Set Karen Golding’s Computer Free!

Why have prosecutors refused to return Karen Golding’s computers and blackberry, which were seized at the time of her arrest in February 2006?

Golding contends that her computer contains evidence of a three-year long sexual relationship between her and Joe Cryan as well as incriminating and damaging information regarding possible illegal activities committed by Cryan.

Therein lies the rub.

Sussex Assistant County Prosecutor Gregory R. Mueller, who was named Special Deputy Attorney General to handle this matter on behalf of the state, has made every effort to discredit Golding’s defense as well as anyone who contends that Golding poses no threat to anyone including herself or Joe Cryan.

According to documents reviewed by THE STATE, Mueller is more concerned about New York Post reporters accessing courthouse filings than the opinion of Judge Triarsi, the first Superior Court judge to review the case.

Triarsi ruled that Golding be allowed to enter pretrial intervention to avoid criminal prosecution. The prosecutor in that case, Anne Frawley and and three mental health professionals all claim that Golding poses no threat to others or herself.

In his written communications to the court, Mueller rambles on about “defamatory” statements made by Golding.

He is perhaps forgetting that defamation is a civil matter, not a criminal one; therefore, it is not his place to comment on any of Golding’s beliefs or statements not directly associated with the 2006 charges.

Perhaps he is also forgetting that Golding may be offering a defense for her actions.

When one considers that Mueller is at least partially responsible for the taking of Golding’s property i.e. her multiple computers and blackberry, an objective bystander can begin to read between the lines.

Obviously there is material contained on the computer that proves Golding’s claims of an ongoing consensual relationship with Cryan and/or Cryan’s potentially illegal activities.

If Cryan and Mueller accept their account of the matter, then they must be the only two people in the Garden State who actually believe that there was no sexual relationship between Cryan and Golding.

A small sampling of evidence obtained by THE STATE (AUDIO: Goodnight, Midnight , LOM 1 , LOM 2 , Kelly’s in Neptune PDF:Blow on It), contradicts Cryan’s and Mueller’s claim.

Mueller’s writing in a manner that can only be described as a willful disregard for the truth is the only account actually guilty of defamatory labeling. His statement refers to Golding as a “manic” and “irrational.”

He goes as far as to claim that she has had an “unhealthy and flawed approach” throughout this saga. And what qualifies Mueller to make this assessment? Oh, he is a lawyer trying to defend Joe Cryan.

On the other hand, three mental health professionals who treated Golding as a part of her PTI, all claim that she has acknowledged past mistakes and poses no risk to herself or to others.

When Brooke Donald, the court-appointed health care professional, testified to Golding’s well being, Mueller simply sought to discredit Donald as well.

Honestly we can’t make this stuff up.

Mueller’s Orwellian insistence that Golding is obsessed with the nature of her relationship with Cryan allows him to ridicule and belittle her while keeping the focus off Cryan.

Of course Mueller needs to redirect the case’s attention — court documents indicate that in Golding’s Pre-Sentencing Investigation report (PSI), Cryan denied that any such relationship existed.

Therefore, Mueller knows full well that Golding is establishing a sexual relationship not because of some “unhealthy obsession,” but rather as a very rational part of her legal strategy to demonstrate that she is at worst guilty of harassment, which carries a lesser charge than stalking.

Harassment is not an indictable offense, whereas stalking is.

The entire body of evidence presented by the state demonstrates that this case is precisely NOT a stalking case.

As a Duquesne graduate and Sussex Assistant County Prosecutor, indeed as Special Deputy Attorney General, Mueller should know the difference.

Based on the strength of Mueller’s writings, on Dec. 23 2009, Judge Ahto refused to allow Golding to retract her guilty plea to stalking.

Somehow this lawyer has greater authority to speak to the nature of Golding’s mental well-being than three professionals, a Superior Court judge, and another prosecutor.

After reviewing the facts and fictions of the case, we come back to the matter of Golding’s computer.

If Mueller is truly confident in his beliefs, if there was no affair, if Cryan’s actions were all legitimate, and if Golding is actually guilty of stalking, then why wouldn’t he support Golding’s motion to return her computer?

This article is reposted from THE STATE of New Jersey

Connect with NJTODAY.NET

Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!
Email for advertising information Send stuff to NJTODAY.NET Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Download this week's issue of NJTODAY.NET
Print Friendly, PDF & Email