The evidence supporting Armando's innocence is overwhelming. The entire case apparently was been built around a "confidential informant" who claimed that Armand had killed the deer with a rifle while trespassing. Yet no investigation was ever conducted to verify that claim and it was never proven in court. In fact, if an investigation had been conducted there were numerous witnesses on the scene on Oct. 1, 2005, who could refute that claim. At least, there were numerous witnesses who saw Armando legally hunting with a bow that day and there were three witnesses who helped him recover his arrow and his deer.

Furthermore, if Armando had killed the deer illegally with a gun, why would he have taken the rear portion of the hide, the portion clearly showing the entrance wound (from the arrow), to a taxidermist, where it could later be forensically inspected by authorities? If he had something to hide -- like a bullet wound with powder and lead residue -- it stands to reason that he would have immediately discarded the incriminating evidence. And even if Armando had been guilty, how could the state of New Jersey convict him on such flimsy evidence against the testimony of three eyewitnesses. Armando lost his case solely on an alleged "confidential informant" and a forensics "expert" who testified simply that in his opinion the deer could not have been killed with an arrow.

NO JUSTICE HERE
After reading Armando's story and the court transcripts, North American Whitetail editor Duncan Dobie contacted me and asked if I'd be interested in writing an objective story about Armando's situation. I, too, read the court transcripts, and I couldn't believe that two different New Jersey judges had found Armando guilty in light of such overwhelming evidence of innocence.

I gave Armando a phone call and asked him some questions. My intention was to feel him out and judge his truthfulness. I approached the situation with an open mind; that is, I reserved my opinion of innocence or guilt until I could find out more. Armando's suffering and anxiety over the loss of his reputation and his buck were most evident to me. A 43-year-old truck driver with three daughters, I knew he likely couldn't afford to spend another $5,000 for his second and final court appeal.

It was also evident that the well-being of Armando's family was in jeopardy over mental anguish and the drain of the family's savings. Armando indicated that he was willing to give up the fight because it seemed hopeless, but he wanted his fellow deer hunters to know the true story. After talking to Armando I called the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Division to hear its side of the story. Regional Captain Todd Eisenhain, the supervisor of Kille and Leonard, answered the phone.

I told Captain Eisenhain that I was an outdoor journalist and freelance writer looking into the Armando Pioppi Jr. case. I told him that I had not formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence but that I just wanted to ask a few questions.

My first question was: "Why did the wardens not investigate the kill site or ask to examine the fatal arrow?" Captain Eisenhain stated there was no need to because they already had forensic proof of guilt. (In truth, there was no forensic proof whatsoever. It was all opinion expressed by the prosecution's expert witness.)

page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6