Did counsel fail to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (A) Did counsel fail to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation of the case, including discovery of the case, to discover that Commonwealth Attorney and its agents committed fraud upon the defendant and court which resulted in the conviction of Petitioner Arias who is actually innocent: When counsel did not learn that the Commonwealth’s claim that Petitioner Arias was arrested on May 7, 2002 by the Fairfax county Police for public intoxication after leaving the residence of a coworker, and taken to the Police Department where a uniformed Officer attempted to interview him regarding the allegation made from a 12 year old girl that he Raped, Sodomized, and Penetrated her with an Animate Object, was false; in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment to Due Process, of the United States Constitution? (B) Counsel failed to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation of the case, including discovery of the case, to discover that Commonwealth Attomey and its agents committed fraud upon the defendant and . court which resulted in the conviction of Petitioner Arias who is actually innocent: When counsel did not learn that the Commonwealth’s claim that Petitioner Arias wrote out his confession to the crime when was questioned and interrogated about when arrested, was not true; in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment to Due Process, of the United States Constitution? (C) Counsel failed to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation of the case, including discovery of the case, to discover that Commonwealth Attorney and its agents committed fraud upon the defendant and court which resulted in the conviction of Petitioner Arias who is actually innocent: When counsel did not learn that the Commonwealth’s claim that Petitioner Arias's DNA was recovered from the victim's panties and mattress, were tested, resulting in a positive match to Petitioner's DNA that was voluntarily collected from him during his arrest in 2002; which Petitioner clearly states is false because he is actually innocent of the crimes charged, and that he was never arrested or questioned, nor voluntarily 2 gave up his DNA, in 2002; in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment to Due Process, of the United States Constitution? (D) Counsel failed to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation of the case, including discovery of the case, to discover that Commonwealth Attorney and its agents committed fraud upon the defendant and court which resulted in the conviction of Petitioner Arias who is actually innocent: When counsel did not learn that the Commonwealth discovered that Petitioner's DNA did not match that which was collected from the victim, and withheld that evidence; instead of informing defense that there was no evidence of DNA. Nor did they test Mr. Selso Antonio Romero Galdame's DNA against that which was recovered from the victim, or against the DNA voluntarily recovered from the arrest of Petitioner in 2002, when they discovered through the recantation letter from the victim, that it was her boyfriend who had been arrested in 2002 using Petitioner's name and identity; in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment to Due Process, of the United States Constitution? (E) Counsel failed to conduct a proper pre-trial investigation of the case, including discovery of the case, to discover that Commonwealth Attorney and its agents committed fraud upon the defendant and court which resulted in the conviction of Petitioner Arias who is actually innocent: When counsel did not learn that the Commonwealth discovered through victim's recantation letter that victim was afraid of her parents discovering that she had been having con-sexual sex with her boyfriend, and when they found out, she made up