Common Questions & Answers
q: Why believe Dror is innocent?1.) Dror has no criminal record and no history of violence.
2.) There was no evidence that he committed this crime.
3.) The footprints, fingerprints, and DNA taken from the crime scene did NOT match Dror’s. Furthermore, the state lost key exculpatory evidence, namely parts of the 911 tape (recorded during the crime) and the fingernail clippings from the victim (who police believe had scratched the assailant). Not a single drop of blood was found (not even a microscopic trace) in the car or on any of Dror’s clothes. It is impossible to stab three people a total of 18 times – puncture the subclavian artery of one, hold a second in a bear hug while stabbing her 14 times, and wrestle with a third -- and not have even a microscopic trace of blood found.
q: What was in the “notebook”?
During the trial, hearsay (taken from the memory of a school security guard) was allowed in as evidence. These 5-year old “memories” claimed that Dror wrote a violent poem in his high school notebook. The security officer’s dramatically delivered testimony had tremendous bearing on this case. This is just one example of how this trial was blatantly unfair. The “notebook”, used five years prior to the trial for a Hebrew class, no longer exists. The school security officer offered to testify only after she knew the notebook no longer existed. Moreover, while she had written a report about catching Dror off campus, she did not mention a notebook in her report, nor did she have notes. No one else, including Dror’s assistant principal, remembers any such poem.
q: Why did Dror leave the country?
Dror’s grandparents, who were visiting at the time, wanted him to escort them back to Israel, because his grandfather was sick. Dror did so, and returned to Houston a month later. Soon after his return, the Goldberg family began to be heavily harassed. Dror’s father’s dog was poisoned, dead flowers were left on their doorstep, harassers made prank phone calls and picketed the clinic of Isaac Goldberg and the law office of Michele Goldberg. Hateful fliers were distributed and strewn throughout the neighborhood as well as at the Jewish Community Center. Dror and his family were frightened. Dror had always been interested in going to the Far East like other Israeli youth, so he decided to travel. Dror left the country BEFORE HE WAS INDICTED, and was thus NOT considered a fugitive by law. BEFORE Dror left, the police and Assistant District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal (since elected as District Attorney) told Dror’s father and lawyer that no charges were pending, that Dror was not being sought and that Dror was free to leave the country. Many Israeli youth travel to the Far East. In Thailand, India and Nepal, people speak fluent Hebrew and signs are posted in Hebrew because of the number of Israeli backpackers who travel there. There are thousands of Israeli youth traveling in the Far East, and it is commonly known that contact with their families is very difficult and very expensive and, therefore, uncommon. When Dror learned that he had been indicted, he wanted to return to Houston and prove his innocence. Dror could have gone to and stayed in Israel. He would not have been extradited due to the Israeli Offenses Committed Abroad Act of 1978. Dror chose to return to Houston, and he trusted that our criminal justice system would work.
q: How were Dror’s constitutional rights violated?
The Assistant District Attorney, in her closing argument, made reference to Dror’s not taking the stand; and further suggested to the jury that his silence was evidence of guilt. All Americans have the right NOT to testify at their own trials (5th Amendment of the US Constitution). In fact, it is very rare that a defendant ever testifies in his own defense. For the court to violate this right is not only reprehensible, but illegal and unconstitutional.
q: If Dror’s lawyer was so good, why was Dror convicted? Dror was represented by one of the most well respected defense attorneys in the United States, Dick DeGuerin. However, the Judge improperly controlled the admission of evidence. The Judge did not allow Mr. DeGuerin to present critical evidence to prove Dror’s innocence or expose misconduct of police and prosecutors; however, she did allow the prosecution to present hearsay and irrelevant, inflammatory evidence that should not have been admissible. Additionally, while eyewitness testimony is scientifically proven to be unreliable, it is also the most compelling evidence for juries. Faulty eyewitness testimony played a huge role in Dror’s wrongful conviction.
To learn more about Dror Goldberg’s case, please email The Taskforce for Justice in the Name of Dror Goldberg.
