vial than the amount he had brought to the residence — but Covington didn’t know where the missing GHB went, Leach said.
Leach also said Hall allegedly told police that Smithson took responsibility for giving GHB to Shephard prior to his death.
But advocates for Smithson, 44, point out that Hall’s tape-recorded statement to the police has been lost. And they’ve disputed the accuracy of the transcribed notes.
“I have no reason to think the transcription isn’t accurate,” Leach said after the trial.
At most, he added, prosecutors proved Covington merely possessed illegal drugs on Sept. 19, 2006 — not that he intended to deliver those drugs to anyone.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas F. Lawrie said it was Covington’s practice to bring illegal drugs to “sex parties” that he attended, for distribution to other participants. “[Covington] spreads the wealth around,” Lawrie said.
He added there was no reason to believe Covington departed from his usual practice when he visited Smithson on the night Shephard was killed.
Leach maintained Covington had nothing to do with Shephard’s death.
“I don’t see any evidence linking my client to the death of Mr. Shephard,” he said. “I feel sympathy for the Smithson family. I feel bad for them. Not only is William Smithson going to spend the rest of his life in jail, his family is hurting, too. But there’s no reason to view my client as a suspect in the death of Jason Shephard.”
Covington’s sentencing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Oct. 27 at the Delaware County Court House, 201 W. Front St., Media.
Covington, a former administrator at St. Joseph’s University, is currently serving three years’ probation after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges of possession of crystal meth and drug paraphernalia for a February 2008 incident at his former residence in Narberth.
Timothy Cwiek can be reached at (215) 625-8501 ext. 208.
Nobody knows who killed Jason because of a blotched investigation and the lack of a FAIR TRIAL.
You are free to hold on to incorrect information. Ordinary people –socially inept or otherwise- call that choice obtuse ignorance.
The fact remains: BILL SMITHSON DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL. Some of the reasons are as follows:
a) Lack of a complete investigation: there was a third man (Covington) who could equally be the murderer. This was not investigated.
b) Using legal trickery, F Bruce Covington’s role was not part of the trial. It was not presented to the Jury (who would have requested a fuller disclosure if this was mentioned).
c) Judge Dozor allowed incomplete, false or invalid evidence in the trial: speculations are not evidence (they are –at best- “Spectral Evidence”).
d) The Court did not allow the testimony of Covington (who was in the house), but used the ‘transcribed’ testimony of a man who was not even in the state of Pennsylvania the night of the crime. There are doubts whether the ‘transcription’ was accurate as the tapes mysteriously disappeared.
e) The court violated the principle ‘in dubio pro reo’. While there was a third man who could equally be the killer the burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) can’t be met. PLEASE RE-READ THIS POINT!
f) The Jury was instructed to ignore ‘the elephant in the room’ (F Bruce Covington).
g) The Court ignored regulations for issuing a just verdict: nobody knows if Bill could form intent.
h) Bill Smithson would never have been found guilty if the Principles of Law had been followed, but Dozor’s Court room follows whatever Dozor wants, not the Law.
From what I know of Jason I can tell you this: I think Jason would be seeking the truth and would be looking forward to securing a FAIR TRIAL, where ALL the evidence (and not speculations)are presented to a FREE and awaken Jury.
Please take a look at the comments in Delco Times, especially the ones about how Bruce Covington has been handled. Then think about what the truth really is. Think about why his actions have been ignored through the entire investigation until the point when our comments started, just before Smithson's jury selection. Our comments started there, in that rag. We comment in PGN just to thwart of misconception and lies of people who are completely misinformed about the trial. The articles they print are completely accurate and fact filled. If you find that they are biased, please site examples.
This media source is the only source that you're able to express your views. This media source is biased, and as pathetic as that is, this is the only place that you can speak your garbage. To all that have wasted time arguing with these brainless Smithson cronies, I say, ignore the garbage. Jason knows, Smithson knows, we all know - Smithson brutally murdered a beautiful person after his efforts to live out his sexually fantasy failed. My thought: Jason doesn't want us on this disgusting website. The only reason we are here is because we did a google search and it came up. Clearly, no one reads this garbage, except the socially inept.
you obviously know as much about me as you do about the trial - not much. But this isn't about me so your opinion of me is as relevant as your distorted views of what went on at a trial you know nothing about...whether you were there or not.
Let me just clarify one thing, I am not "fighting for the rights of a murderer" as you put it. I am just asking for answers to the questions that still surround the case. Why is that such a threat to you? If Bill's conviction is justifiable then let us beat our heads against the wall and get nowhere. Why is that such a threat to you? I am not afraid to be wrong. I have said in the past that I welcome any evidence of the fact that Bill Smithson strangled Jason Shephard. So far we have seen none. Or more importantly an explanation of how a court can just let the statute of limitations run out on Bruce Covington's lies to the authorities, when that is what crippled the investigation in the first place. I would be glad to shut up if that were to happen. I don't know why there is still so little said about that.
I was not raised to see something as corrupt as what went on in the investigation of this case and in the court rooms, then close my eyes and bury my head in the sand. Maybe you were taught to look the other way when something very wrong has happened, but that is not in my nature. I am not weak or mean spirited enough to just turn away.
What happened at the trial is public record and experienced, responsible reporters have access to public records. Thank you PGN for keeping us abreast on the FACTS that surrounded this case. And thank you for allowing us the opportunity to use our individual voices to continue to correct all the misconceptions there are about this case by misinformed bloggers who continue to try to throw up obstacles on the road to justice. And even for allowing them to exercise their freedom of speech, as volatile as that may be.
The facts indicate that William Smithson did not get a Fair Trial.
Your deep-rooted hate for Bill (a potentially innocent man) is your problem and probably a source of revenue for your attending Psychiatrist: your are sick and irrational, and we all dismiss your ratings in that basis.
Let’s re-focus. Bill Smithson did not receive a Fair trial for at least the following reasons:
a) LACK OF A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION: Have Jason and Bill been the only ones in that house one would reasonably assume that the murderer could only have been Bill. But there was another man in the house at the time of the crime.
This man was F. Bruce Covington. This man drugged Smithson. Covington is drug-dealer who exchanged drugs for sex. Unlike Smithson, Covington has an emerging criminal profile, as he was involved in the drugging and raping of a gay man even before Smithson trial had started. The Court System showed either criminal negligence or a biased approach to the case when they decided not to pursue Covington.
b) JUDGE DOZOR ALLOWED INCOMPLETE, FALSE OR INVALID EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL: The District Attorney, Mr. Lawrie, never presented other than speculations. He told the story of a gay monster infatuated with a handsome straight boy. In his story the gay monster entrapped and drugged the victim, to finally strangle Jason as the only way to avoid loosing his job. While this story is compelling, it is JUST A STORY. In a Court of Law one does not pass judgment based on stories. No proof of any of that story was presented. The record showed that Jason was ‘partying’ with Smithson voluntarily. They have spent time alone previously (there was ‘a fling’ going on). The record showed that Smithson did not plan to have a drug party that night, as the phone records showed that it was Covington who repeatedly called Smithson. The record also shows that there was no rape, attempted rape or any sign of sexual attack. The record shows Mr. Lawrie dangling a strap as if it was the murder weapon, but he had to confess that the victim’s DNA was not found in any part of the strap. When ‘spectral evidence’ is presented the Judge admits false evidence. Had Bill been provided with a FAIR Judge all the DA shenanigans would have been tossed out of Court. But Law being practiced in the Court of ‘the God of Delaware County’ is a corrupt affair.
c) THE COURT DID NOT ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A MAN THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE, BUT USED THE ‘TRASCRIBED’ TESTIMONY OF A MAN WHO WAS NOT EVEN IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA THE NIGHT OF THE CRIME: The man in the house –THE MYSTERY MAN- held (and holds) key testimony about what really happened that night. He first lied to the police by stating that he was not in the house at the time of the murder. He only sent his lawyer to give another story when he felt the Police had evidence that put him in the house at the time of the crime. This man knows what happened, but allowing Covington to be part of the trial would have jeopardized the desired Murder conviction. This is why the Court protected Covington. Instead of demanding the testimony of the man that was in the house, they used the ‘written’ accounts of Dan Hall’s testimony to the police. What I mean by ‘written’ is this: the police took Dan’s testimony on a tape-recorder, they then ‘transcribed’ the said testimony into paper. Days later they showed the document to Dan and he –without any in depth scrutiny, and without the benefit of Counsel-signed it. Note: I have a few Academic Degrees and I used to get good grades all the time. I used tape-recorders all the time. I know how hard it is to capture verbatim all that is said into a tape recorder, even if you go over the tape a million times. Guess what: the Police lost the tape!
d) BILL WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. I witnessed this personally: Bill wanted to testify but his Lawyer decided otherwise. There were many reasons for this. At the time I personally thought this was a good idea because I thought (and I still think) the DA did not have a case. What was Bill going to say: he had been drugged by Covington and was HIGH AS A KITE that night, and incapable to forming coherent evaluations for days. That was a medical situation and not speculation. I still think Bill has no idea what happened that night. But I know this: Bill Smithson is incapable of hurting others. It is not just I who says this, but all his friends and coworkers say the same. Why would Bill want to rape Jason? Those who know him more intimately have told me that sexual violence was never part of Bill’s psyche. And as to the ‘alleged fantasies of raping’, I do not know where that story comes from of if Bill ever said that, but it seems many people have those thoughts (just read the original Peter Benchley's best-selling novel). All I know is this: F. Bruce Covington was accused of drugging and raping a man.
e) THE COURT VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE ‘IN DUBIO PRO REO’. All the work by Mr. Lawrie’s amounted to speculations and stories. On top of this there was another person in the house who could have killed Jason (a more reasonable assumption than the DA’s whole house of cards). Judge Dozor denied any possibility for the Jury to even remotely consider this ‘elephant in the room’ of REASONABLE DOUBT. In doing so, the Judge manipulated the Jury and cajoled them into a single possible GUILY verdict BY DESIGN. More than just reasonable doubt existed in Bill’s trial, but he did not receive a FAIR one: otherwise the Jury would have come out with a Not Guilty verdict, because the principle of law says that in case of doubt you have to find the accused not guilty.
f) THE COURT IGNORED REGULATIONS FOR VERDICT. I do not think Bill was proven a murderer for many reasons, including the ones above. Nevertheless, the Jury was forced to find him guilty of Murder in the first degree. The Commonwealth of PA required for First Degree murder that the murderer be in some sort of mental capacity to be able to carry on the action willfully and deliberately [First Degree Murder: An intentional killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of WILLFUL, DELIBERATE and PREMEDITATED action]. Again, here words were minced and waters were muddled…NOBODY knows how drugged Bill was, and the court did not even want to ask the question: they just wanted to CONVICT (a conviction rate is a metric).
In a Court of Law is shouldn’t matter whether you love or hate the suspect. In this case the System convicted a Gay man without sufficient evidence.
These are the facts. Nobody with a rational mind can dismiss these points. Now that Covington has been found guilty of all charges, rational minds are left with questions:
a) Why was Smithson the only suspect in the murder of Jason Shephard?
b) Why was the role of F Bruce Covington not investigated?
c) Why is it that the DA and the Judge rather used the ‘transcribed’ –allegedly accurate- testimony of Dan Hall, who was not even in Pennsylvania, rather than that of F Bruce Covington -who was in the house at the time of the murder ?
d) Why was the Jury not allowed to consider the fact that Covington was in the house and could as well have committed the murder?
e) How can any Jury meet the burden of proof (“Beyond reasonable doubt”) knowing that there was a Third Man in the house?
Note: the persons who write hateful things about Bill have psychiatric disorders (I have been informed (by people who knows them) that they have personality disorders and are receiving treatment episodically: one of them is an alcoholic or something like that. I feel a profound pity for them. We should show all possible charity towards these sick people, but the Truth must prevail).
You may be a gay man who would have convicted but you were not at the trial so how can you say something soooooooooooo irresponsible? And so very pointless, much like the rest of your comment...
Isn't it a pity that I do not know who you are but you write as if you know me?
Well IF you really knew me you would pause and say to yourself: knowing Eduardo and Eduardo’s morals ‘there ought to be something here that I am not getting’.
Let me tell you –in all charity and affection- the problem here is that you were not at the trial every day: so you did not witness first hand that mockery of a trial. You rely of second-hand information. I testify to the facts I saw. I testify for the TRUTH: nobody knows who killed Jason because a corrupt system did not follow the Law: they did not investigate.
As for the Jury (members of which were asleep during the trial), I have it from a direct source: that the Jury was manipulated to convict, even though some of them wanted to ask about ‘the other man’ and why was that the other man was not on trial.
Yes, there were terrible wrong actions taken by Smithson after he found the dead body, but those –horrible as they seem at first read- do not make him a murderer.
It seems to me that you had already condemned Bill a priory -before any evidence was presented (which by the way never was: no evidence was shown). Do not worry, you are not alone. That does not make you a terrible person: I know of a good man, a good friend of Bill, who –probably in despair- rather condemned Bill a priory (and expelled him from his heart) than to suffer the idea of seeing his friend unjustly dragged though the Courts. To me- that man’s actions were just a self-defense mechanism of a man who could not stand seeing his friend in pain. I hope this anecdote helps you, tho I do not know who you are.
In closing: while there was a TRIRD MAN in the house at the time of the murder and COULD equally be the murderer, nobody can find Bill Smithson guilty….at least NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
The question is how many gay people were there on that jury of his so called "peers" you mention below and how informed were they? If the Judge did not allow the DA to have a Death Penalty eligible Jury selected, a guilty verdict would not have been so easily attained. When prosecutors eliminate jurors opposed to capital punishment, they also weed out women and minorities and stack the deck against defendants. It is a tactic that is becoming very cliche.
Maybe Smithson does not sound like an innocent man to you. But you fail to address the fact that Bruce Covington was also in the house at the time of the murder. He also left the house without reporting a thing to anyone then lied about that when he was questioned. Does that sound like a innocent person to you?
I know you were in the court room for most of the trial. I guess you forgot about the part where Smithson told Hall he tried to put the moves on Jason and Jason started to fight back. Smithson told Hall "murder happens every day". Not to mention that he let a dead body sit in his basement for days while trying to figure out what to do with it. Does this sound like an innocent man? Stop trying to blame the court system. A jury of his peers came back with the right verdict.
They found F Bruce Covington guilty of all the drug charges. I think the picture is now becoming clear, especially when we bear in mind the vivid testimony of M. Fernandez (Covington’s alleged rape victim): that gay man testified Covington drugged him and then raped him. If I recall correctly the rape victim also testified that Covington enjoyed scenarios involving violence and sex.
Reasonable people are now asking themselves: Are there more ‘skeletons’ in Bruce Chapman’s closet? (Chapman was Covington’s alias). Is there a criminal pattern when it comes to Covington? What is in his past?
You see, nobody can find Smithson guilty beyond reasonable doubt while there was another man in the house at the time of the murder; and -if you asked me- the a verdict of ‘Guilty’ becomes very improbable when you know the other man was F Bruce Covington.
The Delaware County system needed to convict someone…they targeted Smithson because it was easier…in their haste they overlooked Covington…they realized this too late. Had Covington been put to trial with Smithson the Jury wouldn’t have convicted. This is why Judge Dozor (under the ‘guidance of the DA’s office) excluded even the mentioning of Covington from the Jury deliberations.
both deserve to rot in jail for their actions here.