OPEN LETTER TO

John Kimbrough, District Attorney

Orange County, Texas
jkimbrough@co.orange.tx.us

July 18, 2008

Dear Mr. Kimbrough,

I am writing with this plea on behalf of the family of Daniel Paul Meehan, whom you
successfully obtained a guilty verdict and a sentence of 99 years on or about February 6, 1998.
After 10½ years of living with that terrible verdict, we have finally uncovered some terrible
truths of what went down with that trial. A new Writ has been or soon will be filed with new
evidence that may shake the halls of justice and will probably make national and international
headlines in all the media if certain mistakes are not corrected. It will be or may already be in
your hands. And you, Sir, could possibly make those corrections.

With Orange County elections on the horizon, it may be timely and solely up to you, Sir, to be
the hero to correct this matter, to see the mistakes and hurriedly put things in the proper
perspective, take the proper steps to free Daniel Paul Meehan and move toward bringing the real
killer of Selma Pieruccini to justice. We know and you know who the prime suspect may be and
the Meehan family will stop at no end to gather evidence and pursue justice in this matter.

It was unfortunate, and a huge mistake on your part, that you personally stopped any such
investigation or a mention of any wrongdoing or misconduct of the insanely jealous husband of
Selma Pieruccini, (Mark Pieruccini and his obvious motives and capability to kill his wife) into
the Meehan trial with your opening remarks and motion regarding Mark Pieruccini in paragraph
one or two in Meehan’s trial transcript. You asked the court, “that the defense counsel be
prohibited from any mention of any misconduct by Mark Pieruccini or any report of misconduct
by Mark Pieruccini…” All these years we wondered and asked, “why?” What was there to hide.
Judge Clark then innocently asked, “Who is this person?” Judge Clark assumed there would be
“no problem” with this, since the defense attorney made no objection, he granted the motion to
suppress what our investigation has now turned into mountains of evidence uncovered of
“misconduct by Mark Pieruccini,” and grave suspicion of his guilt in the murder of his wife by
framing Daniel Meehan.

Your motion prevented the jury, the court and the public from knowing anything about the brutal
126 page Custody file and the charges by the wife against her jealous husband in Orange County
and Cumberland County, PA, charges of Mark Pieruccini’s domestic violence in Judge Clark’s
Court against his wife in Texas, and her requests for Restraining Orders ultimately signed by
Judge Clark and Judge Clark’s Divorce file on the couple, Pieruccini’s navy and civilian
background and occupation in Port Arthur, Texas as a gun and gun silencer expert, and Mark
Pieruccini’s filing as Executor in his slain wife’s bogus Probate case in Orange County, whereas
he presented a forged Will and false inventory only days later and cashed in on a $100,000 life
insurance policy on his wife. All of this was neatly hidden from the jury. Perhaps you knew that
mention of any of these things would make Pieruccini a prime suspect, taking the spotlight off of
Daniel Meehan, and casting more than reasonable doubt. And you may have decided it would
wreck your weak and/or nonexistent case you attempted to build against Daniel Meehan.

However, much of the aforementioned misconduct of Mark Pieruccini, including two heavy
Restraining Orders by Judge Clark, documented domestic violence against his wife, default for
no show in Judge Clark’s Divorce Court, divorce and custody fighting in Pennsylvania and
Texas courts, all had been occurring under the eyes of Judge Clark in his Divorce Court at the
precise time of the shooting and the 10 months prior. Days before the shooting, Judge Clark had
even granted temporary custody of the children to the wife from April 16, 1997 to about May 5-
10, 1997, and when he learned of the Pennsylvania Custody findings after the April 23, 1997
hearing, relinquished that jurisdiction to Pennsylvania, removed reference to Custody, but issued
a second Restraining Order and severe and heavy two page Temporary Injunction on Mark
Pieruccini, and ordered he pay alimony to his wife. We attest that this opening motion on your
part was a tragic mistake. It appears that you badly “needed” a murder conviction with three
cases on your plate and that your snitch, Gary Harris, could be planted and easily seal at least one
suspect for you with his fabricated testimony, and then as part of his deal be told to go and plant
false evidence on certain individuals all in exchange for you throwing out a life sentence for a
third felony. The judge and the court appointed Defense Attorney, Karla Rogers, not objecting to
your motion, for whatever strange reasons, knowingly or unknowingly, put the matter of any
other suspects to rest, then and there, at least until now. And 10 ½ years later it seems clear why
you made that motion.

Most importantly, the jury, the public and the court was in the dark about the most heinous crime
of Mark Pieruccini that he got away with, which was that of kidnapping the four children, a
felony of third degree in Texas. It is well documented that this act was against the will of the
mother in her own sworn words. Most significant was that eight months after the Texas Amber
case (Amber Alert - The system was created in Texas in 1996 after 9-year-old Amber Hagerman
was kidnapped, while riding her bike in Arlington, and murdered) your assistant, Mr. Bonneaux
and Judge Clark lifted the first heavy Restraining Order on Mark Pieruccini. And contrary to Mr.
Bonneaux’s bold and false assertion in his opening statement to the jury, when he said, “She
(Selma Pieruccini) was separated from her husband up north, and she moved down to Orange
and moved in with Daniel Meehan,” it is well documented that Mark Pieruccini, the day after
that Order was lifted, kidnapped the four children from their mother and drove them from
Orange, Texas to Shippensburg, Pennsylvania on September 4, 1996 against the will of the
mother. Your assistant, Mr. Bonneaux was aware of this but no kidnapping charges were ever
brought against Mr. Pieruccini, who then began a fierce Custody battle there, and later, about a
month or two before the shooting, the wife filed for divorce in Judge Clark’s Orange, Texas
court, requesting the Restraining Order to be reinstated. Although Mr. Bonneaux and your office
knew of the abduction, it is questionable whether the abduction was reported per The National
Child Search Assistance Act of 1990, which requires each federal, state, and local law-
enforcement agency to enter information about missing children younger than the age of 18 into
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.
Judge Clark’s harsh May 5, 1997 Order on Mark Pieruccini was served on him approximately
one week before the killing.
The Cumberland County, PA district attorney and the FBI are aware of certain details of this
case. And the entire trial testimony, new Affidavits, mistakes, perjured testimony, false
statements, questions regarding the broken chain of evidence, withholding, burying and
fabrications of evidence, a forged Will and false inventory in a bogus probate, possible interstate
mail fraud and a $100,000 life insurance policy Mr. Pieruccini held on his wife, the victim,
conflicts of interest, details of an obvious frame job of Daniel Meehan, a juror’s Affidavit with
doubts about the judge’s “Charge to the jury,” and miscellaneous other items at this time are in
the District Clerk’s file, or will be shortly, for inspection by anyone, including investigative
reporters of the media. The public will soon know whether true justice will be served. These
media investigators will be watching the events that unfold in Orange County in the days to
come very closely and will be searching for the truth, until the real killer is brought to justice.
We now know that Mark Pieruccini had motives to use any and all means to kill, or have his wife
killed, and frame Daniel Meehan with his own gun.

It is now perhaps up to you to begin to undo what has unjustly been done. And frankly, since
there is a question of just how much Judge Clark knew or didn’t know about Mark Pieruccini’s
misconduct at that time, and wife, Selma Pieruccini’s Restraining Orders on her husband and her
Divorce proceedings, perhaps you should persuade Judge Clark that he may be in a conflict of
interest should he continue to hear Daniel Meehan’s case. We, the family of Daniel Paul
Meehan, will not stop until the real killer of Selma Pieruccini is brought to justice.

Very truly yours,

The Family of Daniel Paul Meehan (31 signers)