6.  Trial Attorney failed to question witness, Carl Spindler, on Erie Insurance recorded deposition, June 25, 2008, on multiple issues which were contrary to sworn testimony of Spindler and other prosecution witnesses, including but not limited to, his statement of another person who approached him at the fire scene while the fire was in progress and saidapproached him at the fire scene while the fire was in progress and said, “…looks like Tommy...”  “The last house I lived in…Tommy’s (Petitioner)”, “I told you about that…”  “…house went right up.”  (Erie transcript, pg 39).  Exhibit VI.  This was a reference to the 1023 Bunker Hill St. home petitioner sold to this person in 2006.  The house was destroyed by fire in 2007, one year before petitioners garage was destroyed by fire.  The insurance money from the 1023 Bunker Hill St. fire was never used to rebuild the structure, instead the structure was left abandoned; the owners moved to Florida and the city was left to raze the structure.  Trial Attorney didn’t think this obvious Reasonable Doubt (at minimum) was important, and he ignored it.  When Petitioner suggested he ask Det. Monahan (Myer) on cross examination, why he told Spindler to “shut his mouth” during the investigation, I was told by Walker “I have to work with these people”.  (Erie transcript pg 41, line 19, through pg 42, line 22)  Exhibit VII


7.  Trial Attorneys met without petitioner, after instruction to not make any decisions or meet on the issues of this case outside of petitioner’s presence and my knowledge of such. Trial attorney met with prosecution and decided to not admit information on petitioner and many of the prosecution’s witnesses in regards to prior criminal activity.  Witnesses held multiple arrests and issues of poor credibility including two witnesses holding criminal conspiracy charges and jail time.  Petitioner’s rap sheet carried one issue, a speeding ticket in 1985.  This issue would carry heavy weight with the jury and the credibility of those standing, in unison, against Petitioner.  Not only did trial attorney meet and agree to omit this evidence, he was obviously unaware of it, although it being part of Discovery, as he was clearly surprised by how “clear” the report was and how he didn’t “think in (his) career”, he’d “seen a presentence report as clear as this one.”  Not only had trial attorney not read the discovery item(s), he learned of this issue from the presentence report months after his unauthorized decision to ignore this evidence of facts and issues of character. (Sentencing transcript Mar 16, 2012, pg 40 lines 7-21)