Thursday, August 6, 2015

Clappart's Warrant: Judge for Yourself

While much has been said, about Steve Clappart's warrant for the arrest of Cody Ray Ellis as an alternate suspect in the murder of Belinda Temple, it appears that David Temple's defense team has been reluctant to publish the warrant itself.  Additionally, many of the local media outlets, specifically the Houston Chronicle have decided not to delve into the details of it.

Let's take it page by page --


So, to be clear, in this document, Steve Clappart is attempting to have Capital Murder charges filed against Cody Ray Ellis.  For those of you outside of the legal field, Capital Murder can be punished only by Life in Prison or the Death Penalty.  By signing off on this warrant, Clappart is verifying that he is completely comfortable with this.

Clappart then goes on to explain how experienced he is as a police officer.  He also goes on and on about how experienced John Denholm was as a police officer.  This isn't necessarily abnormal, but it is pretty excessive for a standard warrant.  Clappart is basically just illustrating that he is writing the warrant at Denholm's behest, but it should make no difference, because they are both just amazingly experienced.

Clappart then goes on to state that Denholm got all of his information after being contacted by David Temple's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.  This was what I criticized Lisa Falkenberg for being so ambiguous about in her article praising Clappart and Denholm.

On to Page Two . . .
Okay, so let's start with the fact that when John Denholm brings this case to Steve Clappart, all the research that he has done into this new "star witness" Daniel Glasscock is watch a video deposition of Glasscock that is conducted by David Temple's attorney, Dick DeGuerin.  As noted, based on solely having watched the video where Glasscock is questioned by a defense attorney, John Denholm has decided that the testimony is credible and David Temple is wrongfully convicted.

Um, okay.  

So, Clappart decided to watch the video deposition, too.  He also decides it is credible, and puts the details into the Probable Cause statement.

Let's breakdown what comes out of that deposition, shall we?  Basically, Glasscock is saying that he went over to Riley Joe Sanders house with a guy named Carlos Corro.  Corro tells them "things were fucked up in a robbery."  While at Sanders house, Glasscock joins a conversation between Corro, Sanders and Cody Ray Ellis, where he hears Sanders tell Corro "that the dog attacked him when he went up the stairs, he shot the dog, heard Belinda [Temple], put the dog in the closet and they panicked and ran."

Let's assume that Glasscock was telling the truth (which is a big assumption to make) and that he actually heard these words uttered by Sanders.  These words are still a far cry away from being a confession to Capital Murder.  This is an admission to shooting a dog, and then fleeing when they hear a person [alleged to have been Belinda Temple].  

Let's also look at the plausibility of this conversation taking place.  Glasscock states that he just wandered out of the bathroom as the three boys were standing around talking about committing a home burglary/animal abuse/capital murder.  Rather than stop the conversation, they keep on talking about it as if they were talking about an Astros game?  At some point, they throw in the name of Belinda Temple, presumably so Glasscock won't feel left out of the conversation?

Clappart notes that Belinda Temple's dog was not in her house at the time of her murder, rather it was closed in the garage.  Many investigators would have found this fact as evidence that Glasscock was not a reliable witness.  Inexplicably, the dynamic duo of Clappart and Denholm find that it somehow strengthens his credibility.

Page Three . . .

Although it isn't clear whether or not law enforcement or Dick DeGuerin had Daniel Glasscock polygraph tested, Clappart notes that Glasscock has shown No Deception to "all pertinent questions asked."  He doesn't list what those "pertinent" questions were, but okay.  He is clearly doing everything he can to portray how amazingly credible Glasscock is.

At this point, Clappart starts looking into the background of Corro, Ellis and Sanders and notes that Corro and Ellis (along with a third party) had been arrested two months after Belinda Temple's murder for criminal mischief.  He notes that Corro had been driving a white car during the criminal mischief and then points out that a witness had seen two white males "in an off-white or creme or light beige colored vehicle speed away from the area of the murder around 4:30 p.m. on the date of the murder."

So, I guess there are so few white cars in the world that this is somehow incriminating?  Not to mention, the witness seems clear that it wasn't a white car, but an "off-white or creme or light beige" vehicle.  To Clappart, this appears to be immensely damning.

Clappart also notes that Corro and Ellis had committed a burglary along with Casey Goosby, eight days before the murder.  He notes that the target of this burglary was Goosby's mother's boyfriend and was done in retaliation for him cheating on her.  He also notes that shotguns and jewelry had been taken in the burglary.  

I can actually see where Clappart could find this significant.  Burglaries in the area are certainly relevant.  Burglaries are also frequent, and the typical things taken in burglaries are guns, jewelry, electronics and cash.  Clappart then points out that Sanders (who was NOT part of the Goosby burglary) had a grudge against Belinda Temple.  

This seems to be a case of two plus two equalling five, in my opinion.  So, one of the Clappart/ Denholm suspects committed a burglary shortly before the Temple murder and a different one of them had a grudge against Belinda Temple.  If we combine the two, does that point to Capital Murder?

On to Page Four . . .
 Clappart then moves in a strange direction with the warrant, by interviewing Riley Joe Sanders' ex-girlfriend, Niki Biondi Lundes.  Clappart finds some level of significance in the fact that in 1999, Lundes was reluctant to admit that Sanders was her boyfriend.  I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.  Lundes tells him that Ellis, Corro, and Sanders were associates and that they had committed crimes together before.  I don't know that this was really in question.  More significantly, Lundes tells Clappart that Belinda Temple had been a tutor to Sanders on difficult subjects, and that Sanders called her the night of the murder, crying because he had heard Belinda Temple was dead.

Clappart then returns to shoring up his "star witness", Daniel Glasscock.  He interviews Glasscock's father, who states that Daniel had told him about the information he had overheard Corro, Ellis and Sanders talking about.  Mr. Glasscock said that his son had been threatened about not talking, but he encouraged his son to talk to the police, anyway.  Mr. Glasscock said that Daniel ultimately talked to his minister, Jeff Adams, who had also told Daniel to tell the police.

I'm not really sure of the significance of this either?  So, Mr. Glasscock can offer some hearsay evidence about something his son told him he heard?  Maybe Clappart is going for some bolstering here, but I don't understand why it is in the warrant. 

Page 5 (we're almost done here) . . .


Clappart states that he personally interviewed Glasscock on July 16, 2012, and points out that (just in case anyone forgot), he, Clappart has been a police investigator for 44 years.  He points out his experience before deeming Glasscock to be "very credible."   I've read hundred of warrants in my career, but I've never seen this level of Credibility Gymnastics ever put into a warrant.  The reason Clappart is working so hard to make Glasscock seem credible is pretty apparent once Glasscock starts talking.

Glasscock tells Clappart of his own life of crime, but how now he is reformed and teaches gymnastics for children.  He confirms the information from the deposition he gave to Dick DeGuerin.  He recalls coming out of the bathroom at Sanders' house and finding Corro, Sanders and Ellis smoking on the back patio, talking about "shit was fucked up."  Glasscock tells Clappart "'they had broke in the next door neighbor's house' and later in the interview said that Sanders was very panicky and told Corro that they had shot the dog and put it in the closet."

Here's where things get even more ridiculous.
"Your affiant said that Daniel Glasscock then told your affiant that 5 or 6 months ago, Glasscock had learned that the dog had not died and that it was Belinda Temple's body that was found in the closet . . ."
Wait, what?

Clappart is interviewing Glasscock in July of 2012.  The murder happened in 1999.  Glasscock stated that he just learned of the murder in January of 2012?

Hang on, Glasscock has an explanation:
"Glasscock told your affiant that one night in May 2012 he could not sleep and woke up and turned on the television and was flipping through the channels when he saw a television program on the Temple murder and then recalled what he knew and what he had heard and began to think about what it would be like if Glasscock's father was in prison for a crime that he did not commit."
Well, I guess if you put it that way, it makes perfect sense, right?

Finally, Page 6 . . .



So, to summarize, Glasscock, an ex-criminal (per the warrant) didn't know about the murder for twelve years, sees a TV show, remembers an obscure conversation from twelve years earlier, and contacts a convicted murderer's lawyer with some new information about shooting a dog.

Yep, that's what Capital Murder warrants are made of, according to John Denholm and Steve Clappart.

Upon reading the entirety of the warrant, it should become obvious why Temple's team didn't want it published.  It should also become obvious why no judge in the courthouse would sign it.  


It should also be noted that no prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office, other than Jim Leitner thought it was should be signed.




But, then again, Leitner was having the Office recuse itself in favor of Brad Beers -- who had been Steve Clappart's attorney.  That makes it more fair, right?

If you're a prosecutor reading this, would you have taken Capital Murder charges based on that information?

If you're a judge, would you have signed the warrant?

And if you're a defense attorney, what would your reaction be if your client got arrested on a warrant like that?



39 comments:

Anonymous said...

WOW WOW WOW

I mean friggin' WOW

Mark W. Stephens said...

I was wondering when someone was going to get around to this. EXCELLENT JOB Murray! As usual. Thank you

DPPooper said...

I no sumbody who wanted to be a judge. She told me she would have signed it. I think it is a good warrant.

Scott Ashmore said...

As a police officer I wouldn't even write a piece of garbage like that......

Anonymous said...

Thats garbage. Beyond absolute garbage. Clappart and Denholm should both be ashamed of themselves. That is the literary equivolent to a past edition of The Weekly World News.

Hubris is a bitch, I guess.

C Josh Doll said...

Am I wrong, or misremembering, that what was actually said was something to the effect of, "...shot the bitch and put her in the closet..." and those that believe Temple is innocent contend that "bitch" means Belinda Temple, and those that believe the right guy is in jail interpret it to mean literally "a female dog", not a euphemism for a female human?


Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, judge, cop, or otherwise in the legal profession, just a guy with a weird obsession with law and law blogs that made his way over here from another Houston blawg.

Anonymous said...

And the media is accusing Kelly Siegler of corruption? Are you f*cking kidding me?

Does Faulkenberg even know that Daniel Glasscock recanted the very testimony this ludicrous arrest warrant was based on?

What a convoluted conspiracy of sore losers these folks have proven to be.

Anonymous said...

Murray: I have not read your comments dissecting the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant because I did not wish to prejudice my opinion one way or other. That said, after reading the warrant twice, in my opinion, this is the most convoluted affidavit that I have ever read. For lay readers not aware of what constitutes probable cause, and particularly for Clappart, Denholm, and the their advocate at the Comical, a short definition of probable cause is: credible information sufficient to support a prudent person's belief that the individual had committed the crime. Thus, this six page affidavit (usually two pages for an affidavit is sufficient) is an embarrassment - it reminds me of the bar exam question a few years ago for which I did not know the answer so I kept writing hoping the answer would be somewhere in the verbosity. This affidavit distills to the following "facts" - Clappart is a brilliant cop, Denholm was a brilliant cop and Glasscock loves his father.

Helter Skelter said...

Murray I was wondering if you could get ahold of Clappart, Denholm and Leitner a/k/a CJC's 3 Stooges.

I would like a brilliant cop like Lt. Clappart and/or Denholm to review an interview of a really really nice guy who loves his mom and knows for a fact that Charles Manson was wrongfully convicted for the murder of Sharon Tate, her unborn son and 4 others.

The witness' speech is a tad slurred and he appears, to the untrained eye, to be incoherent since he accidentally took 4 Vicodin instead of 4 Advil for a bad headache an hour before our interview at Dickhead's Bar and Grill.

As I'm sure you know, Sharon Tate was 8 1/2 months pregnant with her unborn son at the time she was brutally murdered and poor innocent Charlie Manson was wrongfully convicted by an over zealous prosecutor who just did it to write a book--how weird is that!

Anyway, we need a Capital Murder warrant issued for the real killer, Sister Anne, who is a nun at St. Mary's Convent. The priest and all the other nuns are obviously liars since they testified the nun in question was on sabbatical at the Vatican working directly with the Pope at the time of the carnage.

I am sure Jimmy Leitner can shop the warrant for judicial signature in Beaumont once we get it drafted.

Thanks for your help Murray.

Anonymous said...

C Josh Doll:

Not that it makes a damn bit of evidentiary difference…….the allegation referred to throwing a dog, NOT a bitch, in the closet.

Using your line of "reasoning" men are usually referred to as dogs, NOT women.

Questions?

Anonymous said...

Is suborning perjury and tampering with a witness no longer an offense in Harris County?

If in fact the Glasscock testimony was recanted then we need an investigation as to what EXACTLY transpired here!
Where is Harris County's DA Devon Anderson? I wonder how Kim Ogg would handle this if she were DA of Harris County?
Is Kelly Siegler the only one NOT afraid of Dick DeGuerin?

Hey Lisa Faulkenberg and side kick Brian Rogers--know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:10. Hmm, your comment sounds very Hooperesque. Clearly you are not a criminal lawyer, probably not a lawyer at all. There is no offense in the Texas Penal Code styled "Suborning Perjury."

Taking a swipe at the current Harris County District Attorney over this one is also. Hooperesque.

Maybe you should post over on his blog. That way he would have someone commenting other than himself.

Anonymous said...

Dear Protector of the Anderson Realm @ 2:08,

Perjury is a criminal offense under Texas Penal Code Chapter 37. Speaking in general terms, perjury is knowingly or willfully making a false statement under oath. The severity of a perjury charge can range from a class A misdemeanor to a third-degree felony. Procuring another party to commit perjury is called "subornation of perjury" and is also subject to serious criminal charges.
While many people have heard of perjury, not as commonly known is "subornation of perjury." Subornation of perjury is when someone willfully procures another party to make a false statement under oath or swear to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath. However, the false statement must be one that is "material," an often argued point.

Many times subornation of perjury charges are placed upon attorneys who are accused of persuading clients to lie under oath. This can be considered aggravated perjury, a third-degree felony punishable by fines, jail time and not to mention professional implications. Since perjury is a crime of moral turpitude, an attorney facing charges is in jeopardy of facing sanctions and being disbarred.

Hmm my ass........

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon 2:08 no one expects the HCDAO under Devon Anderson to step up for so many obvious reasons.......maybe someone at the US Attorneys' office will have the cojones.

Federal laws against suborning perjury set the punishment at up to five years in prison, plus fines. States, including Texas, also punish suborning perjury, which is always a felony and will carry the possibility of at least a year in state prison.

A person charged with suborning perjury in a criminal trial may also be charged as an accessory to the underlying crime in that case, even if he/she had nothing to do with the crime. For example, suppose a person induced false testimony from a witness in order to conceal the crime for which the defendant was on trial. When people actively attempt to conceal a crime from the authorities, they can be prosecuted for being an “accessory after the fact” to the crime, or simply as an accessory. The suborner could end up being charged not only with suborning perjury, but for being an accessory to the crime charged in the case.

BTW, recantation by the lying witness is not a defense to suborning perjury. A witness may avoid punishment for perjury if he/she recants his/her previously false testimony during the same proceeding. But, the crime of suborning perjury is a separate crime and the witness’s recantation is no defense to that crime. Not only that, but the witness’s recantation will likely be used against the person charged with subornation, because it is an admission that perjury actually occurred!

We both know my syntax/grammar/knowledge etc. rules out Dumb ass Donny Hooper from authoring this and the other comments regarding this issue of chickenshit.

Who knew?

Anonymous said...

Texas Penal Code
Title 8
Chapter 36

§ 36.05. Tampering With Witness

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to influence the witness, he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding or coerces a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding:

(1) to testify falsely;.........

just another pesky statute Devon Anderson and her Harris County DA's office feels is too insignificant to pursue. I guess they're too busy prosecuting all the low income minority trace cases to hold a rich connected white man accountable.

What a disgusting charade. And all the while the HCDAO is awkwardly AWOL hunkered down like a Frenchman.

Ain't political agendas grand?

Anonymous said...

1. What is the big deal a defense attorney is supposed to zealously defend his client which surely permits a little fabrication and witness encouragement I mean I'm sure everybody does it they just don't get caught is the only difference here

2. Ms. Seigler is really mean and deserves to finally have her butt kicked by Mr. DeGuerin

3. Leave poor Ms. Anderson alone I mean she has enough to deal with cleaning up all the mess she inherited and her top people are busy working long hours to train the new prosecutors who need close supervision

Anonymous said...

Protector of the realm? Hardly. Perhaps you spent too much time playing Dungeons and Dragons during your formative years.

The post was about the affidavit that members of the Lykos administration et al tried to put forth in support of a capital murder arrest warrant. That did not happen under the watch of anyone named Anderson as far as I can tell so why go after the DA based on this post?

So far no one has pointed me to a statute called "Suborning Perjury", so that point is in my favor.

Going off topic demanding a witch hunt for defense attorneys in general sounds an awful lot like something Hooper would come up with to whip posters into a frenzy. Sorry if I hit a nerve.

I am sure that as the election for 2016 approaches, there will be plenty of posts that warrant criticism of the current administration. Believe me I have some. This post was not geared toward that topic.

Go ahead engage in more name calling and histrionics to move the conversation further off topic. It is your First Fmendment right.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:31,

"The post was about the affidavit that members of the Lykos administration et al tried to put forth in support of a capital murder arrest warrant. That did not happen under the watch of anyone named Anderson as far as I can tell so why go after the DA based on this post?"
--Well now Anderson is the DA not Lykos. And it appears that the heat in the kitchen is too hot for your little head chef.

"So far no one has pointed me to a statute called "Suborning Perjury", so that point is in my favor"
--Are you really contending that the Anderson administration does not consider subornation of perjury to be criminal conduct? Is it it really no big deal for defense attorneys in Harris County to suborn perjury with impunity?

"Going off topic demanding a witch hunt for defense attorneys in general sounds an awful lot like something Hooper would come up with to whip posters into a frenzy. Sorry if I hit a nerve."
--It seems that you only support witch hunts when the target is a prosecutor who intimidates you. What a hypocrite.


"I am sure that as the election for 2016 approaches, there will be plenty of posts that warrant criticism of the current administration. Believe me I have some. This post was not geared toward that topic."
--Who's suborning lies now, Missy?

"Go ahead engage in more name calling and histrionics to move the conversation further off topic. It is your First Fmendment (sic) right."
--Stupid is as stupid does.

Anonymous said...

I think the right that Hooper wants to talk about it the Fifth Amendment.

Anonymous said...

I think the statute anon 5:31 needs to read is TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 15.02

Anonymous said...

OK Sunshine here is the answer that I was looking for. Suborning perjury is not a penal offense by name. Perjury is. You could theoretically prosecute for suborning perjury as a party to the offense. You do know about the "law of parties" right? Jeez, it was not even that hard.

I know, maybe we can elect a DA who vows to file perjury charges against a defense attorney when his client has pled not guilty but later convicted. Clearly the client was lying when he pled not guilty, right? The defense attorney encouraged it right?

I can see the campaign slogan now, "Vote Anon 11:10, for DA, he will clean up the defense bar!"

I got bad news for you Sunshine, NO prosecutor intimidates me, current or former! I agree, the Siegler bashing is a witch hunt!

BTW, what is it with you and feminine pronouns,? "Missy", really?


Anonymous said...

Anon 6:23,

Failure to understand the difference between a defendant asserting his innocence unless the State proves otherwise verses a defense attorney coercing a witness to knowingly produce false testimony under oath, is remarkable.

Specifically, in the Temple case, Mr. Glasscock's solicited sworn testimony was not only knowingly false and subsequently recanted, defense counsel was willing to use it to send an innocent 3rd party to prison for Capital Murder so that the true killer could go free!

Anyone who cannot appreciate the vile moral turpitude implicit in that plot is similarly depraved.

It seems, Missy, both sides of the bar need some housekeeping.

Anonymous said...

The Feds have codified Anon 6:23's theory:

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury

Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Who knew?

Anonymous said...

Somebody needs to do something.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:37,

"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion."
-Alexander the Great

It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, actually does have the courage to stand up and "do something".
There is strength in numbers. Perhaps a grievance endorsed by a large number of folks who find this scheme by DeGuerin and others to be ethically deplorable might not only carry more weight with the State Bar, but would also mitigate the apparent fear the local legal community has of DeGuerin.

The deafening silence by DA Devon Anderson makes it abundantly clear that, for whatever reason, she is standing down on this matter.


Anonymous said...

Blah blah blah. Give it a rest boy!

DA files perjury charges against a defense attorney whose is appealing a high profile murder conviction in connection with the case being appealed.

Defense attorney screams bloody murder, violation of his clients due process rights, intimidation etc.

Defense attorney files motion to disqualify DA's office due to conflict of interest.

Motion to disqualify granted.

District Attorney pro tem appointed.

DA pro tem is a defense attorney (whose heart just really isn't in prosecuting a fellow traveler) so no bill issues after a grand jury drawn from the jury pool hears it.

Case against original defense attorney goes away.

DA looks like an idiot for going after him in the first place.

Anonymous said...

MEMORANDUM
To; All Defense Counsel Practicing Criminal Law in Harris County, Texas
From: Missy, the Default Blog Spokesman for Harris County DA Devon Anderson
RE: Criminal Conduct Engaged in by the Defense Bar
Date: 13 August 2015

Henceforth, if a defendant's case is on appeal or an appeal is being considered; any criminal conduct you, or those working on defendant's behalf, engage in to secure such appeal is hereafter protected and shall not be prosecuted by the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Missy's politically correct expansion of defense counsel's duty to zealously represent his/her client in Harris County shall be limitless and no longer subject to the Texas Penal Code's pesky statutes or any other common law or case law restraints.

However, this bastardization of Due Process shall only apply as a benefit to defendants and their representatives.
Prosecutors remain subject to the old rules with the caveat that defense counsel, at his/her sole discretion, may impose stricter arbitrary sanctions on any prosecutor at any time.




Anonymous said...

Excuse maker @ 7:13,

The 1st five words of your last sentence says it all……..

Anonymous said...

Prosecutorial Catch 22;

Imagine if prosecutors no longer had immunity.

If the defendant was found guilty all the defense lawyer would need to show is that there was evidence, real or imaginary, he wasn't privy to and the prosector goes to prison for a "Brady" violation.

If the defendant is found innocent the prosector shall forfeit his entire net worth to the defendant for "wrongful prosecution".

Questions?

Anonymous said...

Let's think about past District Attorney's. JBH, Jr., would have read the affidavit and thrown it in the trash where it belonged. Rosenthal, assuming he was sober at the time, would have recognized that it was crap. Magidson would have laughed at it. Lykos supposedly never saw it. As the elected DA, either she was kept out of the loop or wanted insulation. So either Little Jimmy went rogue, or Patsy wanted what Nixon wanted, plausible deniability. The gang who wouldn't shoot straight indeed!

Anonymous said...

I like the rogue theory. I am sure Leitner learned about covert oops, I mean ops in the Coast Guard.

Anonymous said...

Murray,
Any truth to the rumor that the reality show "Little People, Big World" just signed Brian Rogers?

Mark W. Stephens said...

Leaving the attorneys aside for the moment, I have to wonder if a comprehensive review of all Clappart's and Denholm's old cases is in order. If this is an example of how they constructed their criminal cases in the past, there might well be innocent people still in jail. I don't even want to think about their past Capital Murder cases. To see what they have collaborated on here...or maybe "conspired" would be the better word...is astonishing.

Just Sayin' said...

Mark Stephens,

What a dilemma that would pose for the Houston Chronicle: they would have to weigh the value of investigating whether or not factually innocent human beings were incarcerated against destroying the reputation of Kelly Siegler at all costs………….a conflict of epic proportions.

Just Sayin'

Anonymous said...

Funny how nowhere in this warrant does Clappart day he tried asking any of the guys Glasscock mentions about this conversation

Anonymous said...

Murray, maybe these other news outlets didn't want to "delve into" because they didn't want to release this guys name. I mean, even you say they have nothing on him so why would you publish his name when nobody else has?

Anonymous said...

Just found out that the person named in this warrant didn't know about it until seeing it printed here in this blog.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 1:22 p.m. & 10:34 p.m.,

I don't think you have been following the case at all based on those posts.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:22 is correct. Mr. Ellis called the Office asking about the warrant because someone told him about this post on your blog. It was the first time he knew of it.