Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1679

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


For the
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
__________________________________________
)
NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE )
CO. and BOAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF )
OF THE UNITED STATES ) Civil Action:
Plaintiffs ) No: 17-cv-0038-S-PAS
)
v. ) In Admiralty
)
NATHAN CARMAN )
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)

DEFENDANT, NATHAN CARMAN’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THREE DISCOVERY DEPOSITIONS

Now comes the Defendant, Nathan Carman, and respectfully requests that this Honorable

Court Grant leave for the Defendant to take the depositions of three fact witnesses who possess

information relevant to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. Specifically the Defendant requests

leave to take the deposition of 1) “Neighbor X” 1, 2) “Mistress Y” 2, and 3) Valerie Santilli.

I. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS RELATED TO THE MURDER OF JOHN CHAKALOS

As has been previously raised by the Defendant, nowhere within their Complaint, [Doc. #

1], their January 2018 Second Amended Answer to Amended Counterclaim [Doc. # 36], the

1
The identifier “Neighbor X” is being used in this Motion in lieu of this witness’s real name so as to protect the
privacy of this witness. Prior to filing this Motion Counsel for the Defendant provided Counsel for the Plaintiff this
witness’s name and copies of attached Exhibits “A” and “C” without redactions, which contain identifying
information relating to this witness.
2
The identifier “Mistress Y” is being used in this Motion in lieu of this witness’s real name so as to protect the
privacy of this witness. Prior to filing this Motion Counsel for the Defendant provided Counsel for the Plaintiff this
witness’s name and copies of attached Exhibits “B” and “C” without redactions, which contain identifying
information relating to this witness.

1
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1680

30(b)(6) testimony on the issues of the Plaintiffs’ contentions or within Plaintiffs Answers to

Interrogatories, have the Berkshire Hathaway Plaintiffs set forth their claims or contentions

relating to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. See, Def. Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

to Compel [Doc. #51-1] and supporting Affidavit [Doc. # 51-2] and supporting Exhibits “A” –

“N” [Doc. # 51-3 through #51-16]. It is extremely difficult to defend against claims, the

substance of which have not been defined. None the less, Plaintiffs have introduced two

documents into the discovery record in this case, which appear to give substance to Plaintiffs

murder claims in this case. They are 1) the search warrant affidavit marked as Carman

Deposition Exhibit 37 [Doc. # 37-4] and 2) the single page from a USCG record marked as

Carman Deposition Exhibit 38. [Doc. # 37-5].

During the hearing in September, the Court suggested that it was likely that the

Defendant would only be allowed three additional depositions relating to the 2013 murder of

John Chakalos. Given the absence of pleadings or discovery responses identifying the substance

of Plaintiffs’ murder claims in this case, for the purpose selecting the three additional deponents

Defendant has used the factual assertions made in the above mentioned Warrant Affidavit and

USCG Record as surrogates for Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the 2013 murder of Defendant’s

grandfather, John Chakalos. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]; Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. #

35-5].

II. REQUESTED DEPOSITION OF “NEIGHBOR X”

Defendant seeks to take the deposition of “Neighbor X” because this witness has personal

knowledge of information that establishes the time in the evening in which John Chakalos was

murdered.

2
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1681

If deposed, Defendant expects that “Neighbor X” will testify consistent with this

witnesses’ statement to the Windsor Police the day after the murder that:

“On 12/20/13 at about 0200 hours, I was home and in my Moms bedroom; located in the
northeast corner of our house. I heard a loud bang coming from the direction of my
neighbor’s house located at 52 Overlook Drive. My Dog began barking at about the
same time, which I thought was unusual for the hour. At about 0300 hours, I was laying
in my Mom’s bed and heard traffic out in front of our house. I heard multiple cars driving
by. I heard one of the cars either brake or turn hard and it made a squealing noise.”

12/21/13 Statement of “Neighbor X” (emphasis added) (Attached hereto as


Exhibit “A”) 3; See, also, Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline (Attached hereto as
Exhibit “C”) 4

The testimony of “Neighbor X” is strong evidence supporting the conclusion that John

Chakalos was shot at approximately 2:00 am (0200 hours) on December 20, 2013. Further, the

testimony of “Neighbor X” is likely to be strong evidence that John Chakalos was not shot after

2:00 am (0200 hours).

Establishing the time of the murder is significant because the Warrant Affidavit (Carman

Depo. Ex. 37) explicitly identifies a “time period of over one hour from 0257 AM to 0400 AM

on December 20, 2013” as being the time period which is “unaccounted for” and during which,

the affidavit implies/suggests, Nathan Carman could have murdered his grandfather. Warrant

Affidavit, Carman Depo. Ex. # 37, Para. 6. [Doc. # 37-4, page 4 of 11]. Surveillance video at a

Stop & Shop and at his apartment building establishes that Nathan Carman was shopping late on

3
Personal identifiers have been redacted from the Windsor P.D. witness statements attached Exhibit “A” so as to
protect the privacy of “Neighbor X”. Prior to filing this Motion counsel for the Defendant has provided counsel for
the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of Ex. “A” which contains the name, address and other redacted
information.
4
Except for Mr. Carman, his mother and grandfather, personal identifiers have been redacted from the timeline
attached as Ex. “C” to protect the privacy of “Neighbor X” as well as other persons. Counsel for the Defendant has
provided counsel for the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of this exhibit

3
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1682

the evening of December 19th, that immediately after leaving the Stop & Shop he returned to his

apartment in Bloomfield, where he remained until 0257 hours (2:57 am). Id. at Para. 5-6 [Doc. #

37-4]; See, also, Windsor P.S. Supplemental Report, pp. 5-6, Page 5 (Attached hereto as Exhibit

“B”) 5. Surveillance video shows Mr. Carman leaving his apartment at 0257 hours (2:57 am). Id.

Surveillance video from a gas station and cell phone records establish that Mr. Carman arrived in

Glastonbury at approximately 0400 hours (4:00 am). Id.

Deposition testimony from “Neighbor X” is highly relevant because this testimony tends

to establish that John Chakalos was not murdered during the one hour time period (0257 – 0400)

which the Warrant Affidavit claims Mr. Carman is “unaccounted for”. [Doc. # 37-4, page 4 of

11] Simply stated, if John Chakalos was shot at 2:00 am, then Nathan Carman clearly was not

the murderer.

III. REQUESTED DEPOSITION OF “MISTRESS Y”

Defendant seeks to take the deposition of “Mistress Y” for a number of reasons. First,

testimony from “Mistress Y” is likely to establish that, when Nathan Carman left his

Grandfathers’ home on the evening of December 19th, 2013, John Chakalos, was alive & well

and had not been shot 6. Second, deposition testimony from “Mistress Y” (in conjunction with

the requested deposition testimony of Mrs. Santilli and other evidence) is likely to establish facts

from which one can reasonably conclude that, in comparison to the evidence supporting

5
Personal identifiers have been redacted from the two pages (5-6) of a Windsor P.D. report attached as Exhibit “B”
so as to protect the privacy of “Mistress Y”. All information relating to two other persons has been redacted
entirely. Counsel for the Defendant has provided counsel for the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of this exhibit.
6
There are two additional witnesses who also have knowledge through telephone calls that John Chakalos was alive
after Nathan Carman left Chakalos’ home during the evening of December 19th, 2013. See, Windsor P.D. Victim
Timeline (attached as Ex. “C”).

4
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1683

Plaintiffs’ murder claims against Mr. Carman, the evidence that “Mistress Y” was involved 7 with

Chakalos’ murder, is far stronger. Similarly, testimony from “Mistress Y” is likely to establish

facts from which one could reasonably conclude that Mr. Chakalos’ lifestyle and activities prior

to his death made him a target of robbery and/or murder by some unknown person(s).

If deposed Defendant expects 8 “Mistress Y’s” testimony will establish the following

facts:

At the time of John Chakalos’ murder “Mistress Y” was an attractive 25 year old woman.

Windsor P.D. Supplemental Report pages 5-6 (Attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). “Mistress Y”

first met 87 year old John Chakalos during the spring of 2013 in connection with her job working

in a housing complex in New Hampshire which was controlled by Mr. Chakalos. During the late

spring and summer of 2013 John Chakalos regularly visited “Mistress Y” in New Hampshire and

periodically took her out to lunch. During these visits Mr. Chakalos would give “Mistress Y”

increasingly large gifts of cash ranging from $100 to $800.

By August of 2013 the relationship between “Mistress Y” and John Chakalos involved

Mr. Chakalos giving “Mistress Y” cash in exchange for sexual favors. At the time of this sexual

activity in August of 2013, “Mistress Y” was living with her boyfriend in New Hampshire.

In September of 2013, “Mistress Y” moved from New Hampshire to Connecticut. The

relationship between “Mistress Y” and John Chakalos continued through the fall of 2013.

During the weekend of December 13-14, 2013 (the weekend preceding the murder), John

Chakalos and “Mistress Y” spent the weekend together at the Mohegan Sun Casino where they

7
The term “involved” is being used in its broadest sense, extends to both direct and indirect involvement in the
murder, and includes innocent communication of information that was used to accomplish the murder and/or
communication of information that Mr. Chakalos a target.
8
“Mistress Y” has given several written, audio and video recorded statements to the police in connection with the
murder of John Chakalos. There are some inconsistencies between these statements. Accordingly, it remains
uncertain precisely what “Mistress Y” will testify to during her deposition.

5
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1684

shared a bed and engaged in sexual activity. John Chakalos gave “Mistress Y” at least $3,500.00

in cash this weekend. Windsor P.D. Supplemental Report pages 5-6 (Ex. “B”). While in the

hotel room at the Mohegan Sun during the weekend preceding his murder, John Chakalos took a

sex toy out of his bag and asked “Mistress Y” to use it on herself. “Mistress Y” declined to use

this sex toy telling John Chakalos that the sex toy he had brought with him was “way to big”.

Testimony from Mrs. Santilli, credit card statements and other evidence will establish

that At 1:30 pm during the afternoon of Thursday, December 19th (the last afternoon he was

alive) Mr. Chakalos visited a sex shop in Hartford named the “Luv Boutique” and purchased

sexual paraphernalia. Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline. (Ex. “C”).

If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that John Chakalos called

“Mistress Y” during the afternoon of December 19, 2013 (after visiting the “Luv Boutique” and

prior to going out to dinner with Nathan Carman) Mr. Chakalos called “Mistress Y” by

telephone, but was unable to connect with her. Testimony from Mr. Carmen will establish that

after having dinner with his grandfather at a local restaurant, Nathan drove his grandfather home

at around 8:30pm and left his grandfather’s home shortly thereafter. Windsor P.D. Victim

Timeline. (Ex. “C”).

If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that she called John Chakalos at

his home at 8:36 pm in the evening of December 19, 2013. Testimony from “Mistress Y” will

establish that after answering this 8:36 pm call, John Chakalos told her that Nathan was just

leaving and asked “Mistress Y” to give him a minute “to say goodbye to my grandson”.

Thereafter John Chakalos and “Mistress Y” spoke on the phone for approximately 20 minutes.

Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline. (Ex. “C”). This 20 minute conversation was sexual in nature.

6
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1685

Id. During this 20 minute conversation on the evening of his murder, John Chakalos told

“Mistress Y” that he was not happy with what happened at the Mohegan Sun. Id.

At the time of this telephone conversation on the evening of December 19th, “Mistress Y”

was aware that John Chakalos always had in his possession large amounts of cash, frequently in

the form of stacks of $100 bills. At the time of this call “Mistress Y” believed John Chakalos

was worth millions. At the time of this telephone conversation on the evening of December 19th,

“Mistress Y” correctly believed that John Chakalos was home alone and that he would remain

home alone for the remainder of the evening. At the time of this telephone conversation on the

evening of December 19th, “Mistress Y” correctly believed that John Chakalos had kept his

relationship with “Mistress Y” a secret and that none of his family or friends were aware of the

existence or nature of their relationship.

If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that at the time of John Chakalos’

murder, “Mistress Y” had a history of drug abuse and had relationships with persons who

trafficked in illegal narcotics. The boyfriend, with whom “Mistress Y” was living when the sex

for money relationship with John Chakalos began, also had a history of drug abuse.

If deposed, testimony from Valerie Santilli will establish that her father, John Chakalos,

always kept very large amounts of cash in multiple locations throughout his home and that he

counted stacks of money for fun. Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that on the

morning here father was discovered dead, the window of the back door of his home was

discovered broken.

Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that shortly after her father’s death, Mrs.

Santilli became aware that John Chakalos had brought a sex toy to the casino during the

preceding weekend, and also became aware through credit card records that during the afternoon

7
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1686

immediately prior to his murder, John Chakalos visited the “Luv Boutique” in Hartford and

purchased sexual paraphernalia. Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that in her capacity

as Executrix, she inventoried her father’s home shortly after his murder, during which she

specifically searched for sex toys and the sexual paraphernalia purchased by her father during the

afternoon before his murder. These sexual items were not removed from the home by the police

and despite searching everywhere she thought her father might have hidden these sexual items,

Mrs. Santilli was unable to find any.

Testimony from “Mistress Y” establishing that she had a 20 minute telephone

conversation with John Chakalos after Nathan Carman left his grandfather’s home, is relevant

because it negates the probative value of the assertion made within the Warrant Affidavit

(Carmen Depo. Ex. 37) that Nathan “was the last person known to see John Chakalos alive”.

[Doc. # 37-4, para. 5, page 3 of 11]. This assertion that “Nathan was the last person known to

see John Chakalos alive”, has been repeatedly restated by the Plaintiffs in their motion papers as

evidence of Mr. Carman’s guilt. It should be noted that after the phone call with “Mistress Y”,

John Chakalos also called another person (and left a voice message) and nearly an hour and one

half after Nathan left his grandfather’s home, John Chakalos had an eight minute telephone

conversation with a third witness. Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline. (“21:54 Victim spoke with A.

K. [redacted] on phone for 8 minutes”) (Ex. “C”). The fact that, John Chakalos was alive and

speaking on the phone to three different witnesses for an hour and a half after Nathan Carman

left his grandfather’s home, negates the probative value of the claim that Mr. Carman was the

last person who is known to have seen John Chakalos alive.

Expected testimony from “Mistress Y” is also relevant because it lays the evidentiary

foundation for a half dozen alternated plausible explanation for John Chakalos’ murder, all of

8
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1687

which are better supported by the evidence and each appear to be more likely to be true than the

Plaintiffs’ theory that Nathan did it. The claim that Nathan Carman murdered his grandfather is

exceptionally weak, none the less; the fact that it is the only theory currently being presented

makes it appear much stronger than it really is. Simply put, a person is more likely to get picked

if he is the only one in the line-up.

Given the expected testimony from “Mistress Y” it is plausible that the motive of the

murder was robbery and that she was directly involved either individually or through an

accomplice. “Mistress Y” had knowledge that John Chakalos was worth millions, that he was 87

years old, hard of hearing, that he always had large amounts of cash and from her conversation

with Mr. Chakalos that evening, she knew that he was going to be home all alone the entire

night. Simply stated “Mistress Y” had knowledge that John Chakalos was a very easy &

lucrative target. Further, through her relationship with drug traffickers she had access to people

who are not shy about using violence to get what they want. The fact that the sex toy and in

particular the sexual paraphernalia purchased by John Chakalos earlier that afternoon appears to

have been removed from the home at the time of the murder, tends to add weight to this theory.

Similarly, it is plausible that “Mistress Y” was indirectly involved with the murder by

way of communicating information that John Chakalos was an easy target to some other person

who committed the murder without her knowledge or participation. It is also plausible that

“Mistress Y”’s boyfriend, motivated by jealously or greed committed the murder.

Evidence from “Mistress Y” dramatically alters our pre-conceived notions of what 87

year old grandfathers do with their spare time. The fact of the matter is that living alone in a

house in which he kept large amounts of cash placed John Chakalos at risk. By placing

9
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1688

knowledge of this vulnerability outside a close circle of family and friends, Mr. Chakalos’

lifestyle exponentially increased this risk.

Finally, it should be noted that the fact that none of John Chakalos’ family had any

knowledge of his sexual relationship with “Mistress Y”, suggests that Mr. Chakalos may have

been involved in other activities that lead to his murder that we simply don’t know about because

he purposefully kept them secret.

IV. REQUESTED DEPOSITON OF VALERIE SANTILLI

Valerie Santilli is one of John Chakalos’ daughters and is the executrix of his estate.

Mrs. Santilli has intervened in this case pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Mrs. Santilli was identified

as a witnesses whom may be called by the Plaintiffs in support of their claims and defenses

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure which was served upon the Defendant in June

of 2018, several months after the close of fact discovery and several months after the Court

explicitly prohibited the Defendant from conducting fact discovery relating to the 2013 murder.

Plaintiffs’ Fifth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure. (Attached hereto as Exhibit “D”).

Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Valerie Santilli for a number of reasons. First,

as discussed in Section III above, Mrs. Santilli has knowledge of information (cash, broken

window, missing sex paraphernalia) that in conjunction with evidence from “Mistress Y” makes

murder by a non-family member the most probable explanation for John Chakalos’ death.

Second, a deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she is the source of a lot of the

information contained within the Warrant Affidavit and the USCG Record, and that many of

these statements are false, and that Mrs. Santilli knew them to be false at the time she made

them. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]; Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. # 35-5]. Third, a

10
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1689

deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that Nathan Carman was not a beneficiary of

John Chakalos’ estate, that he did not inherit a single penny from his estate and more generally,

that Nathan Carman did not have a financial incentive to murder his grandfather. Forth, a

deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she had a far stronger motive to murder John

Chakalos and in fact the evidence of her involvement with the murder is stronger than the

evidence of Nathan Carman’s involvement. It should be noted that Defendant is not suggesting

that the evidence of Mrs. Santilli’s involvement is particularly strong, it is not, but it is stronger

than the evidence against Mr. Carman.

Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she was the family member who

contacted the U.S. Coast Guard the evening of September 16, 2016 and provided the Coast

Guard with the information contained at the top of the one page USCG document marked as

Exhibit 38 within Mr. Carman’s deposition. Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. # 35-5]. Mrs. Santilli’s

deposition will establish that her statements to the Coast Guard about “the estate being settled

this week” and “the 5 million dollar home to be left to [Carman’s mother]” are false and that

Mrs. Santilli knew these statements were false when she made them. Evidence that some of Mrs.

Santilli’s statements as contained in Exhibit 38 are false negate the probative value of this

exhibit. Further, evidence that Mrs. Santilli purposefully gave false statements to the U.S. Coast

Guard during search and rescue operations seriously calls into question the credibility of other

statements made by Mrs. Santilli to law enforcement officials and her testimony at trial.

Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she was also the source of the

information contained within paragraph 8 of the Warrant Affidavit including the false allegation

that Mr. Carman “held another child hostage with a knife”. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]

11
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1690

Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that, at the time of the murder she was

aware of that her father possessed several WWII military rifles and was specifically aware of the

location in the house in which he kept them. Further, Mrs. Santilli is likely to testify that she told

the Windsor P.D. of her knowledge regarding the location of the WWII rifles during a video tape

recorded interview she gave within weeks of the murder. This testimony will establish that the

information within paragraph 10 of the Warrant Affidavit is not accurate and that the Windsor

P.D. knew or should have known it was not accurate. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4].

As noted previously the information contained within paragraphs 11 & 19 of the Warrant

Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] claiming that John Chakalos was murdered by a .308 rifle is inconsistent

with State Police Ballistics Report filed in this case as Doc. #86-1. The Windsor Police where in

possession of the State Police Ballistics Report and knew or should have known it did not

mention anything about a .308 riffle or bullet. Id.

The proposed deposition of Mrs. Santilli will establish that many months before John

Chakalos was murdered Mrs. Santilli had armed men guarding her home. Mrs. Santilli also had

armed men guarding her home immediately after her father’s murder; however their presence

had nothing to do with her fear of Nathan Carman. Immediately after the murder Mr. Carman

spent time in Mrs. Santali’s home, alone with her children, teaching them piano. This evidence

will establish that Paragraph 20 of the Warrant Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] while not technically

false, is intentionally misleading.

Expected testimony from “Neighbor X” relating to the time of the murder, the previously

filed State Police Ballistics Report [Doc. #86-1] relating to the murder weapon/bullet and the

expected testimony of Valerie Santilli, strongly support the conclusion that most of the key

assertions within the Warrant Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] marked in Mr. Carman’s deposition are

12
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1691

either false or intentionally misleading and that the purpose of this Warrant Affidavit was to get a

search warrant which would result in a felony charge against Mr. Carman under the recently

passed Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Nathan Carman, and respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court Grant leave for the Defendant to take the depositions of three fact witnesses

who possession information relevant to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. Specifically the

Defendant requests leave to take the deposition of 1) “Neighbor X”, 2) “Mistress Y”, and 3)

Valerie Chakalos.

Respectfully Submitted

On behalf of the Defendant,


Nathan Carman

/s/ David F. Anderson


David F. Anderson
Latti & Anderson LLP
30 Union Wharf
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 523-1000
DAnderson@LattiAnderson.com

Dated: October 22, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the above date, I electronically filed the above pleading with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing(s) to all
counsel of record for all parties.

/s/David F. Anderson
David F. Anderson

13