AFFIDAVIT OF FRANCIS L. BAILEY, JR. DATED 5/10/96, filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Case No. 94-1009, entiteld United States v. Duboc et al.
5. In the fall of 1994, Mr. Shohat devised a scheme whereby he would arrange a drug importation from Colombia about which the authorities would be tipped, with the resultant credit flowing to Duboc. He claimed that he had used this scheme successfully in the past. I was asked to fund the venture. I refused, telling my client that I did not wish to wind up in a cell next to Shohat, and that such a move, if made without prior DEA approval, would constitute a felony.
6. Shortly thereafter Mr. Shohat proposed that the children of John Knock, Duboc's fugitive co-defendant believed to have more money than Duboc, be kidnapped and held to induce Knock to surrender, all to the credit of Duboc. I was told that kidnappers in Ft. Lauderdale were prepared to go forward, and that I should fund the deal. I refused, pointing out to Duboc that such an undertaking would be a serious felony, and that in all probability his own children would be kidnapped by the very people he was hiring to kidnap Knock's and held for a large ransom.
7. As a result of these two incidents, both of which were discussed with SA Carl Lilley in Gainesville in October 1994, I advised Duboc to fire Shohat, to which Duboc agreed. A motion to strike Shohat's appearance was subsequently filed and allowed.
The children of John Richard Knock were the target of a conspiracy to kidnap them, according to Bailey's affidavit. The kidnap conspiracy was an attempt to force asset-rich Knock to surrender himself in exchange for the safety of his children. If there was a conspiracy to steal Knock's children to realize the largest asset forfeiture in United States history, could there have been a like conspiracy to steal Polly Klaas as a part of a drug deal gone bad? Several sources in law enforcement, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that rumors at the time of kidnapping, shouted that there was a sting operation involving international drug dealers that had to be protected at all costs. The price for protecting the largest asset forfeiture in United States history might well have been the life of Polly Klaas.
The home that Davis took Polly to that fateful night was owned by the Aaron Phillips Living Trust, but who occupied the house at the top of the hill? The chief witness to the events that occurred on Pythian Road the night of October 1, 1993, is a mother named Dana Jaffe and her young daughter, Kalila. Dana Jaffe further identifies herself on May 9, 2000 when she testifies in the trial of the United States v. John Knock and Albert Madrid in the court of Judge Maurice M. Paul. Assistant United States Attorney James Hankinson questions Ms. Jaffe on direct examination and in response to his questions she states the following:
"My full name is Dana Louise Jafe, J-A-F-E." Here Dana Jaffe spells her name with only one "f"; a spelling that differs from all other court documents, social security number papers, credit reports and newspaper articles documented prior to this court appearance. She states that she is currently working as a banquet chef for the Sonoma Mission Inn, an employer she has worked for on and off since 1989.
Does this look valid?
I saw a mention that Shohat appeared in a televised mock OJ trial as one of OJ's lawyers which is odd to say the least.
From all indications, Shohat would get involved in a case if it promised either a big payout for him and/or HIGH visibility publicity. This "case" appears to be motivation #2.
One thing is for sure - Shohat is no stranger to drug cases. Appears to be his area of specialty.