1

SUMMARY OF THE DAMNING AND CRUSHING PROOFS OF DEFENDANT’S INNOCENCE.

The truth may be gagged for a while, but it eventually resurrects when the advocates of untruth
die. Daniel ANDRÉ

INCONSISTENCY OF ATTITUDES FROM SELF-DECLARED VICTIM: R.1743-47:

If contradictory declarations made under oath by the witness do not diminish their credibility,
then every imaginable trick from the enemy is possible! There is nothing the accusing party can
do to lose the game, even if they did all they could to that end!
•On the 6th of April 91, Dr. Bakalov was alone with Ms. Lauren Jones, in her home; she reports
that between 7:30 and 8:30 (Preliminary hearing transcript page 33) he tried (for a full hour) to
have sex with her, and that she did all she could to escape his hugging and kissing. Still in the
First hearing of transcripts she declared that this lasted about a half-hour. On page 35 line 14 she
declares that she went out with Dr. Bakalov when it was not yet 11 o’clock, but on page 36 line
12 she admits it was 11:30. Whatever the case, from this instant, she should have known that he
was liable or likely to seize every other opportunity to get what he wanted from her. In this text,
evidence that defendant and complaining witness had consensual sexual relationship prior to the
incident is provided. Ms. Lauren Jones should not have accepted going out alone in Dr.
Bakalov’s truck at night, hardly more than an hour after the above-mentioned demonstration of
his sexual intentions, unless they were intimate beforehand? – The more so since Ms. Lauren
Jones declared that she expected her friend Bakalov would make another “pass” (R.1763-4). In
the TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JURY TRIAL 7 Page 76/11 there is more confirmation of this paradox-
ical attitude from Ms. Lauren Jones going out alone in Dr. Bakalov’s truck at night, after he is
said to have exhibited serious sexual advances. To comment upon this odd behavior, the best
thing is to plagiarize Mr. Cope’s pompous phraseology (page 152/9 etc.): “To this self-contra-
dicting reaction, is not there a reasonable doubt"? Lauren going out with someone exteriorizing
threats of sexual misconduct - at night - in his own truck? But on the part of Lauren, any weird
attitude will be attributed to her mental disturbances, those that will be then denied when the is-
sue of the validity of her testimony will be raised. The same can be said regarding her casually
inviting her would-be rapist at her home while she was quite alone there! “Is not there a reason-
able doubt as to the veracity of the “rape”"?
•On page 46 of the preliminary hearing line 19 we can read a cock and bull story about the acro-
batic way she was “raped”. The description is so unbelievable (yet strongly believed by the
Court) that the typist made a revealing lapses linguae. She wrote he “talked his shirt off” instead
of “taking” his shirt off. According to the impossible position he which he was and having only
two hands, Dr. Bakalov has no other way than to “talk” his shirt off but certainly was unable to
take it off himself. The shirt apparently agreed to go off!
•Ms. Lauren Jones is in contradiction with herself when she claims that she first met Dr. Bakalov
only during the week of April 6th. (Starting April 1st until the 6th of it). In the preliminary hearing
transcript she says, on page 3 that “it was the previous week to April 6”. On page four line 15 she
admits she had worked for him during the previous week to that of the 6 th of April. On page 26
line 12/13 she says that she worked for Dr. Bakalov about a week prior to the 6 th of April. She
admits that prior to the week of the 6th she had meetings with Dr. Bakalov.
•On page 6 of the transcript of first hearing she declares that there were only Deanna Ludlow
with her when Dr. Bakalov arrived on the 6th at 5:20 quarter to six. But on page 6 line 16 she
says: “There was Deanna Ludlow and Hug Ensign, and Judy Lott...”

1
 2

•The scene of the alleged “rape” was the bed of a 1989 Nissan King Cab pickup truck. The bed
had been converted to have storage cabinets ports and starboard (these opened only from
the top) and the whole was carpeted. A canopy/hard cover to the height of the roof of the cab
enclosed it. The carpet was aged and easily shed fibers. The carpet color was of pale blue-gray. If
the “rape” had really taken place with all that it entails, some molecules of blood, skin, hair,
traces of vaginal discharge, as well as significant wear mark on the aged carpet - from a forceful
dragging of the skirt over it – would have been found, mainly under the applied pressure of a 160
pounds woman in the act of resisting; actually, no evidence of Dr. Bakalov’s sperm from the
claimed double copulation was found, no trace of rough treatment, or of the bed-carpet fibers or
whatever that could in any manner link it to the pickup bed in question ; they should have been
found on the carpet where the “rape” supposedly took place. The investigative prosecution had
the Nissan in their possession for two entire months and they scrutinized it very carefully. At the
trial, the investigators declared they found “something”. But upon examination, the identity of
that “something” was never declared. Actually, no trace of what was expected was ever reported
because nothing was found!
•Deanna and Ms. Lauren Jones were interested in Bakalov and his mother in their role as Latter
Day Saints missionaries (R.184/22,23,28,30,31) and had discussed the possibility of bringing
them into the Church. They had talked to them about attending conference. R. 184/36.
Ms. Lauren Jones’s disappointment in her expectations from the defendant (love and church at-
tending) could be the triggering catalyst of her retaliation measures, in possible addition with Dr.
Gay’s help.
INCONSISTENCY OF REACTION AFTER ”RAPE” REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 22, 1994: 123/24.
124/1,6, 8. Lauren admits having phoned the man she accused of raping her a few hours before,
not for the purpose of giving him a hell of a bawling out, but simply to kindly invite him and his
mother to a conference! Reporter’s Transcript September 28, 1994. Volume 7.
Post-rape behavior: Page 9/6 Lauren certifies she called her “rapist” four times the next day after
the alleged “rape”. Page 12/1: Deanna wasn’t home that night and Lauren opened the door to the
man she accused of raping her. Even a profound state of shock could not induce such an “oblivi-
on"! Preliminary hearing transcript page 54 line 7 and on she admits that immediately after the
“rape” she proceeded to take care of unfinished business, she picked up the papers she’d typed,
she turned the computer off, helped him pack his material...!
(EXHIBIT 1014 Versus 1015). Inconsistencies of Ms. Lauren Jones’s behavior after claimed
rape: In her journal entries corresponding to the day of the alleged “rape”, (exhibit 1015) Ms
Jones exhibits a totally cool, casual, unperturbed and nonchalant mood. “She acted normal”. (Was
the general remark – whatever the terms used - of witnesses and Lauren’s psychotherapist
Brady)? Ms. Lauren Jones and Bakalov were “jovial and carefree” when they returned to the
apartment after the alleged incident. R. 184/14,32,33. They were not “confrontive” and behaved
“carefree, jokingly.” R. 184/35. Deanna saw no indication that Ms. Lauren Jones was hysterical
or crying. R. 184/33. The two had a “carefree conversation”. R. 184/34. But is this attitude con-
sistent with being “raped"? It is far from it and this is why Lauren’s therapist, actually social
worker, Judy Brady, manufactured the following “scientific” explanation to cover up her unques-
tionable nonchalance: “She acted normal, but psychologists say it is a way to cope. At the mo-
ment of crisis, they look fine; they shut off their emotions. And, rather than being hysterical and
screaming in your ear, they look cool as a cucumber. Later they have delayed emotions…” To this
sophisticated but true analysis (in very definite cases), it could be retorted that in case there is
nothing to be hysterical about, what is a person’s outward unperturbed appearance supposed to

2
 3

mean"? Being cool after a “rape” is statistically the exception. But an apparently unperturbed atti-
tude, as if the crack was deep inside, is not consistent with activities and “moods” such as those
expressed in exhibit 1015. It’s all too easy to confuse the blank attitude of someone having just
undergone an emotional Hiroshima with playful nonchalant moves and activities! This is so true
that an Apocrypha exhibit 1014 had to be created, no one knows exactly under what circum-
stances - in order to counterbalance exhibit 1015 and its all too dangerous suggestion of a quiet
evening on the 6th of April 91! Even the numbering of the two exhibits seems to have been subtly
inverted to give a wrong idea of their timing! In one passage of the transcript, Mr. Cope says he is
the author of interpolated exhibit 1014! Mr. COPE to Ms. Lauren Jones: “... You came in
with a typewritten summary, day by day, of what had happened during the
case”. (1015). And I said, “Do you have any other information or details about that?” and about
two weeks later, you came back with another one (1014 – Apocrypha variant). “I could make a
legitimate argument that those are my work product.... I wanted to be quiet about this.” Page 8.
And then: COPE: “You know, until a judge orders you to turn those journals over (Inconsistent
exhibits N°1014), I don’t see anything to worry about"! (So there would be something to worry
about if these two clashing documents were confronted).
All this shows that they’re both trying to dream up a strategy to dodge the negative impact sub-
sequent to the clashing inconsistencies of these two documents. They have worries about it that's
why Mr. Cope needs to reassure Lauren by telling her: “There is nothing to worry about”.
Or suggest her to claim that the journals don’t exist any more. (Or even digging them in a hole).
Mr. Cope further says: “Because it sounds to me that the Defense Counsel is perfectly happy
with being provided only with the one extract...” (1014). Etc. No comment! In a tape-recorded
conversation between Mr. Cope and Ms. Lauren Jones, one could hear Mr. Cope talking about
destroying embarrassing exhibit 1015! (The conversation was reported on the Transcript of ex-
hibit 1022 Tape of April 18, 1994).
Prosecution’s STRATEGY. Example:
Exhibits 1014 and 1015. Their clashing discrepancies seriously undermine the credibility and
veracity of Margaret Lauren Jones's testimony. But in order to escape all the negative subsequent
implications of this, the State imposes an awkward but authoritarian interpretation of these worri-
some discrepancies according to which, if those two documents had been known by the Defense
at first trial, the outcome of the hearing would have been different. But since these two exhibits
have been produced and unused during the second trial, that -(in their opinion)- makes up for
their initial absence, washes away any potential prejudice that this violation of rule 16 might have
caused in the first trial, and therefore closes the matter. This subtle reasoning enabled them to
dodge the fundamental fact that the wrong actually doesn’t lie exclusively in the absence of these
two testimonies during the first trial, but in the fact that these discrepancies were and still remain
a strong evidence of the unreliability of Lauren’s testimony on the whole! The prejudice is the
Court’s refusal to consider those discrepancies and inconsistencies as a proof of Miss Jones unre-
liability. This Court’s strategy escaped even stand-by (sleep-by?) defense’s and Jury’s atten-
tion, yet showing the opposition’s acute and villain intentions to condemn the defendant to per-
petual imprisonment, whatever the elements brought to the hearings may be! On page 71 of the
preliminary hearing transcript we read that despite all the comical inconsistencies, discrepancies
and out of the world explanations given by the complaining witness, the Judge her testimony that
he heard is sufficient evidence that the crime of rape occurred and the Court so finds! We note
with trembling stupefaction that the mere raving report of the witness is in itself sufficient evid-
ence as to the crime she complains of! The scenario is plausible, therefore true evidence, as the

3
 4

State ordered! Yet the real point is that they prove the little credibility of all Miss Jones testimony
on the whole and in a permanent way. And by the way, the apocrypha 1014 seems to stem from
Mr. Cope’s shrewd abilities, not from Ms. Lauren Jones's! How do we know? Well, he stated it
himself– he said: “I could legitimately say it is the product of my work”! Why should he hide this
fact since he can do whatever he pleases without any referee’s ban! And moreover, Mr. Cope, the
big ball leader, says there are no real discrepancies or inconsistencies between 1014/1015 exhib-
its! With twisted reasoning, metaphysical approach, extra-interlaced rhetoric, boorish authoritari-
an imposition of personal subjectivity on the defense, everything is possible. Mr. Cope is able to
“reason by the absurd” as we say here, meaning emitting philosophical ideas found in cognitive
areas of abstract mental works where it is impossible to be wrong as long as you stay in the
sphere of ideas and philosophical approaches. With philosophy, there is no such thing as being
wrong, or being right. Both are out of the question. The end result is that you are right after all –
since you are not wrong! A cat may be a dog if you look at it from a special far-fetched angle; by
dint of reasoning you can make it whatever you want. And Mr. Cope just does that because he
imposes concepts or approaches that go beyond the usual standards by which you differentiate
reality from abstract philosophical reasoning. Necessarily, Mr. Cope has to be a believer. When
science and exactitude are beyond your intellectual means, a good solution is to adopt religion! A
concrete mind would be anxious to know what the Code-R samples have to say, a religious mind
would be afraid of the tangible realities it might contain, and would rather believe what is advant-
ageous for him or for those he defends! And what to think about the fact that despite all these ar-
gumentation, not only the sentenced was not diminished, but converted from five years to life im-
prisonment? Is this cruel prolongation a measure of retaliation?
ANALYSIS OF EXHIBITS 1014/1015: (Journals)
Saturday, 6 April 1991 – “Bojidar takes me in his truck (probably around 11
p.m.?). He drove to a place so I could see a view of the city. Finally got home
and had a bath…”
There is no mention whatsoever of a “rape”. Such a usually disturbing event was not even sug-
gested in any way in her diary. The mood in which every detail is noted is casual, merry, light-
hearted. Even if someone has underwent a shock, he or she may be stunt and non-reactive, but
she cannot be in such a merry mood like that which oozes out of the words she wrote! In a disso-
ciative state, even if there is no mention from the victim being in a state of shock- like in a rape,
at least the other facts she may write about cannot possibly be so detached, so casual, placid and
nonchalant! On the ADDENDUM ENTITLED “J LAUREN’S JOURNAL ENTRIES. EXHIBIT N° 1015” One can
read the following clashing facts:
Tuesday, 2 April 1991: “Bojidar…intense man. Came to realize as far as attractive men are con-
cerned, that I am definitely past my prime. There was a time, no matter who the man was, if we
were to sit in such close proximity to one another, that there would be some attraction, that at
some point, his concentration would have been distracted for at least a millisecond. (but with
Bojidar) there was nothing, he was totally business. I thought he might be gay, but at looking him
closely I really didn’t think so… He seems every straight, has an open honest demeanor… Cute
man”…. Don’t these words contain a certain amount of infatuation?
At some moment during the lawsuit, the judge asks the jury to look at Bojidar and because of his
possibly sexually depraved appearance, to conclude he is guilty! (Quite unorthodox procedure, by
the way!). But in her words quoted above, one can notice that Ms. Jones doesn’t agree with the
Court in respect to this approach of Bojidar! On the contrary, she thinks he is straight, honest, to
the point of not being enough “go-ahead” or “forward” with women (A regretful undertone can

4
 5

be perceived in her statement), too prudish, to the point of wondering if he is gay! What a con-
trasting opinion with that of the court, and how incompatible with the “rape” Dr Bakalov is
charged with! From one extreme to the other! Moreover, anyone can notice Lauren’s infatuation
with Bojidar, this being confirmed by many other revealing details; how is it plausible, then, that
she refused to kiss him on the mouth as she declared he wanted her to do?
Place of the “crime":
•In 1992/1993 several “rapes” in Utah were blamed to a firefighter named Michael de Coors.
One of them was perpetrated in the University Research Park. So Mr. Cope and Margaret Lauren
JONES chose this particular place as a convenient crime scene, but it is about 30 minutes drive
from my home, and in 1991, Margaret Lauren JONES testified: “We turned right (North) in Fed-
eral High Area and traveled for about 10 minutes”.
In 1994, she testified: “We turned left (East) and ended in the University Research Park.”
Sunday, 7 April 1991 – Only casual, unconcerned trivial reports are mentioned on her diary of
this day, although it is only a few hours after she later claimed to have been fiercely “raped” by
Dr Bakalov. Considering the emotional disarray and tempest the “rape” should normally have
provoked in her, one doesn’t understand how Lauren could write such serene notes, as if she were
totally unperturbed and even in a jovial mood. She was emotionally able to attend a conference
and find it a great experience! She wasn’t at all angry at her aggressor, nor did she even dread to
see him again, because she declared, almost with a giggling delight, that she had come to invite
him. Has anyone ever heard of a “raped” woman nonchalantly inviting her rapist to a conference
the next day? Isn’t there, in this description of facts, something totally incompatible with plaus-
ible reality? Is it reasonable to attribute this to “d.i.d” or other mental disturbance, and then de-
clare she was in a good mental state and her testimony could be trusted... and even taken as the
sole reference of reality? Further in her account, one can read she feels sorry that Bojidar bugged
out of coming on account he was writing his dissertation (One can feel a kind of disappointment
there, in her tone – which is incompatible if he “raped” her a few hours before). She reports more
unconcerned events, through which she exhibits a total absence of emotional or mental disarray
that normally follows a “rape": “Came home, ate, read". Not the slightest trace of trauma
transpires out of this. She could as well have written: “I yawned, played with the cat and
went to sleep right away” !!! Did the shock prevent her from sleeping -, as is nearly always
the case in such events? She wrote: “I kept falling asleep, so I went to bed. Slept until
6:30 p.m.” Still, in the preliminary hearing transcript she declared, on page 22 line 8: “ I tried
to go to bed, but I couldn’t sleep...”Was Ms. Lauren Jones making a game effort not to think
about what had just happened a few hours before? If so, she succeeded to perfection then! In-
spector Colombo would snigger skeptically, should he read such unconcerned notes! Supposing
the shock was so intense that she “dissociated”, could she have then slept so readily, could she
have invited Bojidar, could she have read a book, in short could she have experienced such bor-
ingly detached unconcerned feelings?
Further she wrote that she asked for a father’s blessing from Brother Stensrud (“Walking to his
house, I prayed he wouldn’t ask me any questions). Here some might retort that
Lauren was afraid to have to confess she was “raped”. But from what she wrote and did on that
day, it is incompatible that she could have been “raped” because this supposes a series of reac-
tions and a state of shock utterly incompatible with the easy-going, almost soporific state of mind
and heart that grossly watermarks through her words. So the reason M.L. Jones feared brother
Stensrud possible questions was she would have had to reveal that she had consensual sexual in-

5
 6

tercourse with Bojidar BAKALOV. The defendant claims that Ms. Lauren Jones tried to incite him
to sex by means of fellatio because he was adamant in his refusal. She further writes: “Yes, I tried
to run but, why I couldn’t get away?" And why this curious expectation from God: “You will be
married in a few short months. You will have children, etc."?
The absence of trauma or shock, meaning the absence of “rape” is also confirmed by R.184: 14,
32,33: “Lauren and Bakalov were “jovial and carefree” (or other equivalent adjectives)
when they returned to the apartment after the would-be fierce “rape” that shook her to pieces.
They were not “confrontive” and “behaved jokingly” R. 184: 16,33,34,35, 38, 42. Deanna saw no
indication that Lauren was hysterical or crying, or upset or in any different mood from usual. R.
184.33. The two had a relaxed and carefree conversation”. R. 184:34. Dr. Bakalov and Ms.
Lauren Jones were seated next to each other on the couch. How can one explain this? The more
so since Ms. Lauren Jones will later explain (see in this text) that she was not much traumatized
on the fatidic night!
Granted, some sperms were found in Lauren’s vagina on the 9th, but the Court – despite scientific
sound bases – refused to admit that some, (even if few) intact sperms could not be found in a va-
gina 72 hours after being deposited there, especially when the claimed victim has a bath of two
hours after the “rape"! The only explanation, if a “rape” or consensual sexual intercourse really
occurred, that was after the night of the 6th! Reading of the transcripts leads to believe that Ms.
Lauren Jones retaliated because Dr. Bakalov didn't reciprocate her infatuation and/or showed no
interest in becoming a member of the Latter Day saints. The change of attitude from laudatory to
accusing takes place when she realizes he will not go to the conference and after possible adam-
ant refusal for sex on the part of Dr. Bakalov on the night of April the 6th.
•On page 24 of the preliminary hearing she said that Dr. Bakalov proposed her aborting pills in
case she were pregnant. That was in 1991 when the French aborting pills R.486 were not yet dis-
covered.
Exhibit 1014 (Written after 1st trial had started) is another diary, or journal, with identical
dates, also containing various notes and comments made by M. L Jones concerning the same day,
(6th) but this time with a dramatically different version of facts. Is this an apocryphal version of
the first report (1015)? Which of the two was written first? Who wrote the second report, why
was it so thoroughly edited ? Who wants people to believe it was modified as retrospective
flashes of memories surfaced ? Under the dictation or suggestions of whom was this written ?
There lies a mystery. Must we take the former or the latter as final proof? Is the change in events
due to Ms Jones late recollection of facts repressed from her conscience on the moment of their
occurrence, must we wait until still new flashes of reality come to change the picture again?
When is the picture of facts considered as complete? How many times is Ms Jones entitled to
change the facts she writes ? Not knowing if this second version is authentic or not, and consider-
ing that in legal matters only the first report is valid, this “extra chromosome” version of the facts
should be ruled out altogether ! And yet, the Court bases their conviction and justification for life
imprisonment on such testimonies !
•“One of the main characteristic symptoms in “rape” victims is a profound fear of reprisal, of of-
fender retaliation, of being “raped” again, fear of being home alone, fear of men in general”. We
know that Lauren went to visit Dr. Bakalov soon after what she calls “rape”. She wanted to invite
him to a conference. Not only she doesn’t fear being alone but she is fond of loneliness, she does-
n’t fear men, as far as we can judge during her plotting against Dr. Bakalov, in the friendly com-
pany of Mr. Cope, as reported in the Transcript of Exhibit 1022 Tape of April 18,1994. And does-
n’t she willingly attend every trial where she can see Dr. Bakalov in Court?

6
 7

Mr. Cope asks the Jury to examine what Lauren said and to take it as a basis of conviction. He
asks them to decide whether Pillar Shortsleeve told the truth (she actually didn’t say any-
thing inculpatory) whether Daniel Duggleby told the truth – (actually he didn’t say
anything that could prove Bakalov is guilty) and whether their minds, and ears, and
hearts and guts (not the evidence) think (matter of opinion or belief) that Bakalov is
guilty. In reality, the Court has proven nothing and admits they cannot do so on account of a lack
of a reliable proof. The Court has not proven that Lauren Jones was raped on the night of the 6 th
of April 91. The Court has proven that the accused was in the truck on the night of the alleged
“rape”, because the accused himself told them so, because Bakalov never concealed nor denied
that fact; Every truck driver with a woman on his side is not a rapist ipso facto, even if later a
sperm stain is found on the woman’s skirt! And what’s more, when a girl claims having under-
gone severe sexual advances from a man, she doesn’t go out in a truck with him at night, care-
lessly and with freewill! So far, the Court failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the al-
leged offense really took place! The sperms found was not tested, the stain was found on a gar-
ment she didn’t wear at the moment of the incident, or nothing can prove it – and on the other
hand we have proofs Bakalov knows her genitalia sufficiently well as to suggest habitual sexual
relationship with her – making the presence of stain a (lawful) possibility, not to be taken as an
indicting proof against defendant. The whole affair boils down to whether Bakalov’s version of
the facts sounds better than Lauren's! The choice is the Jury’s and will be influenced by the cun-
ning prosecutorial rhetoric! Feelings, beliefs, peculiar views of the case, intuition, murmurs from
the world beyond is what they call evidence. It is evidence because it feels as self-evidence and
serves their blatant purpose: to maintain Dr. Bakalov in jail! Should anyone be condemned be-
cause of a belief - in a country publicized as the model of democracy on the whole planet ?
TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 Page 114/12. Lauren Jones says Dr. Bakalov took off his belt.
But Dr. Bakalov declares he had no belt on the 6th of April 1991, still he had it earlier in her
home. So L. Jones makes a confusion in her dubious report with the belt Dr. Bakalov wore on his
Jeans and never wears on the pants that he wore on that night. It cannot be said Ms. Lauren Jones
makes no confusions! On the moment of “rape” she had visions, confused old memories with
present images of her everyday life.
Reporter’s Transcript September 28, 1994. Volume 7. Page 9 line 6.
Post-“rape” behavior (continued): Lauren certifies she called her “rapist” four (4) times the
next day after the alleged “rape”. Page 12/1: Deanna wasn’t home that night and Lauren opened
the door to the man she accused of raping her. Even a profound state of shock could not induce
such an “oblivion"! Ms. Lauren Jones said the bishop insisted that she immediately contacts the
police, visits the “Holy Cross Hospital”, have Code R. exam performed. But instead Lauren re-
turned from the Bishop’s and did not enter the nearby Hospital for Code R Exam as her bishop
had recommended, nor did she phone the Police or go to a “rape” Center to register her com-
plaint. Instead, inconsistently enough, she phoned her “rapist” insisting on completing her typing
for him and for a drive to the mountains with him at 10:30 p.m.
BRUISES: Lauren’s body had the following markings: Abrasion of the upper elbows, knees, left
ankle and bruises on the forward/inner quadrants of her thighs. The record says: “He pulled her
onto her back” This is incompatible with the orientation of the bruises mentioned above. The fol-
lowing markings are missing to make the “rape”” plausible: Corresponding marks on her but-
tocks, butts of her palms, the backs of her legs, heels and broken fingernails which she wore long
and were not broken after “rape”.
A skirt stained with semen is said to have been handed to the police by Lauren but she did not re-

7
 8

member if she wore it on the fateful day or not. In short, nothing to demonstrate the occurrence of
a “rape” as characterized by the alleged victim, (of mental disturbances) and Utah Officialdom.
Transcript September 28, 1994 “… Page 142 line 9 “These bruises could be seven to ten days
old”…The expert didn’t say three days old, he said seven to ten days…In other words, they have
nothing to do with the fatidic night! So let’s rule this out as an exhibit or proof !
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS. SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 Page 100/14,16 – 106/24,25.
Lauren: “ I was on my back “ (During “rape”). How could this explain scuffs on the knees
and elbows? Elbows ok! But knees?
Bruises: They may have lots of possible causes, since the victim declared that Doctor Bakalov
tried to forcefully separate her thighs, so some bruises should then be at the level of her kneecaps,
but not on the back side of her thighs as testified by forensic inspection, nor on her knees and el-
bows. Did Lauren defend herself against her “rapist"? Page 3: To the question “Were you fighting
violently against the Defendant?" she made no response. And when posed the question again, her
answer was:”NO! So how can there be some bruises?
The Outcome of all the steaming discussions from the conflicting experts amounts to this: It is
not KNOWN – how old - the bruises are! One common opinion: they are older than three days,
for sure! There again a true expert’s advice should be asked not that of a layman. Dr. Duggleby
was asked to witness precisely because he wasn’t able to give any definite answer, thus leaving
enough margin of maneuver to the Court to interpret his hazy answers according to their needs,
and the right amount of uncertainty to make the impact of bruises stay inculpatory! The question
is: why - despite repeated protesting affirmations claiming that he is not the right expert, why
despite this, did the Court continue to interrogate him as if he were the right man to answer au-
thoritatively? He kept begging (38/7) (39/24): “I don’t know - I might be wrong - I can’t answer,
you’ll probably need to consult a forensic expert - I can provide you with only very general,
broad-based kind of knowledge -I’m probably not the person to ask about that -A forensic spe-
cialist may be able to give you a very much better idea than myself”, etc. Still the Court reli-
giously and assiduously took his UN-authoritative answers as Gospel truth! This information
could be much more exactly given by a forensic specialist” 40/5,7.
Exhibit 12 is a photograph of what appears to be a small abrasion on the outside of the left knee.
Question posed to the expert: “Doctor, have you ever seen abrasions like that before? Doctor’s
Answer: Almost continuously!" So exhibit 12 is not in itself something indicative of a “rape”, but
everyday bruising incident. The Expert says they bruises are less than a week and a half. 33/15.
But if necessary the time can be reduced. Same syndrome as with sperms longevity!
NB: If the Court had wanted to know the origin of the bruises, they would have had a sample
analyzed; this could have determined whose nails were involved in causing these bruises”. (40/1
to 4). Why is it – by the way – that no traces of blood from these bruises were found on the Nis-
san carpet? Likewise, traces of pale blue/gray fibers should have been found on the skirt that had
the semen stain. No mention was ever made of this. Fingernail scrapings were collected from Dr.
Bakalov but no afterwards of this were reported.
“The medical examination revealed bruising on Lauren’s thighs consistent with someone grasp-
ing her thighs and forcing them downwards “(R.2095-99).“She had abrasions on her elbows and
knees consistent with being rubbed vigorously on a carpeted surface” (R. 2081, 2100-1). Still the
alleged victim said she was on her back.
 COMMENT: It is somewhat tricky to conjure up the image of a position that could result in such
bruises. Elbows and knees abrasions suppose Lauren was on all fours, with knees and elbows
rubbing on a carpet, which in turn supposes a strong effort from Lauren to maintain this position
firmly. The whole thing being hardly consistent with Lauren’s description of her tale of “rape” in

8
 9

which she declared that Dr. Bakalov “pulled her onto her back...” (R.1780). The bruising on the
thighs doesn’t fit with Lauren’s description of her sexual assault. The only sexual position which
would include erosion of knees and elbows plus the marks of pulling backwards on the sides of
thighs, is a consensual position called “levrette” in French! (Mr. Cope apparently never read the
Kama Sutra). She might have got those bruises from prior consensual sexual intercourse. Defend-
ing oneself against a rapist is incompatible with passively remaining on one’s elbows and knees
without trying to turn back, moving positions etc. Curiously, Lauren didn’t feel the pain of the
fresh bruises when she took her 2 hours and a half bath, which should have rekindled the sore
sensations of the bruises that had just been allegedly inflicted by Dr. Bakalov
TRAUMA: Rape trauma syndrome testimony is not admissible to prove the victim was raped”
(Supreme Court of California in People v. Bledsoe, 681 P.2d 291 (Cal.1984). Furthermore, it is a
scientific heresy from the Court to claim that loss of memory is a consequence of a trauma. Stat-
istically and scientifically, all victims of severe traumas remembered vividly every detail of the
accident, which stressed them. Retrograde amnesia is after serious head or brains injury (lost of
conscience). Ms. Lauren Jones had over 100 personalities who internally decide which personal-
ity will talk. R.3790-91, 3822, 3863; see Addendum (Private Eye article).
157/8: Court: “Are you aware of the circumstances where Miss Jones has experi-
ences floating or separating from her body”? Answer:”Related to the “rape": NO!
Again, that gets into earlier childhood trauma material that I thought was protected information –
that (floating) would have been prior to the “rape” in the first trial” (line 24).
20/07/95. Page 20/10: Specialist Expert Brady said she diagnosed post-rape traumatic symptoms.
But she later declared there is no difference between these symptoms and those of d.i.d that Ms.
Lauren Jones always had. Page 22/3 Mr. Five says Brady is not an expert in distinguishing
between post-rape traumatic symptoms and D.I.D. But probably Ms Brady could retort the same
arguments against her opponent. In fact, only a truly state-certified unbiased psychiatrist could
tell! In transcript September 26, 1995 Margaret Lauren JONES declares that when being
“raped”, she felt her body was floating and separating from her body. Very likely, Lauren told her
therapist afterwards that this was not connected to the “”rape”” as she had declared in her depos-
ition!
TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 Page 28/14 she furthers admits she was only partially upset about
the incident of April 1991. How is this compatible with the moral Hiroshima she claims to have
experienced and that destroyed her life? How could such a casual impact lead to Post-”rape” trau-
matic syndrome? How could it be devastating as she declared many times? After a real trauma,
the victim remembers every detail. The extraordinary accuracy in description made by L. Jones
(no memory gap here, no confusion, she stays focused!) proves that the symptoms she remem-
bers, imitates and describes so well, were taken from a medical book, but it seems she is not al-
ways reading the right book. Trauma survivors remember every event vividly, even small seg-
ments from the trauma. There is no memory gap after a trauma, except if the trauma is physical,
made on the head in accidents, for example. Lay people confuse both types of traumas. In emo-
tional traumas, some victims may force themselves into forgetting, but that’s different! “Floating,
separating from one’s body etc.” are typical testimonies found in books on NDE! which supposes
a physical traumatism bringing the victim on the verge of death! L. Jones said this was not “that
much of a trauma, after all”. One can notice the excellency of memory in people even in these
trauma cases.
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 24, 1994

9
 10

Page 21/7: Lauren describes as post “rape” trauma symptoms those inherent to D.I.D syndrome.
It is clear that to “lay” people, every “D.I.D.” symptom will be taken as “Post-”rape” trauma af-
termath” and thus confirm, in their eyes, the reality of the rape.
The complaining witness’s mental shortcomings are dangerous parameters to the detriment of her
credibility, that’s Mr. Cope tries all he can to minimize or even conceals this reality under the
bushel of his twisted reasoning. He proclaims: “The State opposes mental examination of the vic-
tim; We don’t believe that the victim needs to be examined about anything. (SIC!!!) The Defend-
ant has shown no reason to believe that she is incapable of giving credible testimony. (But every
other people could witness this) I believe (and that’s all that counts!) that’s the standard or darn
close to it. Unless the Defendant shows us some facts to lead the Court to believe that the vera-
city of the witness is somehow different from the average person and cannot be examined by tra-
ditional methods of cross-examination, there is no reason to grant such a motion. And we would
oppose it.”
Several things to notice here: Cope always opposes categorically every objection that is poten-
tially dangerous for his defense, and refuses any objection from the other side. His objections
must be taken as scientific truths, or rather Gospel truth – but not the Gospel of Jesus Christ! 2nd:
the mental state of the L. Jones is no subject of doubt for sure since it has been officially recog-
nized and named a mental pathology. Indeed, there is no reason for further mental examination;
this has already been going on for years, together with appropriate treatment! But doesn’t such a
mental condition impair the ability of a witness to give a reliable testimony? That’s what Mr.
Cope refuses fiercely to admit, going as far as to deny any mental perturbation in Ms. Lauren
Jones’ personality! Isn’t there a chance that the veracity of this witness be somehow different
from the average person? Does the average person need some special techniques to maintain him
or herself on earth, focused on the realities of the Court during trial, to avoid from going off to
the moon (dissociating)? Is there anything like in the average person in the complaining witness?
Evidence of mental illness may be exculpatory if its constitutional materiality can be established
by an Expert” Mr. Cope is aware of this and has to thwart this at all cost!
PRE-EXISTENCE OF MENTAL DISORDERS PRIOR TO MEETING DR. BAKALOV : According to Biele’s articles,
Ms. Jones has been diagnosed with multiple personality syndrome, otherwise known as Dissoci-
ative Identity disorder, and had subdivided herself into more than 100 pieces of personalities.
“Private Eye At 7. Ms. Jones’ statements, in the articles, suggest that the Multiple Personality
Syndrome existed prior to her meeting Dr. Bakalov and arose from childhood instances of sexual
and ritual abuse. (Although this remains to be proven)! The article keeps repeating that
Ms. Jones suffered from this multiple personality symptoms before the supposed incident with
Dr. Bakalov. Private Eye at 10. It is an easy game for the prosecution to fool the Jury into believ-
ing the D.I.D. symptoms are fallout of the alleged “rape"! But it shows their unashamed desire to
lead the Court game into the consummation of their secretly pet goal: keeping the Bulgarian in-
truder in prison for as long as possible!
Private Eye at page 9 also contains quotes from Ms. Jones’ therapist, Dr. Brady, which indicate
that Ms. Jones may have been confusing the events of the Dr. Bakalov incident with prior
memories of abuse. Id. At 9 this article contains another quote attributed to Ms. Jones which sug-
gests that she had a significant problem remembering the events of the incident in which she
claims she was “raped”. Private Eye at 9-10. The information indicates that these events of disso-
ciative episodes and recovered memories, including memory enhancement techniques (hypnosis),
were all occurring prior to Dr. Bakalov’s trials for “rape”. The articles describe memory prob-

10
 11

lems, multiple personalities, memories of prior sexual abuse and ritual abuse by Ms. Jones par-
ents, bizarre diary notations, and other events.
MENTAL DISTURBANCE:
TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 25, 1995. Page 31/1: The newspaper article certainly suggests that there is
a confusion of memories, that there is superimposing of Dr. Bakalov‘s face on the face of her
father. This therapy session suggests that there’s an overlap of confusion, and it’s a rational belief
that it relates directly to her ability to perceive, retrieve and recollect the information”.
L. Jones only began to speak when she was four years old. This is a clear case of mental retarda-
tion or inhibited development. Child abuse is only a speculation, a rumor triggered by Lauren and
readily echoed by those who consider this argument as a good asset for her case.
Her ability to accurately distinguish, retain, retrieve, recollect or report the alleged incident in this
case and surrounding circumstances was impaired. Likewise it is false to claim she did not suffer
from memory gaps about the “rape”- she said she was raped once, then a dream, not the recollec-
tion of material facts, informed her that she had been raped twice. R.2314. 3853.
The companion article, “contention and controversy” – Private Eye at 9. Contains quotes from
Ms. Lauren Jones ‘s therapist, Dr. Brady, which indicate that Ms. Lauren Jones may have been
confusing the events of the Dr. Bakalov incident with prior memories of abuse. Id. At 9. The art-
icle, quoting Ms. Lauren Jones suggests she had a significant problem remembering the events of
the incident in which she claims she was raped. Private Eye at 9,10. The information given by
Ms. Lauren Jones and her therapist indicate that these events of dissociative episodes and re-
covered memories, including memory enhancement techniques and hypnosis were all occurring
prior to either od Dr. Bakalov ‘s trials for rape. The article describes memory problems, multiple
personalities, memories of prior sexual abuse and ritual abuse by Ms. Lauren Jones’s parents,
bizarre diary notations etc. Such mental disturbance is medically confirmed and may bring about
serious doubts as to the veracity of Ms. Lauren Jones’s testimony.
Reporter’s transcript of proceedings. Jury trial volume 6. September 27. 1994.
The sign/ stands for Line. Interesting points:"
NB: Lauren suffers from memory gaps and perceives only a few kaleidoscopic facet of reality at
one time.
The “rape” is said to have occurred on the 6th of April 91 between eleven and one in the morning
of the next day. Deana testified the defendant didn’t return until it was 11 p.m. or 1 in the morn-
ing; but she was so sick, she couldn’t realize the real time.
Dr BAKALOV had only protected sexual relationship with Ms. Jones, because he suspected she had
sex with other people, he also wanted to avoid pregnancy.
Deposition of Katharine BIELE September 20th 1995:
The purpose of Biele’s deposition is to substantiate the idea that Jones is all right, and her testi-
mony is therefore the best foundation of evidence to convince the defendant! Example of com-
plaining witness’s divagations. Page 51/23 where Katharine declares that “… Lauren told me that
it was a regular thing with her “ (to dissociate). She attributes some behavioral traits to “rape”
trauma “She knows she lost the trappings of normality, she can longer work a regular job; she
can’t make appointments because she can’t keep them; sometimes she can’t even wake up” page
57/5. Did she had the trappings of reality before what she calls “rape"? No! Was she able to work
a regular job? It is to be investigated! She manifested these signs well before the night of the 6 th
91. : “… her condition was dormant, but she felt she must have had it BEFORE! (page 62/7 Kath-
erine's words). “…As a multiple personality, Jones doesn’t just exhibit mood changes. She
switches to wholly separate consciousnesses” Katharine declares this is a revelation from Dr

11
 12

Brady and also from Jones herself. Page 65/15-18

Page 93/25 Ms Ah Ching: Ms. Biele, do you believe one expert psychiatrist could clear what is in
Lauren’s mind ? (Therefore there is something unclear).
The answer is evidently a resounding Yes! So it is wonder it was instantly kicked away, immedi-
ately anti-missiled! Lauren’s mental failures:
Page 140/13: Court:”Another feature of D.I.D is that an alternate personality could take
control?" Answer: “That can be a feature, yes"! Court:”And that alternate personality can deny
knowledge of another personality"? Answer: Can!
In America, a man can be imprisoned for life on the sheer accusation from such a mentally dis-
turbed person! Imprisoned without the material proof of his guilt being officially demonstrated.
The Court just believes the accuser, bases its verdict on her testimony, and it even goes so far as
to confess doing so: Mr. Cope: I believed you, the Judge believed you”. (That’s why we spurned
DNA testing, your mere words were enough!)
(Cassette transcript). A trial based on the incorrigible believing in a woman affected by so many
undisputed mental impairments, to whom the Court has to repeat “Lauren, do you remember
where we are” who needs special cards to stay focused on reality, who needs to be called 27 times
by her first name to keep focused on this planet, who needs state-paid hypnosis seances and in-
tensive mental therapy is something no American citizen would dare to imagine!
Mr. Cope refuses that Lauren’s distorted mental status constitutes an obstacle to her credibility.
He is opposed to the fact that the label (name of the mental disorder) has anything to do with her
credibility (Page 73/5). Yet the “label” in question was given by a person summoned to the Court
as Psychotherapist Expert, but Mr. Cope nevertheless insists in imposing boarishly his insane dic-
tate that she tells the plain truth with a completely sane spirit and mind! He goes so far as to force
his view according to which that mental derangement is private matter and therefore should not
be disclosed in a Courtroom! Why not say that “rape” – if it existed in the present case – is also a
private matter and should not be discussed about in courtroom! If every potentially private mat-
ters have to be concealed because of their private nature, then what are we going to discuss about
in the Courtroom? The law compels the court to disclose every possible data that could contains
exculpatory evidence and inversely. Private or public. Mr. Cope is really cheeky and unscrupu-
lous. Winning at all costs is his motto. Must we forget Constitutional law and adopt Utah Court’s
system of justice? How long will this disgusting hypocrisy and flagrant favoritism go on? This
trial is a true scandal that needs to be publicized by any means available. It is full of sneaky ma-
nipulations, of refusal to acknowledge proofs, attempts are hiding crucial exhibits (1015) and
even planning of destroying the same embarrassing 1015 exhibit (See Page 43/4. where it is ques-
tion of withholding one of the embarrassing journals/exhibit 1015...) One has the impression that
Utah Court benefits from State immunity or even US government immunity, they seem to rule su-
premely, intensely, judging without appeal in a totally subjected, conquered area!
Page 147/8: Here the court is asking Social worker Brady if the alternate personality that was
speaking in Lauren’s Jones soul was a “she” or a “he"! Spiritualism has sneaked its way into the
Court-room, and what’s worse is that such a Court has sentenced a man to life imprisonment on
the mere claim of “rape” from one of the alternate personalities dwelling within the accuser! It is
no more Margaret Lauren JONES who is interrogated but the alternate entity in her, and as there
are one hundred, it will take long to consult them all and to know which one decided to file such
an accusation! Maybe a potential next trial will include an exorcist as a new witness! This, incid-

12
 13

entally, might prove more appropriate than all the Bradys of the world!
Page 158/1: Court: “When you initially saw Miss Jones, she had no awareness of her other per-
sonality states, did she"? Answer: “No. And then, over time, she has become aware of some of
other personalities; is that accurate"? Answer: Yes. Question: “The term “co-conscious” means
aware of other personalities”. Answer: “Yes”. Question: “And so, Lauren’s personalities were not
initially co-conscious”. Answer:”Prior to the “”rape”": no”. “And if all of the personalities are not
co-conscious at the time of an incident (“rape” for example) it affects the recording abilities of
the individual and has a negative impact on the legal reliability of his testimony"! “Mental
health records of a witness are material exculpatory evidence!" If we group all the mental dis-
orders symptoms manifested by the accuser, they are more than enough to cast a shadowy suspi-
cion on the credibility and reliability of her testimony, not to mention that they are indeed materi-
al exculpatory evidence, but the adverse camp has arbitrarily decided otherwise and has done
everything to minimize totally this stubborn reality! They want to ignore that at the time of the re-
ported incident, Miss Jones already suffered from mental disorders, as exhibited all along the
pages of the transcripts. To say that mental disturbances cannot affect the veracity or accuracy of
a testimony is like saying a drunken person’s testimony was not affected by the alcohol in his
blood. That doesn’t mean that the state of drunkenness is systematically apparent and that such a
lack is proof of the non-altered state of mind of the drunken man. Since the legislator declared
that altered mind of the accuser is to be included in the bulk of exculpatory evidence, it proves
that veracity and reliability of the accuser’s testimony may be affected by mental status, mainly in
cases of multiple personalities or identification problems. That is the law. What the Court “be-
lieves” about this, is self-provided undue prerogatives, misuse of authority. Dr. Brady testified
that Lauren fits within the diagnostic criteria set forth in Diagnostic. Statistical Manual for Men-
tal Diseases. IV. There are two or more personalities recurrently taking control, and an inability to
recall important information. The State has not shown in any way that the diagnosis was not a
good diagnosis. Just because Mr. Cope does not want to agree with it, as a lay person, doesn’t
mean that it’s not a right diagnosis with all the exculpatory implications it contains.
PERSONALITY IN PIECES:
Katharine BIELE’s article claiming that Lauren’s shattered to pieces elements of personality are
the defendant’s fault constitutes outright defamation (slander, libel)! Ms. Lauren Jones was hav-
ing psychotherapeutic seances for her shattered personality well before the incident. Prior to the
alleged “rape”, Lauren already suffered from mental disturbances. Efforts were made by Court
and prosecution to merge the pre existing silent mental disturbance with the so called
“Post-”rape” traumatic syndrome” claiming that the “”rape”” triggered the dormant symptoms of
child abuse traumas and magnified them! Strangely enough, nobody tried to question the exist-
ence of these would-be child-abuse traumas and their existence is taken for granted just because
Lauren possibly mentioned them to her therapist. In reality, nothing allows to conclude that what
they consider as Post “rape” disorders is not the continued expression of the problems Ms.
Lauren Jones consulted her therapist for! The “rape” she alleged is part of the D.I.D. - mental
confusion profile she had before the 6th! If Lauren’s body used to float and separate from her
body prior to the fateful night, this is unquestionable evidence that she was significantly per-
turbed BEFORE she declared having been “raped"! Don’t let the State or its representative lead
the Jury into taking for granted that multiple personality was triggered by a would-be “rape” and
remember that the “expert” is formal: “The Multiple personalities in Lauren existed PRIOR to the
“rape” incident in this case”. Page 160 lines 17-18-18-20!!! Let’s be fixed on this square state-

13
 14

ment and prevent the adverse camp to twist this embarrassing fact one way or the other (oblivion,
for example).

REASONS FOR COURT “DNA-TESTING” REFUSAL: In 1991, the accuser was assured
that her Code R Exam Samples would never be tested because such a test is irrelevant and there
is no requirement imposed on the accused rapist to give any samples for comparison and that for
Ms. Lauren Jones, it is justifiable that one of her personalities can have sexual intercourse with
another man and the basic personality can claim to have been “raped” by the Defendant. It must
not be forgotten that only Lauren claimed to have been “raped”, not Margaret Jones! Quite a usu-
al case! And when you think that a man is sentenced to life imprisonment on the mere accusation
for “rape” from a phantom entity dwelling inside the accuser, while at the same time the true po-
tentially convincing or exonerating material (exhibits 8 and 9) remain UN-tested! “The material-
ity of sperm sample in a “rape” case goes well beyond the Augurs reasonable doubts require-
ment, because it can be used to prove the Defendant’s innocence to a certainty. They argued that
the quantities of alive sperms were too small and the little that was available was tainted by the
lab. “The dried protein substances placed on microscopic slides can be tested with scientific cer-
tainty over six years and exclude the alleged rapist from criminal prosecution with absolute cer-
tainty” Davis V. Pitches. But because of their ignorance of DNA resting conditions, they declared
that no Dna testing was possible. (R.2225. 6). Actually, the reasons evoked by Prosecutor James
Cope have nothing to do with too little a quantity of sperms. He exhibited this by proclaiming
that nothing but Bulgarian smoke and mirrors could rise from such evidence, although he concur-
rently stated that if the tests carried out by competent people come out positive for excluding Dr.
Bakalov, it would obviously mean that there is reasonable doubt about the testimony of the victim
in this case regarding who the sexual activity on the night of the 6th of April was with. (Transcript
item 001520 page 137). He also said on a tape that if he had wanted to have the sperm tested, he
would have had it tested. (See below). Such a declaration proves that he believes in the potential
of evidence contained in the Code R. Sample! There is no mention here of stained sperm making
the testing impossible! Additionally, the Court stained the sample and hence destroyed any proof
of the defendant’s innocence! In short, the Court opted for a very convenient approach consisting
in refusing to pursue the eminently exculpatory evidence contained in the sample, choosing rather
to argue peripheral and unsubstantial matters, approach which casts a negative shadow on the
motivations of the Utah officialdom!
*The only plausible reason why DNA was refused because it potentially cleared the defendant
from any guilt. That is why the State intended to prove “rape” not by means of DNA testing, but
by means of testimony of the complaining witness. (Prosecutor’s declaration R.1195). Such a con-
fession is a proof that the Court was determined to “make” the defendant guilty at all costs
without any regards for tangible and available proof, basing their conviction solely on the words
of a person medically recognized as deranged. There is no need to say more. This is an arbitrary
trial and convenient judgment, which was believed to belong only to non-democratic countries!
R.1276. Only a tangible, concrete and analyzable proof is entitled to send someone to jail; the
witness declarations, general feelings from the Court, or irrational sensations giving them the ir-
resistible faith that the defendant is guilty, or jury’s inner convictions, states of mind, and all
those impalpable impressions that can be induced by defendant’s appearances or awkward words
have nothing to do with Justice are not evidence of guilt.
The Court plainly stated that “the semen is not testable, and that no convincing results could ever
be obtained from any kind of analysis of this sample, It’s sheer smoke and mirror”. And yet the

14
 15

laws says: “Analysis of sperm sample is material in a “rape” case. If examined by an expert sper-
matologist, the slide would exculpate the defendant thoroughly because of the morphological
characteristics of the sperm molecule. Their exculpatory value is overwhelming and final - It is as
if we were to say that the fingerprints found on the gun of a crime – or their absence – were not
decisive in a criminal case.
Further analysis of the testability of sperm sample show that all allegations from the Court were
non-scientific, in conflict with real facts as observed by experts. Furthermore, “In a “rape”, a
missing or untested semen sample must be presumed exculpatory until proven otherwise"! The
failure to allow Doctor Bakalov to test the samples was therefore prejudicial”. “The failure or im-
possibility to test the sample resulting from mishandling of same was and still is harmless to Doc-
tor Bakalov.
“Despite the availability of the sample for analysis and the official existence of living spermato-
zoa, trial court preferred to allege no testability of the sample” But is this UN-testability clearly
affirmed by competent opinions? Today, seven years after sperms deposition, some experts are
willing to examine them, affirming they are testable, even if stained and few in number. This
shows Court’s hypocrisy and lies when they falsely argued that they were non-testable when they
were drawn from the alleged victim! “Alive sperms could be seen in “native” (not stained) slides.
Staining kills them. They do not move any more, but they still have perfectly intact tails and
heads. If they died, they did so before the slide was stained, they were seen as separate heads and
tails, but only alive sperm should be observed,” Lauren appeared only three days after the alleged
“rape”, so Dr Dugleby did not examine the live sperms, only Pillar Shortsleeve did so, on a
stained slide. Intact sperms were likely alive before being stained"! She said she found “alive
spermatozoa”. The Court made a mistake by not having the alive sperms DNA tested. What was
the Court’s purpose of this unlawful denial of potentially exculpatory proofs? Also, the Court
doesn’t demonstrate what attempts, if any were made to test the sample. It simply says that they
were satisfied with only the mere declaration of “rape” from the accuser and otherwise spurn the
“semen stuff” (hence breaking the law which requires the Court to squeeze out the juice of every
exhibit or clue). Saying that the sample is UN-testable is one thing (this has proven to be false)
but extrapolating that this vital proof is smoke and mirror is a public exhibition of reluctance that
the accused be found innocent!
To establish the guilt of an accused, a judge has to use convincing physical proofs. In a “rape”
case, the proof consists in every possible sign of forced sex. The presence of sperm belonging to
the accused is material but not final, since the sperm can be deposited during a normal consensual
sexual intercourse afterwards declared by the “victim” as “rape”! So, identity of the sperm has to
be made in the first place, and in second place the presence of physical bruises plus emotional or
mental disarray must be manifest and evident in “raped” victims. Such specific post “rape” dis-
orders were not manifested in exhibit 1015 nor in Lauren’s behavior. The mental disturbances she
said to have several months after the alleged “rape” are not different from the multiple personal-
ity trouble she suffered from prior to the fateful night!
Transcript of Exhibit 1022 Tape of April 18,1994. Page 5. From a Tape recorded by L. Jones.
Mr. Cope: “If we had wanted the semen matched, we would have!" (Refusal to have it matched
was therefore prosecution’s decision and responsibility). “But we were satisfied (faith, not facts)
that Dr. Bakalov was the only possible source of any semen on her clothing”. (Sophism: There is
no proof that the garment where sperm was found was the skirt Ms. Lauren Jones wore on the
night of the 6th April 91!) The prosecution was “satisfied” that Lauren told the absolute truth, con-
vinced of Dr. Bakalov’s guilt without trying to have this guts-verdict confirmed by material evid-

15
 16

ence that was at their disposal. At times, the word “I believe” is uttered 7 times by the Prosecu-
tion and per page of transcript; this confirms that the whole case outcome is based on Mr. Cope
faith in Lauren, not on facts! MR. COPE SAYS TO LAUREN: “I still believe what you told me”. (Page
6 Tape-transcript) or: “...I believed you and the Judge believed you”. This shows once again that
the whole case is based upon faith in the victim’s testimony, or at least friendly trust in her, a
sympathetic preferential judgment stemming from a subjective certainty that the witness is a poor
victim and the defendant a rascal to be immolated to the Utah Cope of Justice at all costs. No
need to seek potentially invalidating proof against Ms. Lauren Jones! This is an arbitrarily biased
procedure led by Mr. Cope on the basis of an alleged urge for Justice. But what does it matter if
real justice is not really the reference, since there is no way to oppose powerful Mr. Cope, on one
hand, and when the Court exhibits a sincere concern for probity on the surface, on the other hand
- while in the background it violates shamelessly what makes the very substance of justice! Ex-
ample: page 152/8: The Court: “Well, what’s the basis of the stipulation, then?" Mr. Cope: “My
belief! I believe that to be a fact “(line 18). Mr. Cope’s beliefs make the basis of the verdict, not
the material evidence which lies solely in the Code R. sample. (Exhibit 8/9). And what is Mr.
Cope’s belief? That Ms. Lauren Jones told the immaculate Plain Truth. This is sheer religion! A
witness’s words cannot be evidence. REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 29,1995. Page 14 begins
with: “I believe” (but no sign of the cross). Then the Judge in his turns believes he never said,
“Shut up” in the Court. But with a computer, it is easy to point out all the many times “shut up”
was used by him or Mr. Cope in the various hearings. Still the judge insists:”It’s my strong
belief” that I have never used the words “shut up”. How can one “believe” or trust a Judge who
denies the lies he can be shown to his own eyes for him to see?
Page 284 adds more informative elements to this interesting sample of trial based solely on the
personal believing or convenient subjectivity of the actors of the trial. Mr. Cope (line 8): “And I
believe that...” Line 12:”I believe that” line 13:”But I believe that” Line 22:”I believe that” etc. A
Credo litany fills the courtroom! Mr. Cope is a true believer. Amen! The whole trial is lead by his
own beliefs, not on the law, even if the Court “believes” justice is normally founded on law texts
and legislative dispositions! Anyway, it is no secret that the State, incarnated by the two main
protagonists of this case (Cope and Court) had already set their mind from the very beginning to
condemn Dr. Bakalov to maximum imprisonment. New trials or appeals are merely for form’s
sake, and this shows, amid other things, by the fact that one of them was signed ‘guilty” even be-
fore being performed! (To gain precious time, presumably). Potentially exculpatory facts are
overruled, straightly denied or minimized, or, at the minimum, colored by innumerable shades of
Cope’s personal interpretations of facts. He is a believer not a proof-analyzer! Inversely, every
minor parameter giving the impression to plead in favor of the alleged victim is magnified,
swollen, and when these parameters are downright against the “victim” they are then interpreted,
rationalized, evoked in such a way as to be positive for the accuser herself. The reason why DNA
testing of Code-R Samples was not performed is that the Court expected Dr. Bakalov would com-
plain that Lauren had consensual sex with him, so they didn’t need to do “any of that stuff” - as
they put it! All they needed to do was just to have Lauren testify that it wasn’t consensual, the se-
men found in her vagina – not on a that particular skirt she probably did not wear on that night -
was not an issue! Here we can notice with revolt and horror that there was no intention to materi-
ally prove that Dr. Bakalov was innocent, but simply to base the whole verdict on Margaret
Lauren JONES ‘s testifying that she was forced into non-consensual intercourse by Dr. Bakalov!
She just needed to utter the words “he forced me” and it was OK! This unbelievable procedure in
the 20th century is a shocking moral trauma for anybody fond of Justice and anxious about its

16
 17

lastingness! But that’s OK, there is nobody to oppose such a Court, so why not indulge in such
perversions of law
Margaret Lauren JONES said: “Code-R was the last gynecological exam I will endure in my life-
time, especially since I find out three years later that, to the prosecution, the Code-R is irrelev-
ant.” So what good is the Code-R, except to re-traumatize the victim of the operation necessary
to obtain vaginal smear? Why was Lauren forced to undergo this stressful procedure just to be
told afterwards that it was irrelevant? Surely when it was undertook, it was far from being
deemed irrelevant! It has possibly become irrelevant after it was tested, if it was, but not because
of too small a quantity of sperm, but possibly they may have found that the vaginal contents
could not be attributed to Dr. Baklava ! And incidentally, it is untrue that Code-R is irrelevant to a
Prosecution as the Mr. Cope emphasizes. On the contrary, it is a crucial evidence exhibit, if not
the only pivot of the whole case! It is contrary to the rules of procedure to consider the crucial po-
tentially exculpatory proof as irrelevant just because it denies (or may deny) the defendant’s guilt.
(But does that matter to the Court?)
“An individual’s due process rights are violated if the Government suppresses evidence which
was so important that its absence prevented the accused from receiving his constitutionally guar-
anteed fair trial” US. V. Hiblrt 463 F2d. 455459/9th Gr.1972.
“Due Process guarantees the Defendant’s access to what could be conclusively exculpatory evid-
ence, to utilize in whatever manner he deems appropriate”. Hilliard V. Spalding 719 F2d 1447
(1983).
“Accordingly, when a woman has been the victim of an attempted or actual “rape” and a semen
sample were recovered of the assailant, the authorities must take reasonable measures to pre-
serve and identify the evidence". “Such a rule protects not only the due Process right of the De-
fendant, but also society’s interest in the integrity of the Judicial System”.
“The duty of the Prosecution is not simply to obtain conviction but fully and fairly present to the
Court the evidence material to the charge”. “
The disclosure of exculpatory materials must be made at time when would be of value”.
“Brady’s requirement that Government disclose exculpatory evidence also applies at
sentencing”. US v. Severson 3 F3d 1905/7th Gr. 1993.
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 PAGE 28/19: THE defendant: “Vicky Macey is a spe-
cialist in artificial insemination. She could testify that sperm could hardly be fully intact after
twelve hours in a vagina, twenty hours being a maximum”.
THE COURT: “If that can be demonstrated, do you agree that Vicky Macey should be allowed to
testify"? Mr. COPE: No !!! THE COURT: Why ?
Here we can see a flagrant demonstration of Mr. Cope’s sharp reaction against a perilous invest-
igation that could be suicide for his client (Ms. Lauren Jones)! He snaps a negative reply to such
a crucial testimony because he wants to keep away from any scientific approach to this put up
case of “rape"! He has more interests in remaining within the confines of sheer beliefs! After the
Court asked the reason for this flat refusal, Mr. Cope answered: “We have not offered any evid-
ence... that we found any spermatozoa"! Then why send a man to jail when there is not even any
proof intercourse took place? Was the forensic report about “rare intact sperms found in Lauren’s
vagina” a lie, candyfloss, bullshit - as if rare intact sperms were not “any spermatozoa” at all?
When it is necessary that they find sperm, they will declare there were sperms, and when it is ad-

17
 18

vantageous for them to oppose investigation as to sperm longevity, they will claim there is not
any evidence spermatozoa were found! It is becoming clearer and clearer that Mr. Cope doesn’t
want to base evidence on the sperms because he knows it can only clear the defendant from all
guilt! Mr. Cope claims Ms Shortsleeve did not report of any sperms with tails and heads when
she examined the samples, but this is contrary to Pillar Shortsleeve’s written testimony.
This is a surrealistic case indeed, where the irrational leads the ball. When self-persuasion rules
over tangibility, we enter again the reign of malicious superstition opening the gateway to old
demons to emerge from the dark side of human hearts!
The Court had no intention to “go into the stuff of semen” as they put it themselves– but only to
base their conviction of rape on the mere complaining witness’s declarations, with no regard as to
her mental and moral integrity. Although the defense, in 1991, argued that lack of DNA testing
on the sperm sample created a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt (R.185 at 104-5)
the court - without any material proof against Dr Doctor Bakalov, sent him to prison for life, al-
though experts views were expressed as to the victim’s deranged mental system. “There is abund-
ant and indisputable evidence exhibited from the Court and Prosecution that they will always es-
cape the main issue, the focus point, the true evidence of “rape" that is: the proof that the rare in-
tact sperms found in the complaining witness’s vagina undisputedly belongs to Dr B AKALOV. They
will dilute every reasoning and inexorably drift the debate towards peripheral subjects or details
(such as number of hairs on defendant's chest, moon high or low in the sky at the moment of
“rape”, etc.)
Jury trial volume 6. September 27. 1994. Page 157/10: “I ask the spermatozoa found in her va-
gina – not in her laundry box – to be tested so as to legally establish that she had sex with some-
body other than me…”
Page 159/1: “ I continued to insist for forensic tests to be performed…”
Page 74/15: Dr Bakalov: “My complaint is that Mr. Valdez is reluctant to check the samples and
prove they don’t belong to me…”
SPERM LONGEVITY INADEQUATE EXPERT’S ADVICE. REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
September, 23, 1994
Page 27/67: In this transcript, there are tens of pages where a medical expert is interrogated on
the subject of sperm longevity, but this expert’s constant answer is “I don’t know for sure “ “I
couldn’t say” “I am NOT an Expert” etc. which means that the “ Expert” hired by the Court con-
fesses he is not an expert. But the Court knows better and insists on having this self-calling non-
expert’s testimony as evidence. But why does the Court appeals to an expert who says he is not
an expert because he actually is not? Granted: It is to be expected the Court will NOT be fool
enough as to interrogate a real Expert, it would be suicide for them.
CONSPIRACY AGAINST EXHIBIT 8 Note : Exhibits 8 (Plastic vial
with the dried vaginal washing) and 9 ( Slides) are on the shelf of the third District Court’s Evid-
ence Room.
When reading the transcripts and the many letters satelliting around them, one is struck by the
fact that opposition against Code R Sample testing is from all sides: Mr. Fratto, Mrs. Watt, Mr.
Cope, Dr Gay, and Court protagonists on the whole!
No “proof of Dr. Bakalov’s innocence” ever was the issue of the case! The Court: “Was there
any testimony or any analysis done which - to some degree - indicated that the spermatozoa was
that of Dr. Bakalov? “ Mr. Cope: “No, no.” Here, the answer was not: “Such an analysis is irrel-
evant or impossible, but just “No, no”. And, by the way: An analysis ? What for? Isn’t Lauren’s
testimony the most irrefutable proof we have available? Didn’t we say we didn’t want to go into
that stuff? Didn’t we say we could have carried out this analysis if we ever had wanted to? Didn’t

18
 19

we say all this was Bulgarian smoke and mirrors? What does it matter if we are “unable to
identify who the donor of the sperm or the acid phosphatase was”. 33/4? Didn’t we make pub-
licly clear once for all that we wanted to base our conviction solely on Ms. Lauren Jones’s testi-
mony and nothing else?
Exhibit 8 (Code R. Sample) certainly contained exculpatory evidence in favor of the defendant.
Or, at least, no possibility of linking the origin of these rare intact sperms to him. In itself, the
Sperm sample was strongly if not totally exculpatory, and the Court was aware of this. That is
why the defendant expected the opponent party would do everything to minimize, lose, spoil or
destroy this awesome evidence of defendant’s innocence, which would be suicide for the Court.
The Court again admits that: “No efforts were made to perform DNA”. Transcript July 29,
1994, Page 27/2. They confess they have never been interested to know whom the gun belonged
to! Ms Jones said it was Bakalov’s, isn’t that enough evidence? Staining the sample to see the
presence of sperms doesn’t make those sperms UN-testable! And anyway, they were too old to be
deposited on the 6th. They also admit that for a time it was lost or not taken care of and therefore
decayed. “It is the duty of the state to preserve the evidence in a lock-up facility… Rule 4-206”
“When a woman has been the victim of an attempted or actual “rape” and the police recover a
semen sample of the assailant, the authorities must take reasonable measures to adequately pre-
serve this evidence”.
In case a defendant having filed a motion requesting the potentially exculpatory evidence to be
carefully kept in view of future testing, and the evidence is found to be missing, either through de-
liberate loss or unpremeditated destruction, the accused party is entitled to consider this as being
deliberate suppression of evidence by those in charge of the prosecution, and this constitutes a
flagrant denial of prosecution due process. State versus Stevens, 544 P2D 477 Utah 1975. In
such an occurrence, the charge should be dismissed with damages. 37/5.
Scientifically “Intact sperms, those still having their head and tail, can be cross-tested against
the accused genetic code. P.T.R. DNA cross-testing could have been performed with the genetic
material from sperm heads and identified to whom they belong, DNA being only in the head of
the sperms. In other words, genetically individual cellular material could have been cross-tested
to identify whom the sperm exactly belonged to, or doesn’t belong to - in the microscopic slide,
however small the sample was!"
The prosecution has always been hovering around the main entrance (Sperm sample), but without
ever getting into it, always willingly avoiding this angular and radical argumentation that would
change everything: the only gun that could kill the defendant was the fact that the sperm found in
Jones’ vagina was his and inversely! So actually they certainly tried to test the Code R. Sample in
order to obtain a direct proof against the defendant, the opposite fact would be surprising, but
they didn’t find anything proving his guilt in the Code R. sample. That did not prevent them from
putting Dr. Bakalov in prison just because Ms. Lauren Jones said he raped her, although the haze
and inconsistencies of the testimony she made are still there, and while it was necessary to bring
her back to earth through some tricks during trials (calling her by her name, etc. See chapter
Mental disturbances).
The Court turns their eyes away from the most determining “culpatory/exculpatory” evidence and
rather seek UN-checkable, infinitely contestable elements of proofs! Not even so: they go as far
as being satisfied with the mere victim’s accusation, they make it the only reference, the plain
truth, the complete basis of their conviction! (Going as far as claiming it aloud!). They call the
truth provider “Lauren” and they call the black sheep Bakalov “Doctor Bakalov” the way they
would call “Doctor Mengele!" Are you seeking the truth? Ask Lauren! Want a decisive proof of
guilt? Ask her to supply you with some! The only indicting proof against Dr. Bakalov was the

19
 20

medically certified conclusion that the sperm found in the victim’s vagina was his. If the staining
– necessary to prove the presence of spermatozoa – made the little sperms available UN-testable,
then by staining the sperm samples they figuratively handcuffed him, imprisoned him until blue
moon without any more possibility for him to prove his innocence. But the Court struggled like a
wild tiger caught in a nest, in order to escape this major argumentation.
The only proof they claim to have left now is their inalterable belief that Lauren told the truth and
Dr. Bakalov lied, but can this be a legal proof? It stands without the wink of a doubt that it should
be rejected as a middle-age ridiculous and unlawful basis for conviction!
WHAT SPERM WAS FOUND? : Because defendant claimed that he and Lauren shared consen-
sual intercourse prior to the 6th. (Proof of this lie below in this text). DNA testing of a
sperm stain found on Lauren’s skirt (exhibit 11) could never be determinative, because Lauren
was unsure which clothes she gave to the police for DNA testing and there is no way to prove that
the skirt from which a piece with the stain was cut out was the skirt she wore on the night of the
6th. (R.183 at 140.2 – R. 184 at 61-3). because in her laundry box Lauren also had clothes she
wore when she had sex with Dr. Bakalov in her home. At least nothing legal proves that the
sperm found was on the clothes Lauren wore on the fatidic night, except her saying so, although
she told the police she was unsure of this. The same goes with the sperms found on the crouch of
a panty Ms. Jones gave to the police. There were three pairs of panties handed over to the police
and there is no honest way to prove that the stained panty was the one Ms. Lauren Jones wore on
the fateful night. Dr. Bakalov claims that the stain dates back from 03/28/91 (first Ante porta
ejaculatio. In addition, the Prosecutor ultimately only introduced claimed evidence of a stain on
one skirt found in Lauren’s washing basket, but since there were two skirts in litigation (that
found in the washing basket and that Ms. Lauren Jones wore on the night of the incident – a long,
lightweight cotton skirt bright white - they are not the same – and considering that there is no
evidence against Dr. Bakalov assertion according to which he had consensual intercourse with
Lauren in her home prior to the allegation of “rape”, there is nothing unlawful in the possible
presence of sperm on the clothes she wore in her home, skirt included. (R.2201-2237, 2535). It is
curious incidentally that sperm was found on the skirt and not in her slip, nor on the carpet of the
car! The point to prove is that the sperms from Dr. Bakalov, if any, were deposited on the skirt
during the night of the 6th when Lauren wore a white skirt without buttons! Actually Ms. Lauren
Jones did not give that white skirt to the police. The skirt she wore on the night of the incident is
still in her possession. The defendant is accused because the sperm found on Lauren’s clothes in
her washing basket matches with his blood. But the sperm on the clothes was there because he
had sex in her home before the crucial night. He never denied that he had sex with her prior to the
6th of April. The Court must prove that on the night of the 6 th, Lauren actually wore the clothes
they found sperm on. This is impossible because Lauren said she was unsure that the clothes she
gave to the police were clothes she wore on the fateful night! A source of bonanza confusion lies
there; and the Court took advantage of it! The State can only condemn Dr. Bakalov through DNA
testing with the vaginal samples! But they have always refused that DNA testing, producing all
kinds of unscientific pretexts and even saying that he didn’t want to give his blood anyway, al-
though they claimed they already had some!
Since the potential existence of such stains on Lauren’s clothes found in her laundry basket, Dr.
Bakalov did not see any reasons why he should deny their possible existence on the washing in-
spected; the prosecution took advantage of the double meaning of words and shrewdly crept the
idea into the jury’s mind that the sperm was found on the skirt Lauren wore on the night of the al-
leged felony. Thus the evidence of Dr. Bakalov’s guilt was falsely established in the jury’s opin-
ion. (R.1453.6). Possibly and to confuse the whole subject in the eyes of the jury, some tests were

20
 21

made on a skirt for which there is no proof that it was the one the “victim” wore on the night of
the alleged “rape”. By shifting the sperm and blood testing issue to this other case of testing, the
jury was unconsciously led to take for granted that all reasonable DNA were duly performed.
THE SISTER SKIRTS!
The skirt L. Jones wore on the fatidic night (04/06/91) was a more official skirt than the one on
which a stain of sperm is said to have been found. The defendant remembers the skirt she wore
on the night of the alleged rape was long and bright white in color, with a front slit. No sperm
could have been found on this skirt because L. Jones still wore it in 1995 at his birthday Sept.
22nd 1995 - and also at the time of depositions in prison. Jones looked at the defendant and
laughed when pointing to the skirt buttons, to show the defendant she was clever enough as to
have fooled the police and she was glad of the confusion she rose. This tends to prove L. Jones
knowingly deceives the Court! Even Ms Watt saw her scoff at Mr. Cope in his back on Sept.
22/95. It is to be noted that the police never gave back Ms. Lauren Jones the clothes she had
handed over to the police in 1991. So the skirt she wore in 1995 was never handed over to the po-
lice.
The skirt L.Jones gave to the police was the one she usually wore in her home. She probably had
it on her on the 03/29/91 and in other occasions. This skirt she wore at home was a more casual
skirt, one or two inches longer than the bright white one, and with NO slit nor any buttons in
front. The color was not bright white but yellow white. If a stain of sperm was found on it, it was
likely from the sex intercourse of the 03/29/91 performed without a condom.
TRANSCRIPT JULY 8 1994 “A certain semen stain was found in what has been identified as the skirt
of the victim. That stain has had DNA material extracted from it, and that DNA material has been
compared with a sample which the State “believes” (religion!) to be the blood of the defendant.
(Here there is no lab confirmation of concordance between blood and stain!) Laboratory techni-
cians are prepared (if necessary!) to testify about the DNA testing and it’s admissibility in Court,
and its general scientific reliability. We have not filed a motion to that effect as of yet for two
reasons. First of all, it has taken a long time to get those tests taken care of. Second of all, the
State doesn’t view this testing which, by the way, preliminarily indicates that defendant is the
source of the semen found on the skirt. (Incomprehensible deduction here). The reason that we
have not pursued this to this point by asking for a hearing is because the defendant has offered
explanations for the presence of that semen stain on the skirt…” All this proves that tests were
not performed as they claimed.
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 16,1994:
BLOOD-TAKING – STAIN:
Page 19/1: Mr. Cope: “ …The State has attempted to have DNA analysis performed on a specific
specimen which we believe (not sure?) to be a semen stain on the victim’s skirt. That analysis has
been performed… although the report (of the results) had not yet been done”. Also see Memor-
andum dated July 26,1994 which stipulates that “An envelope containing a piece of clothe
stained with blood from Bojidar Bakalov and a piece of cloth stained with saliva from Bojidar
Bakalov. These two samples were submitted into the laboratory in conjunction with the laborat-
ory case n° 91-3438. A case originating with the department of corrections and analyzed on
12.30.91”. “As a result of our DNA analysis we have generated four autoradiographs for DNA
comparison. These would be used in our presentation of the DNA evidence. We have NOT com-
pleted our assessment of, nor written a report in regards to these items and our conclusions”. Pilar
A. Shortsleeve. The defendant further claims that in 1994, the State did not possess his blood but
reported DNA test had been performed.

21
 22

•Here we see one more time that the Court is not embarrassed about basing their conviction on
mere metaphysical data such as beliefs. The Court didn’t say it is Dr. Bakalov’s blood, but they
have faith that it is Bakalov’s blood. A clairvoyant told them or they were revealed this in tarot
cards! One can also notice they cautiously avoid saying that the DNA lab report is available, be-
cause it simply is not and everyone knows that when a test is performed, a lab report has to be
made about it. They probably also neglected to perform the test on the stain because, as they say:
“It is of very small relevance to the facts of this case!" (Page 19/20 and page 20/5,6,10). But they
presumably say so just to cover up their absence of a report. Anyway 126/1,8 proves that the
Court has decided not to prove the reality of the alleged “rape” by means of tangible proofs, but
by assuming every word of Ms. Lauren Jones is true! The Court very plainly stipulates: “The
State intends to prove “rape” – not by means of DNA testing – but by means of testimony of the
complaining witness.” So, it is needless to prove the smoking gun (Sperms analysis) belongs to a
stranger! It is enough to believe the words of a single person who has all possible advantage to
withdraw from accusing Dr. Bakalov! The victim has decided who the culprit is, even if the gun
bears fingerprints from another person or even no fingerprints at all, or “stained” fingerprints.
The complaining witness may lie at her heart’s content, her words will be enforced by the Court
and rule over the life of a man! Doesn’t the Code of law orders strict references of conviction in a
criminal case? What if the Court decides to base their judgement upon moon phases, or any other
kabalistic code?
All along this case, we get tired seeing that Court people want to have a second blood test taken
from Dr. Bakalov! They go as far as forcing this blood drawing by profiting of a wound made at
gym, or they say by taking two vials of blood (unbeknownst to the interested, mind you!). But
why a second blood sample was necessary if a former one had ever existed? Dr. Bakalov: “Why
is it necessary that you obtain my sample, you stated that you already have one”? And what does
Pilar Shortsleeve answer? : “We never requested another sample from you"! (Line 18).
CODE R. SAMPLE TESTABILITY: If the Code R is no longer testable, this is due to Mr. James Cope’s
refusal to have these samples to be tested when they were testable. And they were. He unrelent-
ingly objected to their being tested. Such an adamant refusal cannot be without cause. He resorted
to all kinds of fallacious arguments to skip over this major potential exculpatory evidence as if it
amounted to a real suicide! By his subtle rhetoric, he crept into the minds of the jury the idea that
all blood and sperm tests had already been made and proved the defendant’s guilt. He also argued
that he did not believe it was appropriate for the Court to order the laboratory technicians to do
something that will result in.nothing.
Transcript of July 29 –1994 sheds a disturbing light on the casual way in which exculpatory ex-
hibit 8 is handled by the Court! No care was taken of it, they had temporarily “lost” it, possibly
destroyed, said the Court. They outwardly take advantage of Dr. Bakalov’s being his own undis-
cerning Attorney! The protagonists of this uncommon trial made all they could so that the test-
ability of this strongly exculpatory evidence deteriorates or becomes invalid whatever the way.
So if as of today, the Code R. sample is not testable any more, the detrimental fault is on the
Court’s side, not on the defendant's! Therefore, since no respect was given to exhibit 8 by the
Court, the case should simply be dismissed without restrictions for want of concrete evidence
against Dr. Bakalov! Considering that the possible non-testability of the otherwise potentially ex-
culpatory evidence (Code R. Samples) is the full responsibility of Mr. Cope, then it is an element-
ary act of justice to dismiss the case for want of reasonable proof of defendant's guilt. Remember
the sample was available for analysis on the first day of trial. The record does not demonstrate
that all types of testing could NOT be conducted and does not demonstrate what attempts – if any

22
 23

– were made to test the sample. On the contrary, the Court stipulates that no efforts were made in
that direction. Furthermore, even if the prosecutor and State’s experts had clearly stated that no
testing whatsoever could be conducted, Dr. Bakalov was entitled to submit the sample to an inde-
pendent expert to determine the accuracy of the State’s claim. See A.B. at 28-31.
TESTABILITY: Only 50 intact sperms are sufficient to assess they belong to the accused or not.
The prosecutor once stated “It is my understanding that it is possible to get DNA analysis from as
little as the head of a single sperm”.
Even though the vaginal smear (Sperm sample) may be stained or have evaporated the blood be
very viscous and thick, Dna testing can still be performed. To say that the sperm sample had de-
graded after three years and become non-testable is scientifically untrue and only proves that the
Court failed to make the necessary tests when possible. Now, after six years, the sperms may not
be testable any more and the proof of the defendant’s innocence destroyed. But in this case there
is no denying that this strategic loss of exculpatory evidence is the Work of Prosecutor James
Cope with the complicity of the judge.
COURTS FAULTS: THE guilty verdict was entered and signed six days before Jury delibera-
tion to begin. Jury was chosen by Mr. Cope and Mr. Joe Fratto. See Docket page 9 App. 10.
The court made a fault when losing, even temporarily, the Code R Samples, and thus subjected
them to deterioration:
“I don’t know whose fault it is that those exhibits no longer exist “. Transcript September 7,1994
page 33 line 19. The fault can only lie in Bakalov’s adverse camp! The many errors from the
Court are all spread in the various transcripts. Signature falsification, twisting of facts, arbitrary
overruling of legitimate objections, Etc.
HUMILIATIONS: Defendant was often ridiculed, threatened, asked to shut up and disrespected
in Court
The Court: “Dr. Bakalov shut up or I’ll have you gagged” is one of the many examples. Docu-
ment 001025. Page 21. When expressing dental pain, he was scathingly answered:”I’m not in
charge of medication”. 27/09/95 Transcript page 148, verse 23. Also refer to page 302/17.
Transcript August 14, 1995 Page 41/2: Manifestation of utter scorn and contempt from the
Court toward the defendant: “… Bakalov had his garbage bag full of documents.” And:“Bakalov
get under the table, and pick up all your papers scattered…”
Transcript September 14, 1995. Arrogance from the Court: 11/13: “ Bulgarian, you’re going to
be sent back to the little room that you were relegated before!"
REAL REASONS FOR IMPRISONMENT: The State wants the Court and Jury to find Dr.
Bakalov guilty. R.2602. In conformity with this request, everything was oriented towards this
objective; everything that might drift the proceedings away from this goal was twisted, ignored,
minimized or interpreted in favor of the objective in view, this going as far as refusing defendant
to present the evidence. R.2835-38. Incorrect claims, such as R.2835-38 were also deployed.
Even if the State had not offered testimony that intact sperm were found, the trial court should
have allowed Dr. Bakalov’s evidence. Shortsleeve had previously testified that such live sperm
were found. R.2837. Since such evidence existed, fairness and justice required that the Jury be
made aware of the existence of such evidence and be informed that it was highly unlikely, if not
totally impossible to scientifically find intact sperm three days after intercourse, especially after
the alleged raped victim had taken a two hour bath! See R.527. Additionally, in a letter to the Pro-
secutor dated July 2, 1991, Dr Gay, plausibly the active root of the whole matter, declared that Dr.
Bakalov was “an undesirable and would be most supportive of any effort... to have him depor-
ted.” One can notice by the results obtained (life imprisonment) that the term “most supportive of
any effort” was not an exaggerated promise from a man who knew the headlines of the “rape”

23
 24

one day before the news were even published.... Additionally, the Judge made a severe recom-
mendation to the Board of Pardons that Dr. Bakalov never be released unless he is deported under
circumstances whereby he cannot ever return to the United States. TRANSCRIPT HEARING OF JULY 8,
1994. Page 46/14: Mr. Cope confirms that “the accused correctly alleges that I have contacted
personnel at the Bulgarian Embassy. I have written letters to them”. “And it’s true that I have
offered to dismiss the charges in this case if they could arrange for him to leave the country”.
Now, if the charges were so solid, so real - would the Court forgive them so easily? Deportation
does indeed seem to be the master focus of the whole machination of this bogus rape!
CODE R. SAMPLE PRESERVATION: Throughout the proceedings, Dr. Bakalov insisted that
the semen found in Ms. Lauren Jones’ vagina should be kept in a refrigerator, be analyzed and
that such analysis would exculpate him. E.g., R. 77,204, 244-48, 392, 445, 638, 650-51, 656.
WHAT EVIDENCE?
Transcript August 14, 1995 Page 15/1 “Does the absence of any evidence have an effect upon
the outcome?" (No, since only Ms. Lauren Jones’s testimony counts). Apart from this, analysis of
the various data of the case show that the Court has no “open and above board” proof against Dr.
Bakalov! They have only equivocal, hazy immaterial data that they force to the jury as tangible
lawful evidence! The Court bases its verdict of guilt (even prior to trial procedure) on a mere ac-
cusation from the alleged victim, although she is officially recognized as mentally disturbed and
deranged. The Prosecutor constantly bases his actions on Ms. Lauren Jones’s credibility; and yet:
Prosecutorial misconduct occurs where a prosecutor vouches for the credibility of a witness.
See State v. Carter, 776 P.2d 886, 892 (Utah 1989); United States v. Cotham, 1996 WL 379787
n.16 (7th Cir. 1996). The Prosecutor insisting claims that Ms. Lauren Jones told the absolute and
plain truth influences the Jury in the sense of this belief. By his attitude and various sarcastic re-
marks, Mr. Cope conveyed into the minds of the Jury the idea that it was not rational or sensible
to believe Dr. Bakalov! The Prosecutor injected his personal beliefs as to the credibility of the
witnesses. See State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 860 (Utah 1992) (Quoting State v. Parsons, 781 p.ed
1275, 1284 Utah 1989). The only remaining charge against Doctor Bakalov is the accusation of a
woman suffering from D.I.D. at the time of the incident, and also when testifying. (R.4146,
4149). Until proof is established that the sperms found in Lauren’s vagina really belongs to Dr.
Bakalov, no formal accusation can be made against him whatever the statements made by the vic-
tim, so it appears that the court has sent to prison a man judged guilty despite the existence of ex-
culpatory evidence available when it was taken from Ms. Lauren Jones’s vagina, or at least des-
pite the total absence of convincing proof against him.
CODE R. SAMPLE:
Forensic evidence of potential defendant’s innocence was available, but every fallacious gimmick
of rhetoric was ingeniously used by the Prosecution and Judge to moot it under grotesque and un-
lawful arguments, such as this one: “This piece of forensic evidence would have connected and
corroborated Lauren’s story, or it would certainly have shown that Dr. Bakalov’s testimony was-
n’t believable”. It is to be noted that there is no denial that the DNA samples were testable at the
time, otherwise the above declaration would have had no meaning! This is prosecutor’s proof that
the samples – that is: the only material, true and serious evidence of either guilt or innocence of
the defendant – were testable, but tests were refused, and there is no ground for this except for the
purpose of escaping the evidence as to the defendant’s innocence!
If they had had the slightest conviction that the sperm really belonged to Dr. Bakalov, they would
have insisted for it to be tested and then used the implacable proof squeezed from such testing
against the defendant; instead, they chose to laboriously dream up far-fetched and
embezzling bogus evidence that cannot hold water!

24
 25

The whole case, as of today, could be boiled down to: See Reporter’s Transcript of Hearing
September 19, 1994: (pages 124/7 to 10; 15 to 18):
Mr. Cope: “…The Code-R kit, the slide, the vial, in short: the vaginal material, that apparently
contains the human spermatozoa, but has not been tested to determine whether it is Dr. Bakalov’s,
and until that test is made, and a determination made as to whether that is or is not, because it
could be constitutionally exculpatory material, then I think the trial needs to be continued in or-
der for those tests to be conducted"”. Is not this a kind of double-cross statement, since prosecu-
tion always vehemently refused Code R. Sample testing under various UN-scientific pretexts?
Dr. Bakalov wrote: ”From 1991 up to now, in spite of my vigorous and faithful persistence, the
Cross-testing of the are fully intact and alive sperms reported to have been found in the vaginal
Code R Exam samples of my “rape” accuser, against my own genetic and or material samples,
have never been performed by authentic Forensic Experts with specialized knowledge, as rule
702 URE requires. I was never even allowed to consult these potentially exculpatory findings"!
This is blatant refusal to have obligatory testing made. Very likely, the State Attorneys assured
themselves that the blood type of the alleged perpetrator does not match his own blood type; this
could explain the Prosecution’s and judge's inflexible refusal to test and cross-test them with the
many possible Forensic methods available. “An individual’s due process rights are violated if the
State suppresses (or ignores) evidence which was so important that its absence prevented the accused
from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial” U.S. V. Hibler 463 F2d. 455459/9th Cir. 1972).
These intact and alive sperms in the accuser’s vagina, can provide incontrovertible proof that the
defendant is innocent of the crime of “rape”, and, as such, is obviously of such substantial value to
the Defense that elementary fairness requires it to be disclosed even without specific request. ” (U.S V.
Agurs 427 u.s. at 110. 96S at 2401). Such suppression or undue withholding of this crucial type
of evidence, which deprives the defendant of what could be his only opportunity to conclusively
prove his innocence, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. If the vaginal sperm sample is taken
from the victim and the prosecutor is in possession of or has control over the samples and is aware of
their potential exculpatory nature, the Prosecution is constitutionally required to disclose the existence
of sample and to make it available for testing to the defense. Due process guarantees the Defendant’s
access to what could be conclusively exculpatory evidence, to utilize in whatever manner he deems ap-
propriate...” Hilliard V. Spalding 719 F2d 1447 (1983).

“Accordingly, when a woman has been the victim of an attempted or actual “rape” and a semen
sample were recovered of the assailant, the authorities must take reasonable measures to pre-
serve and identify the evidence"”(And not falsely argue that it is lost or of no probative value be-
cause of its small quantity or deteriorated by time, neglect or staining – This is inconsistent pre-
text because it is an indisputable reality that routine P.C.R. DNA. Testing are performed by amp-
lifying very small segments of deoxyribonucleic Acid helix)- “Such a rule protects not only the
due Process right of the Defendant, but also society’s interest in the integrity of the Judicial Sys-
tem”.
“The duty of the Prosecution is not simply to obtain conviction but fully and fairly present to the
Court the evidence material to the charge”. “
The disclosure of exculpatory materials must be made at time when would be of value”.
“Brady’s requirement that Government disclose exculpatory evidence also applies at sentencing”.
US v. Severson 3 F3d 1905/7th Gr. 1993.
The State’s illegal and prolonged withholding of these potentially exculpatory Code R samples
show a constitutional defect in the institution of the prosecution”. Us V. Marcum (4th Cir 1994).

25
 26

The prosecution, Crime Lab and the Court are well aware that these vaginal Code R Exam
samples are an indisputable proof that the defendant has been imprisoned illegitimately. For all of
them, Code R exam sperms sample testing means a professional suicide, and they will certainly
not let that happen!
The Utah Crime Lab people are acting as State’s accomplices. These vaginal samples are exculp-
atory evidence unduly retained so as to keep the defendant in prison as planned from the very be-
ginning of this case by the Court, as the foreperson pre signature attests.
IT IS HIGH TIME COURT EARNESTLY ASSESSED DR. BAKALOV’S INNOCENCE!
Page 125/6 to 15 -Mr. Fratto :… “In a “rape” case, where you have semen located in the va-
gina, and tests are capable of being performed, those (sperms) would either link Dr. Bakalov or
completely exonerate him, that as a matter of due process of law he is entitled to have those tests
performed if he wants to have those tests performed, and it is glaring that he wants those tests to
be performed”.
How is it then that Dr. Bakalov’s rights he is entitled to, are not exercised? This statement dates
from September 19, 1994. We are now in 1998! Were Mr. Fratto’s words just a sham of good in-
tentions? This state of things confirms once more, as if it were necessary, that the Court has no
desire to prove Dr. Bakalov’s innocence and it will do (as it did) everything in order to make any
attempt in that sense abort!
Page 129/11 Mr. Fratto: “… An analysis of the semen, in the present case, might have not only
impeached the credibility of the prosecution’s witness, but also might have completely exonerated
the defendant!"
131/9: “The semen stain has always been there, he has always had that available” (Cope).
It is clear that every time a mention is made about sperms or semen, the Court will unrelentingly
and obsessively, like a scratched record, revert to the Stain on the Skirt Syndrome! This cannot be
unintentional! They are aware the Code-R “rape” kit can only be exculpatory; if it were not so,
they would have used its indicting power against the defendant to their heart’s content! So they
will have the Jury believe or take it for granted that due analysis were made, forgetting to men-
tion it was performed (unproven) made on a stain found on a garment which could have been le-
gitimately found in Ms. Lauren Jones’s laundry box.
Page 132/11 Mr. Cope “… A comparison testing of the defendant’s blood with the contents of the
slide and vial was not performed “. Line 18: “If the defendant had provided a blood sample, it
could have been compared by the stain on the skirt "! This assertion alone proves without the
shadow of a doubt that they did NOT have a blood sample of the defendant as they vehemently
claimed, and it could therefore not have matched positively with the aforesaid stain on the skirt –
as they affirmed!
ATTITUDE of DEFENDANT: He was perpetually exasperated, facing outright injustice and
Court’s persecution and refusal to consider some disturbing facts, he was constantly put in a re-
cess so his only accessible response was to badmouth, use coarse words with aggressiveness and
that’s how he was outwardly judged as a thug who can only be guilty. Mr. Cope said: “Look at
him and see he is guilty. Look at Ms. Lauren Jones, her appearance is a proof she tells the plain
truth”. In addition to his poor means of expression in English, he often had intense dental pains
for which the Court could not care less and even incredulously mocked, retorting they were not in
charge of the medical stuff! 27/09/95 148/23. The defendant was coming from a different culture,
was intimidated, osmosed with prison’s environment, and felt he was being crushed flat like by a
road roller so he desperately struggled like a madman, and the Court assimilated him as a danger-
ous thug to be incarcerated for life so as to protect the good decent people from him! It is not in

26
 27

vain that Ms. Lauren Jones said he was even more dangerous now than before!
WHY DEFENDANT REFUSED TO GIVE HIS BLOOD:
In August 1994, it was agreed that if defendant would supply a blood sample, it would be tested
against the blood sample used in the DNA test (DNA on the stain found on one skirt!) to determ-
ine if there were any variations between the two (R.1353). But when the agreed-upon blood draw
was attempted, defendant refused, suddenly realizing it would be suicide for him to provide a
sample of his blood (R.2754-5, R.2761-2). Based on this suspicious refusal, the court denied as
moot the request for further testing of the semen stain on the skirt (R.2763). Which was not harm-
ful to the cause of justice since the stain on the garment would only prove the defendant and Ms.
Jones had consensual sexual relationship in her home, but this was already revealed by the de-
fendant himself and was not a crime. In September, when the missing Code-R sample was found
again (they had lost it!), the court decided to allow defendant another chance to provide a blood
sample (R.1515-8). But he refused, thus adding very severe guilt evidence to his case. This un-
derstandable reaction from the defendant was a bonanza for the prosecution, and it actually
stemmed from a very legitimate reason in the defendant’s mind. He suddenly thought: Since the
Court and the State declared that the vaginal sample could not be analyzed (DNA-tested), then
why did the State, Mr. Cope, Christine Soltis, etc. request me to submit my blood for testing? If
code R. Sample was really not testable and if it is only Bulgarian smoke and mirrors, what is the
point in having a “second” blood sample to compare with the sperms sample? The reason for de-
manding this “second” blood taking can only be a strategy to make up for the absence of a first
alleged possession of a blood sample from me. They want to have a proof they had blood from
me and could test the stain found on the garment! Now, is it still difficult to understand Dr.
Bakalov’s persistent refusal to give a sample of his blood! It would substantiate the adverse party
in their claims of having blood to attest the stain on the skirt was from him. Much ado for noth-
ing. The defendant himself attested that!
Now as regards EXHIBIT N°8:“Dr Doctor Bakalov did agree to give his blood, but only on the certi-
fied condition that it be used for the Code R. sperms sample analysis, not for any other purpose,
as he suspected. Nevertheless, the trial judge refused to meet with this legitimate and cautious
condition, and took advantage of this request to deny DNA testing. R. 1528. (Although the law
compels Court to have such a test done). The real motivation for Dr. Bakalov’s refusal to give
blood was hijacked and diverted, and his denial used to prove his fear of being found guilty. It is
furthermore curious to notice that the code R materials were stored in the district court clerk’s of-
fice as evidence (R.1299) whilst their evidence value is altogether denied by the court! The law
does not provide any legal exception where any piece of evidence should be disregarded. It was
therefore the duty of the Court to make every step compatible to determine if the sperms found in
the “raped” victim belonged to Dr. Bakalov or not. This was feasible and possibly still is. Every
argument set forth against it by the Court and prosecution is smoke and mirrors, awkward pre-
texts whose end is only too showy. The Court should have complied with Dr. Bakalov’s condition
to give his blood. But the Court had already made sufficiently clear that they did not want to base
their conviction on the concrete evidence available, but on Ms. Lauren Jones’s accusations only!
So it was not question that the Court starts sperms analysis at all, as they kept repeating! In addi-
tion to that the Court claimed they already had a blood sample taken from him. Knowing this was
untrue, unless it was taken unbeknownst to him – (which remains to be proven) - Dr. Bakalov re-
fused giving what the Court called a “second” blood taking, because if he had given in, he real-
ized the Court would have obtained the blood sample they claimed to already have but did not ac-
tually possess. In short, Dr. Bakalov’s refusal to give blood was a refusal to substantiate their lies
as to their possession of a previous blood sample.

27
 28

UNSHAKABLE CONVICTION OF INNOCENCE: In the numerous letters Doctor Bakalov wrote to the Court,
a continuous and unrelenting fact emerges constantly: his unwavering declaration of innocence
and his desire that the exonerating sperm sample be analyzed. It is unusual that a real rapist
claims his innocence with such a long persistence and demands his would-be sperm to be ana-
lyzed if he thought such an analysis would confirm his guilt! But the Court’s biased eyes always
spurned the truth and hid it from the Jury! Their professed objective: make the Jury find the de-
fendant guilty.
WAVERING OF COUNSEL: Doctor Bakalov repeatedly declared to the Court that he needed counsel,
meaning the defensive competence of an Attorney, but he also emphasized that this Counsel
should be independent – every defendant qualifies for such independent counsel – the more so
since the Prosecutor, Mr. Cope, publicly proclaimed that the State and the Court wanted him to be
guilty come what may. The State’s and Courts affiliated attorneys the defendant was proposed
would therefore defend the Defendant in a biased way to avoid blatant clashing with the State and
Court’s objective! This precaution is blatant in Ms. Watt’s pleading! That's why the defendant re-
marked: “Being defended by one of their Attorneys would be like shooting in my own head, and
choosing another would be like an injection of curare in my own blood"! As it happens, none of
the Attorneys provided by the State managed to have the most important source of exculpatory
evidence enter into the parameters of his case. (Code-R sample). It is easy to observe in the tran-
scripts that Doctor Bakalov never refused counsel, but only what he reasonably feared was going
to be biased counsel showing an outward will to defend him but only for form’s sake instead of in
full substance, as it was confirmed by facts afterwards. “No, I never waived my right to counsel. I
don’t waive counsel, I need counsel, would you please write in the record that I need skillful and
effective counsel” have always been the defendants words!
No desire for self-representation Page 159/12: “Dr Bakalov, did you ever want to be your own
defense attorney “? Answer: “Definitely not.”
COURT'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE OBJECTIVE THEY HAVE PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED :
(To have the Jury find Bakalov guilty and imprisoned)!
If the Court has forever determined to ignore some dispositions of justice, come hell or high wa-
ter, then there is nothing that can be done for this case through Court appeals! The Utah Court in
Salt Lake City rules without appeal as in a besieged land where rights and laws are subject to the
interpretations of the conquerors. Facts, evidence, laws, procedures, rights have lost their mean-
ing. Democracy starts its rotting process from such uncured abscesses! The Court scurries off
evidence, as if it were pestilence, in order to satisfy their own politics of justice, that which may
be opposed to the law; they prefer the comfort of their willingly confined opinions rather than
have zeal for righteousness and truth! To them zeal is locking the undesirable plague-stricken
Barbarian Bulgarian until his death! What wonder then if our youth is disillusioned and doesn’t
believe in western values and morality standards anymore?
SPERM LONGEVITY: The Court refuses to share scientific views according to which no sperms can
be alive after around 70 hours! They invite fallacious experts to confirm - in the presence of the
lay Jury - that even over 70 hours spermatozoa can still be alive, although the impossibility of
such an oddity has been confirmed by the cream of the pot in scientific matters; they hire any so-
cial worker, or any drawing room juggler, call them an expert, and ask them to attest that sperms
can be still alive several days after intercourse. The typical answer from these improvised experts
is an unwavering “I don’t know” still the Court interprets their “I don’t know” as: “You are
right"!
DATES and facts:

28
 29

•Bojidar BAKALOV born on Sunday 22/Sept/1953 - was convicted by the Utah Code, (or cope?)
of Justice for “rape”, occurring at the last hour of Saturday April 6th 1991. The self-alleged victim
is Margaret Lauren JONES, born on Saturday July 30, 1955. Case N° 911004529FS. Utah Court of
“Justice”.
•Bojidar Bakalov met Lauren Jones for the first time on Monday March 26th, 1991-17:30 in her
home. But Lauren Jones says it’s on the first of April (April Fool’s gag?). At least, as she con-
fesses, she already had his phone number from March 26, 1991 on. R. 184/24.
•He arrived in Canada on May 2, 1990. then settled in Salt Lake City on May 9th 1990. lived
there in the City View Apartments. Ms. Lauren Jones settled in Salt Lake since April 28,1990.
•His mother arrived in Salt Lake on Thursday March 21st, 1991 and Dr Gay was grieved about it.
(Year not mentioned in documents)!
•HE DESCRIBES HIS SEX INTERCOURSE WITH THE ACCUSER IN THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE :
-Tuesday 28 March 1991: Ante porta ejaculatio.
-Wednesday 29 March 1991: Protected intercourse (condom).
-Friday 30 March: Very short sex intercourse + fellatio.
-Saturday 6 April 1991: Oral sex, no penis-vagina contact.
•On the 6th of April 1991, he was with Margaret Lauren JONES in her home until 9:17 p.m. He
remembers this particular detail because Deanna feared it was a little too late for visits to next-
door people (Russian family). But he looked at the clock and insisted it was not that late and
that's how he remembers the clock showing 9:17 which was still a reasonable time for visits, as he
suggested.
•His report: So we spent about 20 minutes with the Russian family and then we made a short
ride in the Nissan truck to the Federal Heights Area without ever entering the University Campus,
as Miss Jones claims. We were chatting casually and very friendly when Lauren started rubbing
herself fondly against me, which was no surprise considering the type of relationship we had,
then took off her slips, and I was embarrassed because I couldn’t accept intercourse now because
first my condoms were in Lauren’s home, in my bag on the computer table, and I never have sex
without a condom, as she knew, because people having Aids in Bulgaria are incarcerated for life,
and moreover, I had no driving license, no insurance, my rear stop light was damaged, so I was a
potential target for police interference such as identity papers check-up ! So I resisted her. If I
had had condoms in my home, I would have driven her there. I would surely not have taken so
many risks (Aids, police interference, not to mention the inappropriate alcove!) But she went on
her petting game, unzipped my flies and made fellatio on me, with an evident view to inducing
me to full intercourse. But instead, after this was over, I drove towards my home, stopped there
where we remained for a short while, and returned to Lauren’s house around 10:45, 10:50 p.m.
Incidentally, if I had ever wanted to “rape” Lauren, I would have had little difficulty inviting her
in my home. When we had reached Lauren’s home, we exchanged a few words outside her house
and at about 11 o’clock I was back at home with my mother. There was only a small distance
between Lauren’s house and mine. I felt from that moment that Lauren would probably be hostile
to me. I wasn’t responding to her sex and love calls, nor did I want to attend her Church confer-
ence or be a member of it. I felt that she would resent this. But I never suspected she would
charge me with “rape” as a kind of retaliation. Never would I “rape” a woman, I may have short-
comings or what some people call a lack of civility but my mother always taught me severely to
scrupulously respect women, the woman she was, first and by extension all other women through
her. This attitude towards women is taboo to me and not respecting a woman would hurt me. Ms.

29
 30

Lauren Jones herself was struck by my aloofness towards women to the point of thinking I was
gay. I respect Lauren Jones but I’m sorry I must bring out some prosaic aspects of her personality.
This is not lack of respect but a necessity arising from the need to shade light on every detail sus-
ceptible to clarify this unending case: Some people in the Jury might be tempted to judge Mar-
garet Lauren JONES by her looks and hence infer she is prudish, sexually timorous and reserved.
Still I remember vividly the surprised I experienced on 03/28/91 when she insisted to see what a
Russian penis looked like. Sure, I was flabbergasted by this sudden and unexpected curiosity that
I mistook for a possible unknown American way, but I nevertheless turned myself in order to
meet this unexpected demand with honor. At the time I did not even had an operational command
of English, but enough as to make out that she was eager to know whether I liked American wo-
men or preferred men, or both, whether I liked fat or slim women, why I had no erection when I
was in her company, etc. To find the answer by herself, she soon ran her fingers on my penis to
see how big it was, or if I could have an erection at all or not. Ms Jones in the Courtroom behaves
quite differently than when she was with me in her house! There is nothing shameful about that,
of course, but there surely is something shameful about hypocrisy! Why did she try to have sex
on the 6th while she knew my condoms were in her home? Retrospectively, I presume she wanted
me to inseminate her so that I marry her, or certainly one of her kaleidoscopic facets, in the crowd
of the several personalities she is said to arbor within herself, experienced such a desire. It is then
that I realized she might have some sort of mental disorder and an absence of logic in the frame
of her motivations. As I said, I always wear a condom during sexual intercourse, the only excep-
tion was on 03/28/91 when I didn’t succeed to “withdraw” in time and emitted sperm ante portas,
but ever since I avoid all risks by having “protected” sex. Therefore there could not possibly be
any sperm from me deposited in Margaret Lauren JONE’S vagina on the 6 th of April 1991! The
more so since it is scientifically demonstrated that no sperms can be found intact after a maxim-
um of one score of hours after deposition, especially if the “raped” woman has had a 2 hours and
a half bath after insemination, as she claimed several times. Justice should get more informed
about recent scientific discoveries and rely only on authentic licensed experts statements rather
than on such middle-age concepts as sperm being alive after 72 hours in a vagina. Scientific
heresy should not be found in American Courts! That’s why I’m so anxious that the Prosecution
and Court find out that the Code-R sperm samples do not belong to me. It would be a miracle if
my sperms were in the samples - only the Holy Spirit could perform it, not Dr. Bakalov! And
would I insist so much on the smoking gun being investigated if I feared the sperm were mine?
This would be more risky than Russian Roulette Game! All these parameters are essential to bet-
ter understand some wheelworks of this case, so no wonder the State’s representatives in this
Court are going to repress them vehemently as “irrelevant” matter, as they freely did in the past.
RELIGIOUS TRIAL?
Utah State is a 75% Mormon theocracy, a state within the Utah State.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JURY TRIAL 7 Page 76/11 Page 109/6 up to line 25: The absence of sub-
stantial proof of the veracity or existence of the “rape” is an embarrassing shortage for the Court,
hence all the efforts ravenously deployed by them to win on other sides, going as far as trying
self-mesmerize themselves into believing in the veracity of same! The only rescue they have left
is to influence the jury through a kind of propaganda phraseology, made of marketing and Court
rhetoric, aiming at inflaming the subjective passion of the jury and avoiding some essential para-
meters or hijacking them; the jury is asked to believe – (here in this Court, scientific evidence,
when it is absent, as is the case - is easily replaced by “ believing” which normally belongs to re-
ligion!) that Dr. Bakalov is guilty! Why? Because the little innocent girl named Lauren cannot

30
 31

possibly be guilty! Come on! Look at her; see this little sheep of God whose white garment has
been spoiled by the Satanic Barbarian Bulgarian! Will we let such an abomination go unpun-
ished? Will we let Satan the Deceiver and accuser of the Saints persecute one of our brethren?
The Prosecutor - her “fatherly counselor ”, sermonized the jurors into believing in their souls,
heart and guts (concrete evidence is out of the question) that Dr. Bakalov can only be guilty;
(Look at him, his overwhelming eyes, his prehistorical edented face!!! The fact is self-evident,
there couldn’t be the slightest doubt about it, look at his ferocious sly eyes, his stony square jaws,
his Cossack fierce face, his powerful body eager to smash you down, his profane Bamboo Eng-
lish, his uneducated speech, his documents all scattered at his feet... Such a man cannot but be
guilty, he is a born rapist, and can't you feel it in your bowels? Imagine you are alone in the dark
with him, you feel his irresistible grip around your neck, his bloody teeth piercing your carotid
through, noisily sucking your blood, and imagine what Ms. Lauren Jones went through, the in-
describable moment of the rape! Profane and Christian morality demand that we imprison such a
dangerous man who fiercely raped the body and soul one of God's Holy Women of the Last
Days!
Dear Mormon people, wake up! Doesn’t that satanic story remind you of a Roman judge who
asked the crowd: “But what wrong hath this man done? “And the crowd howled back: “Crucify
him” “Crucify him”. The characters have changed but the spirit of the case is identical ! Despic-
able felonies such as “rape” must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but the Court
must take care not to permit an innocent man to suffer on account of a deed for vengeance.
Justice requires a sufficiency and materiality of evidence, not appearances inflamed by pas-
sion. Let every one – (especially if Christian – because there is no way to evolve for society out-
side real Christianity) - of you fear to have caused a man to be condemned without sufficiency of
proof, on the basis of false certainties and distorted testimonies that sounded unquestionable –
just because you thought it was right and godly to do so! “Such a way that seems right unto a
man, same leads to death!" The only proof that couldn’t deceive you, the jury is the absolute sci-
entific or medical guarantee that the sperm found in Lauren Jones vagina was that of the wrongly
accused Doctor Bakalov! How could anyone have this certainty when the sperms at issue have
never been tested because the court - for some fishy reasons -spoiled it completely and casually -
maybe purposefully made it UN-testable!
•HYPNOSIS: The prosecution’s argument is that the emotional shock of the victim was so viol-
ent that it buried most of the memories she could have had of the events surrounding the “rape”.
Still her Defense insists on the fact that she remembered every detail. Argumentation is very flex-
ible and varies according to the needs of the defense. The reports indicate that it is through hyp-
nosis that, one week later, the details of the accident, blinded by the Hiroshima blaze of emotions,
were “brought back” to the surface of her conscience. Yet, the paralyzing emotional shock in
question doesn’t transpire at all in Lauren’s diary notes of the fateful day! Not only they don’t
soothe out of them, but the notes of the day in her journal entry reflect a particular state of emo-
tional quietness and peace incompatible with a mute state of shock with partial amnesia of the
event supposed to have caused the memory tohu-bohu ! (chaos). Does any entry in her diary of
this day show any perceptible trace of emotional destabilization or freezing? Far from it! In addi-
tion, the existence of a psychological trauma is purely speculative and based on a science sup-
posed to reveal it (mesmerism) science which, in any other courts, is categorically overruled and
emphatically dismissed Hypnosis, or Mesmerism is NOT officially accepted as a true science, nor
necromancy! In addition, hypnosis can also be used as a memory retrieval technique, but also as a
mean to suggest confabulous symptoms, said Dr. Brady (page 179,11,12). Transcript 27/09/. No

31
 32

“Hypnotically refreshed memory” can satisfy unbiased Jurors! Why not the intervention of imps,
clairvoyance, telepathy, witchcraft, spiritism and all the like, while the Prosecution is at it? No
occult nor black arts are to be taken as evidence in a 20th Century American Court.
•HYPNOSIS TRANSCRIPT 27 SEPTEMBER 1995: Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness
where one is in a highly suggestible state. Hypnotic induction includes relaxation, but is different
from it. (Witness Brady Page 254).
Until this date, the Prosecution and Court did all they could to hide or minimize as much as pos-
sible the fact that Lauren really underwent hypnosis sessions. (By Social Worker Brady). But in
this transcript, reality is allowed to surface a little: Page 109/8 “But you usually don’t take notes
unless you are doing hypnosis ?” “That’s correct” 110/8.
112/17: The Court: “Do you have an estimate of how many different occasions that you took
notes that are reflected in 1028 “? (Seances). Ms Brady : I would say maybe 45, approximately.
The Court : “And on any of those occasions, was hypnosis used"? ANSWER: Yes, all but one. So
44 seances of hypnosis were used whilst this reality- up to this trial - was emphatically denied
by the COURT : “There were NO HYPNOSIS... nor memory work ” It is clear now - once for all
- that hypnosis was intensively used, contrarily to all previous opposite prior statements. So let’s
this be no more questioned in possible future debates! The hypocrite blurring of the distinction
line between hypnosis and memory work must be drawn in sharp and clear outline, too. The
Court does make a neat distinction between both and thus admits ipso facto, the reality of both
techniques as being distinct, in the present case. Reference: page 113/17. : Page 278 21 and on:
“Relaxation techniques - stress management skills - self-hypnosis -visual imagery - and hypnosis
are also specific intervention strategies that have been used to both address the regression since
the “rape” retrial, as well as to continue clinically working through the pervasive, disruptive and
destructive affects of both the adult “rape” and the severe childhood abuse traumas. (but the lat-
ter seances were paid by the State anyway on account of the “rape”) ” So at least hypnosis has
been used in conjunction with the “rape” (line 9). This neat distinction is important because the
Court and Prosecution will do their utmost to minimize hypnosis or even refute it, or say it was
just “relaxation” and this tendency from them shows on page 279/24. So the defense reminds
them rightly:”It is our position (in fact a mere recognition of statements made by Brady) that at
least hypnosis has been used with the conjunction of the “rape”. (Besides conjunction with al-
leged child-abuse). The court’s reply is cunning to a sharp degree: “I thought (subjective) “Doc-
tor” Brady said that it had NOT been used in any way for memory retrieval vis-à-vis the crime
that’s been charged in this case (“rape”)”. By saying this, the Judge confesses that the hypnosis
sessions paid by the State are only used for her childhood traumas. In reality, the witness’s ac-
counts abound with showings and statements that hypnosis was used in conjunction with the
“rape” and nobody – not even the Judge or the Prosecution - can tell how hypnosis was used and
in particular for what purpose besides those testified, it was used! It is a well known fact that un-
der hypnosis, one can make a person pretend, say, claim or sham anything he wishes; that’s a
medical fact no one can get away from, an inescapable and verifiable reality that can be clinically
reproduced and demonstrated at will. I claim this by personal experience and background! On the
whole, it can be noted that personal opinions, (line 24) bad faith, minimizing or even flat refusal
of crucial evidence as well as tendentiously leading reasoning, ooze out of the judge to a naus-
eous point! In that single page, the phrases “I don’t think so, therefore the objection is denied”. “I
don’t believe this so it is overruled” appear several times! As to Mr. Cope, he keeps saying: “I be-
lieve,” “I don’t believe” “It’s my belief that”. In the meantime, the elements that could do more
than trigger mere beliefs, the Code-R exam sperm samples that cost Lauren a lot of inconveni-

32
 33

ence, are never interrogated! That would be suicide for the Supreme Court of Utah. With the con-
venient use of hypnosis, it is very easy to engrave into a patient’s mind useful put up memories
memories; yet they don’t use the word hypnosis (which sounds fairground technique, thus impair-
ing the credit of their interventions) but rather the more noble vocable “relaxation"! (Showing
there is no such forcing of the mind as with hypnosis!). Yet, many references were made to hyp-
nosis before it became a polemic subject in this case! “Jones went through relaxation
techniques… but just before that, they used hypnosis and other relaxation therapy” Page 19/25
Sept.15,95. Hypnosis (which is extreme relaxation induction) has a very formal induction process
that can legitimately be judged as “mind manipulation”. Relaxation sounds less coercive. But ac-
tually hypnosis was used, according to Dr. Brady, the therapist. With hypnosis one can influence
a person, unbeknownst to her - into saying almost anything one wishes – one can manipulate feel-
ings, memories, and induce neurotic symptoms. The manipulated person then doesn’t remember
the things suggested by the therapist as things to remember or forget. The orders (suggestions,
they call them) of the practitioner are felt as consubstantial with the patient’s mind! Hypnosis
“techniques” can be used to induce useful memories into someone’s mind, whose absence might
be prejudicial to the plaintiff, in the present case. Through hypnosis it is easy to implant a whole
scenario into the brain of patients having mental weaknesses. The person will repeat the scenario
without knowing it’s not from him, he will sometimes forget details, mix implanted memories
with his own, pass from one to the other, etc.
MORE PRISON FOR THE 1st degree FELON said the Mormon self-called victim.
Lauren declared she witnessed her “rapist” in even more violent behavior than at the time of the
“rape”. She consequently is of the opinion that Dr. Bakalov is now more dangerous to society
than he was at the time of his hideous crime, and she feels that he deserves the maximum sen-
tence – Life imprisonment! The Court apparently adhered to her approach. Now, how could an
active member of the only true Christian religion in the world utter such words when the leader of
this religion said, amid many other things: “Do good even to your enemies. Forgive and you shall
be forgiven. Love (active outgoing concern for) your enemies and help even those who persecute
you. Do not judge and you will not be judged. Whoever hates other people –including enemies -
hate me and don’t know me”. Etc. (tens of pages could be added here – forgiveness – instead of
condemnation - is the basis of all Christian leitmotiv, the basic attitude of the authentic Saints!).
Granted: no discrepancies between religious beliefs and the attitude of their beholders could be
an element of evidence in a Court (even if most people in the Court are Mormons!). But at least it
shows the person concerned– Ms. Lauren Jones in the present case - can act in total contradiction
and defiance with her own unhidden beliefs, or professes some specific beliefs and behaves in
total discrepancy vis-à-vis the very same professing beliefs! In the present case, it is not question
of forgiving the felon if he is guilty – and letting him harm other people, if he ever did so, but the
attitude of driving the nail more into the defendant’s chest on account of a would-be worsening of
his “wickedness” is shocking and doesn’t speak favorably of the complaining witness. On the
other hand, is it wise and charitable from the Court to trust Ms. Lauren Jones on her literal word
- and it seems, precisely, that every word Lauren Jones utters is religiously taken as Gospel truth,
taken for granted as if the Virgin Mary had spoken! God says: “You shall live by every word that
comes out of my mouth” He did not say: Out of Lauren’s mouth! It’s all too easy to rant that a
man is so dangerous that society must be protected from him by having him safely locked up in a
prison! Is Dr. Bakalov the Satan who must be enchained just prior to the millennium for one
thousand years? Religious arguments should not be introduced in a crime file, granted, but it
seems the trial people are nearly all impregnated with a religious background, first and second,

33
 34

the expression “ I believe” saturates all the transcripts relating to this particular case.
“Your Honor, the State of Utah cannot afford to take even the most minute chance this man will
“rape” someone else!" (Page 28/22). This extreme reaction is based only on an undeniably
psychotic person’s opinion that: “Dr. Bakalov is even more dangerous than he was at the moment
of the “rape”” -“Dr. Bakalov you are a danger to society, you are unwilling to conform your con-
duct to socially acceptable norms” (Page 30/20,23). No need to check veracity of such an indict-
ing statement from Ms. Lauren Jones; it would be blasphemy to question whatever she says be-
cause she is a Christian and Dr. Bakalov is a pagan! The national bias played a role in this case.
Utah people are educated to hate every Russian or communist. Mr. Cope compared defendant
with Nikita Krutchev! Ms. Lauren Jones’s camp has grown emotionally involved in Lauren’s
saga, they have defended her, fatherly protected her, if she lied then they would be wrong and
lose face as well as their case; it would be a flop, a disgrace, a bankruptcy. It’s better to keep en-
trenched in one’s positions without questioning them! The State of Utah cannot afford to take the
most minute chance Margaret Lauren Jones lies or confabulates; if necessary they will dictate her
testimony (like in exhibit 104 versus 105) and responses, patch up and even out the whole of her
“inconsistencies" suggest her the best testimonies through hypnosis if necessary, and we will bull
out (moot, object) any attempt made to question her testimony or any effort made by the opposi-
tion to use the available proofs against her.
Page 26/1 Here, Lauren’s speech is a masterpiece of ingeniously oiled rhetoric; it is made with all
the best selected ingredients for maximum emotional impact; it appeals to bigot and tremulous
piety, dignity, good intentions and namely the pious, “Christian-sounding” tones of charity! It is
worth reading again for the good masterpiece she achieved! She vehemently declared, “in a very
dignified fashion” (line 13) and with all cameras and oily eyes swollen with admiration towards
her majestic charisma: “Now I want you all to know (Solemn, isn’t it) that I hate what Dr.
Bakalov did… but as a person, I don’t hate him! (I just wan t him to remain in prison for
life!) Yes, I still have a lot of concern for him as a person, and that’s all, thank you Ladies and
Gentlemen!" What a magnanimous speech! What an excellent scriptwriter Mr. Cope is! Clap clap
clap clap - Encore! Whistles of approval repeat, again! And the weeping crowd cries: “Encore!
Encore! Lauren – Lauren – Lau-ren Lau-ren, we love you! Lauren as Queen, Cope as President!
Vote for the Couple of the Year!"- whistles of mob jubilation. Now music, Yeah!
Inadequate defense from standby counsel TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 20/19 Was
Ms Watt on defendant’s side or not? It is difficult not to perceive through her counsel that she
feels the defendant is guilty and defends him only for form’s sake with hardly any inner convic-
tion! On page 33/14 Ms Watts says to the judge:”I will give your Honor credit for superior intel-
ligence to myself” Here she looks as if she ran toward the awesome enemy, knelt before him and
bent her head in respect! She is meek and frightened, like a scared dog scurrying away with its
tail between its hind legs! Still it can be understood that few attorneys will have the guts to op-
pose the Court with legal authority. No one wants to risk losing his or her job. There are subjects
not to evoke in this Court: the main taboo one: Code R. samples!
PROOF DEFENDANT HAD SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH LAUREN BEFORE ALLEGED RAPE:
58/8-Dr. Bakalov said: “Did you note the left ovarium is larger and harder?"
58/19-Dr. Bakalov said:”Did you notice that she has anteversio and anteflexio uterus “?
59/2-Dr. Bakalov : “Did you notice that the column uteri is downwards?"
59/7-Dr. Bakalov: “Did you notice enlargement of the uterus?"
64/19-Dr. Bakalov: “Did you notice that caruncula hymenalis don’t exist at all; they simply dis-
appeared”.
When asking these questions, one has the impression that the defendant knew Ms. Lauren Jones’s

34
 35

private anatomy very well. Why is that? Because he has sex with her before alleged rape! It
would be impossible otherwise.
TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 (page 24 line 17). What does Lauren answer to that? She
makes no response…. Meaning that this is not the main reason, but only a part of the reason. She
sought therapy with Dr. Brady before the alleged incident with Dr. Bakalov, because she had psy-
chological problems well before that. Post “rape” traumatic syndrome has only a secondary far-
off connection with her consultations with Dr. Brady. But when she deems it necessary to better
defend her cause, she puts all the load on Dr. Bakalov! It seems L. Jones hides behind a screen of
fume called D.I.D or whatever else, syndrome she probably found in a psychiatric manual or oth-
er source, the aim being to avoid exposure and have justifications for her false testimony in case
she were impeached. The problem is she doesn’t read the right book or doesn’t always exhibit the
right symptoms. She somewhat derives a kind of pride to be victimized. This is a blatant trait of
her behavioral responses.
Mr. Cope’s CREDO :
The hearings are based on Mr. Cope’s personal idiosyncratic beliefs and the States mission he
was entrusted with: to find Dr. Bakalov guilty and imprisoned for life. The motives for this are
only speculative although strong indications suggest a problem with deportation. At times he de-
clares up to seven times, in a single transcript’s page, that he believes this or that – therefore all
the rest must follow according to his tenets. Reality must comply to his beliefs or he gets aggress-
ive and boorish! Any motion, objection, or statement of facts made by Defendant or Defense that
is rude enough as not to agree with what he believes, is loudly kicked aside as unbearable crap !
It is easy for a man to be right when he eliminates every parameter that could make him wrong !
Just say it is irrelevant and overrule it, moot it, muzzle it by a flat “overruled” and you win at all
times! It is even more effective if you base legislation on your own mere guts beliefs. In this case,
you don’t even need to know the laws. And it seems that this case will have to endure this state of
Utah things! This case will never comply with legislation in its entirety! It is a case based on a
personality, a man, an imposing character who has decided to punish a certain kind of people
whose acts he hates, and he will ferociously destroy that kind of people, even by going far bey-
ond the limits and dispositions of the law if necessary - Even if those people never actually com-
mitted the hideous acts Mr. Cope sees in every human he pleads against! (Read the press and
see!). Mr. Cope means of pleading against a certain type of felons (actual or imaginary) shows
HE considers himself above the law! The law must comply with his ambitions, craves and crazes.
Had this tiresome case be debated by anybody else but Mr. Cope, Dr. Bakalov would be free
today and help many weak hearts to survive! Instead, the two handcuffs of this surgeon: Ms.
Lauren Jones and Mr. Cope, will make him bury more into the mire of prison osmosis, possibly
lead him to extreme revolt acts and he will have rotten his life in a confinement room just be-
cause one day, four days after a casual trip in a truck, her secretary has decided to retaliate against
him. Her being a leader of the religion that impregnate the Utah City (Court and general official-
dom) made every word she said the plain truth; even her boringly debated about mental impair-
ment did not stain the limpidity of the faith people had in her testimony – which remains the only
proof of Dr. Bakalov guilt!

35