May 28, 2009

Mr. Cabanne Howard
P.O. Box 8058
Portland, ME 04104

Dear Mr. Howard:

Thank you for your response dated the 26th. In my quest to understand how the committee arrived at the DeTroy letter "was not genuine" I am confused by your answer.

Specifically, the section of your letter that begins with "the letter…was not genuine because it was in the possession of a communication from Mr. DeTroy's lawyer which denied that Mr. DeTroy had written it." I apologize, but that statement does not seem to make sense. Are you stating that because Mr. DeTroy's lawyer had a communication from DeTroy saying DeTroy did not write the letter that alone makes it not genuine? Coupling that with J. Fritzsche's denial that he complied with DeTroy to deny my Post Conviction Motion out of hand prior to the hearing somehow made the letter in question not genuine?

It would appear that the letterhead is genuine as is the signature due to the lack of challenge by your office. These two items would appear to be "credible evidence". Did your office actually expect the principals to admit to wrongdoing? For this letter to be credible evidence would the committee require that it be notarized?

Please explain your previous answer in the clearest possible terms.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Doyle
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105