Innocent man framed by police finally exonerated after 13 years in prison

[Fargo]

I doubt that he understands what you do for a living!

LOL, yeah I think you are right!

Joe

 

[vitamink]

Wow, guys. You think this elderly woman was giving hummers shortly before being murdered? The fact that the only physical evidence present belonged to someone other than the defendant doesn't even cause you to have doubts about this?

And you don't think it's just a little bit sketchy that the detectives found a pubic hair in this elderly woman's mouth and still announced to the world that there was no evidence of a sexual assault?

A pubic hair. One. It was the person doing the autopsy that said there wasn't a sexual assault. There are pubic hairs on your floor right now that don't belong to you. If you are killed today and the police process the scene in its entirety they will find your hair and the hair of 100 other people floating around your house. They will also find finger prints from those that don't live there and yet don't belong to the killer. The autopsy showed that she wasn't sexually assaulted, unless post-mortem he gently laid his penis in her mouth and excreted no semen. Keep in mind the neighbors dog story from before where i said a guy had a heart attack and there was dog hair on his lips belonging to the neighbors dog. He had a heart attack and his face hit the floor...he wasn't mouth raped to death by a canine.

My previous post with your comments:



In order to properly try a case, it is necessary to present the truth in its entirety. We have had no particular shortage of instances in which it has been clear that the police and prosecutors didn't particularly care about the truth as long as they put heads on pikes, even in some cases in which a crime never occurred in the first place (think Mike Nifong).

I don't know that one.

Arguing that this man is innocent and arguing that there were unacceptable practices which may have constructed the appearance of a reasonable doubt are two entirely different things. Your argument is tantamount to taking the position that the man is guilty until proven otherwise.

Not at all. My argument is that he wouldn't stop saying "i did it" He kept proving himself guilty. If it looks like a duck, and tells you its a duck it's probably a duck

The presumption of innocence has taken a terrible beating in this country over the last couple of decades, but that doesn't justify supporting this unfortunate shift. Withholding evidence favorable to the defendant is not acceptable under any circumstances, and it would appear that this sentiment has prevailed given the final outcome.

I agree wholeheartedly and so does the court of appeals, though they didn't find that they withheld evidence. The only thing they found wrong was that when they told his cell mate to get more info on the murder he was then an agent of the state. That confession shouldn't have been counted. Their case was made up of all his confessions and therefore they shouldn't have had 1/3 of their case.

As previously indicated, had I been a juror on the case, this information would have led me to stop and pay very close attention to the possibility of another person partially or completely guilty. I would also have to consider the 'confessions' both in terms of the credibility of those claiming to have heard them and also the tendency for inmates to talk trash. I am not saying that I would necessarily discount this, but neither would I accept it at face value.

Agreed which is why i hold his best friends confession at the highest value. The reason behind that being that he said he didn't talk to him though phone records showed they talked for an hour prior to the body being discovered. The guy in prison, i feel, holds less merit as A. he gets a lighter sentence, and B. if i were in prison i'd say "i killed someone" too to appear crazier and less likely to get butt raped. The court of appeals felt that confession shouldn't be allowed so they axed it. No problem there, that's the rules though i don't feel that was 1/3 of the case. They still had the phone calls, the fact that he was the only one capable in the building, The fact that he went there with a neighbor to help the lady up and she affirmed that she locked the door when they left, the fact that he was the only one with a key and there was no forced entry, the other confessions where he said he went back there after he saw the money which was confirmed on tape...etc etc. I'd say that confession only made up about 10%. Still significant but not that much.



You said:


That is the stupidest thing I have heard in ages. I can't believe even you, of all people, coming up with something like that, your mindlessly pro-LE attitude notwithstanding. I find your explanation for the presence of that piece of evidence at best highly unlikely.

This is from all the homicide scenes you've processed then? I've explained how just a few days ago a man was found with dog hair in his mouth that wasn't his dog... It's common. I wouldn't go so far as to say i'm mindlessly pro LE, as i have often remarked on dumb cop stuff as long as the article isn't full of **** and one sided (see the cop writing a ticket for kid pissing on a tree). I take time to investigate as no one wants to post the full story, just further their agenda. I appreciate that you are willing to look at the evidence and formulate your own opinions they may be different than mine but you tend to investigate.

Usually i don't even come to the cop hate section of the forum, but i made a mistake and clicked on this bit of Rambone paranoid schizophrenia as it was obvious trash. Unfortunately it has eaten up too much of my time.

I do agree that i am biased but i am biased because in 30 years i have never seen anything close to the "face value" insanity of what gets posted on here. I have seen articles get posted about indianapolis cops and what not that were complete one sided BS (ie. cops lose DRMO guns...that was a real good one) and luckily they get squashed immediately by those who were there. Maybe indianapolis is just a beacon of awesome police work, and everywhere else is just chaos and mayhem...i dunno. What i do know is that the majority of one side stories posted about ANYTHING are complete agenda furthering crap whether its about gun ownership, police (either pro - or anti), abortion, etc etc.

 

[Expat]

I have found what looked like pubic hairs in my food at restaurants a few times over the years. It makes me wonder how many times, we might not see them... so if someone murders me and they find one of them in my throat does that mean the guy that killed me, didn't? and that I was actually sexually assaulted by the lady at the taco bell? Granted she deserves to be punished...

 

[public servant]

If you choke to death on a pubic hair at Taco Bell, it's your own fault.

 

[Expat]

If you choke to death on a pubic hair at Taco Bell, it's your own fault.

Hater

 

[steveh_131]

A pubic hair. One. It was the person doing the autopsy that said there wasn't a sexual assault. There are pubic hairs on your floor right now that don't belong to you. If you are killed today and the police process the scene in its entirety they will find your hair and the hair of 100 other people floating around your house. They will also find finger prints from those that don't live there and yet don't belong to the killer. The autopsy showed that she wasn't sexually assaulted, unless post-mortem he gently laid his penis in her mouth and excreted no semen. Keep in mind the neighbors dog story from before where i said a guy had a heart attack and there was dog hair on his lips belonging to the neighbors dog. He had a heart attack and his face hit the floor...he wasn't mouth raped to death by a canine.

From the truth project:

The Sixth Circuit found that the jailhouse informant’s story was, “both inconsistent and unreliable,” and evidence suggested that, at a minimum, police shared information with the jailhouse informant. The Sixth Circuit also found that because the jailhouse informant and the State were working together, the information that the jailhouse informant “got” after being returned to the jail with Ayers, violated Ayers’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

After Ayers was awarded a new trial, the newly assigned prosecutor sent all of the evidence from the crime scene – including the pubic hairs, the rape kit, and the bloody towel – to the county crime lab. When DNA testing excluded Ayers, the prosecutor elected to dismiss the charges against him. The case was dismissed without prejudice on September 12, 2011 and Ayers walked out of jail a free man.

Please explain why the prosecutor didn't even bother to attempt another jury trial? And if the prosecutor and detectives in the original case were on the up and up, why did they suppress DNA testing on this hair long ago? And why would they coach the jailhouse snitch?

Also, if she wasn't sexually assaulted, why was she naked from the waist down? If the original prosecution team was willing to violate his rights by coaching a snitch, what makes you think they wouldn't hide evidence of a sexual assault that, in combination with an unmatched pubic hair, would ruin their case?

 

[vitamink]

You are sourcing an exaggerated explanation provided by "the truth project" of one judge's opinion from all the others. The one thing (and only thing) they all agreed on was this

FROM THE ACTUAL CASE:

"By failing to suppress the statements Hutchinson deliberately elicited from Ayers after he met with the police, the state trial court deprived Ayers of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Ayers’ conviction cannot stand in light of this error, which the State has failed to argue was harmless.12
VI.
For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s order. We conditionally grant the writ of habeas corpus petition and remand to the district court with instructions to order that Ayers be released from custody unless the State of Ohio provides petitioner a new trial within 180 days."

Note the judges didn't say, because the police coached a statement and promised leniency to your cell mate, or because that hair they found didn't match yours.

and here it is again from his lawsuit explaining why he appealed and how they only agreed to one thing...the 6th amendment violation.

"In January 2004, Ayers filed his § 2254 petition, raising the following grounds
for relief: (1) the prosecutor willfully withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense;
(2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by withholding incriminating evidence,
making improper remarks in his closing argument, and extracting a jailhouse confession
from Ayers on the eve of trial; (3) his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated
when the jailhouse informant, acting as a state agent, obtained the confession; and (4)
the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. The district court denied the
petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). After Ayers sought
permission to appeal, we determined that Ayers was not entitled to a COA on his first,
second, or fourth grounds for relief because, among other reasons, reasonable jurists
could not debate the denial of Ayers’ claims of prosecutorial misconduct and
insufficiency of the evidence. However, we determined that with regard to Ayers’ claim
that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the admission of certain statements he made to a jailhouse informant, Ayers had made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right and, thus, granted a COA on that claim."


In order to be a homicide detective you usually have to have spent 5 or so years on the street. Officers can retire at 20 years and homicide detectives often do as the job burns you out quick. If you are willing to assume that both detectives were day 1 rookies, this case is 13 years old, + minimum 5 years experience puts them at 18 years on the job currently. Since this case began in 1999 it would be my assumption that 1 if not both detectives had retired, quit, been fired, died or what have you.

As a prosecutor you have to interview all witnesses. Imagine attempting that with a 13 year old case. It would be next to impossible and your sentence would probably net you another few years at best. It would have been a waste of time and money not to mention the final piece of evidence should have been thrown out making for a weaker case.

Regarding sexual assault:

Had my GF died last night she would be "naked from the waist down" as she only sleeps in a shirt. It isn't odd that someone doesn't wear underwear to bed. This isn't the 1800's. Not to force a visual, but i sleep au naturale. That doesn't mean i was raped.


The coaching, as you put it, was the opinion of the Ayers and not the opinion of the court. Keep in mind before they sent hutchingson back in for more info, he told them things he couldn't have known that matched the ayers other confessions. He told them this prior to being "coached"

again from the actual case:

(1) that Ayers denied committing the murder until admitting it either “last week” (between November 20, 2000 and November 27, 2000) or “a No. 08-3310 Ayers v. Hudson Page 15 week before he started going to court” (between November 13, 2000 and November 20, 2000);

(2) that Ayers admitted the murder because Hutchinson was attempting to help him retain a new lawyer, and had told him that the new lawyer could not help him if he wasn’t honest;

[(3)] that Ayers said he saw Brown’s money and returned to her apartment to steal it, and that Hutchinson asked him how much he took, but did not get an answer;

[(4)] that Hutchinson unsuccessfully attempted to contact his lawyer over the Thanksgiving weekend to discuss Ayers’ admissions, but eventually contacted detectives Cipo and Kovach directly;

[(5)] that Ayers continued to withhold any admission concerning the amount of money taken or the murder weapon until Saturday night, after Hutchinson’s first conversation with the detectives;

[(6)] that Ayers gave Hutchinson detectives Cipo’s and Kovach’s names based on Hutchinson’s story that his uncle was a police officer and could help him if he knew who was handling the case;

[(7)] that Hutchinson specifically went to Ayers on Saturday night, after speaking with the detectives, and made inquiries concerning details of the murder, and that Ayers then confessed details of the murder weapon and the amount of money taken.

THe only thing that could have been coached, was the amount of money and what he beat her with. All that info was gathered after he met the detectives and they sent him back in...violating his 6th amendment rights and setting him free.

 

[steveh_131]

The coaching, as you put it, was the opinion of the Ayers and not the opinion of the court.

This appears to be false.

Keep in mind before they sent hutchingson back in for more info, he told them things he couldn't have known that matched the ayers other confessions. He told them this prior to being "coached"

This also appears to be false.

The district judge had this to say, regarding the behavior of the detectives in this case:

First, [Ayers] says that Cleveland Defendant Detectives Cipo and Kovach coerced Ken Smith to give false testimony. The Defendants interviewed Smith, and Smith then signed a statement saying that Ayers called him and spoke about Brown’s murder before Brown’s body had even been discovered. Actually, police had records showing that Smith called Ayers, and not that Ayers had called Smith. During the trial, Smith said the written statement was false and testified that Cipo and Kovach pressured him to say that Ayers phoned him prior to the discovery of Brown’s body. Witness Smith now gives an affidavit that states:

"the detectives showed me a statement they wanted me to sign. I didn’t want to sign it because I was not sure that it was the truth. The detectives told me that the statement was what I said yesterday, and that if I changed what I said I could be charged with a crime, I think it was perjury. . . . I was afraid to say anything else because they had threatened to charge me with a crime."

Ayers’s alleged confession also raises questions. In her deposition, Detective Kovach testified that on March 14, 2000, Ayers said something to the effect of, “if I say I hit her, can I go home?” Inexplicably, neither Detective Cipo nor Kovach made mention of Ayer’s incriminating question in their contemporaneous report. Then neither Cipo or [sic] Kovach mentioned anything about the confession to a prosecutor until shortly before Ayers’s trial was set to begin. Then, two days after the confession, Defendants Cipo and Kovach again interviewed Ayers yet their notes and reports show no mention of the previous confession, and the interrogation notes suggest that Ayers maintained his innocence. And perhaps most concerning: Defendant Cipo did not mention the confession in his March 17, 2000, affidavit for a search warrant. The inference that the confession was concocted grows even stronger after considering what did make its way into the police reports.

Defendants consistently made notes about Ayers’s sexual orientation, his friends’ sexual orientations, and whether people they questioned appeared “gay like.” They noted that certain witnesses “sat like a gay male.” Whatever the police officers meant to imply by sitting “like a gay male,” it surely is less material than an extremely inculpatory statement that Cipo and Kovach say was made by the investigation’s primary suspect during an early interrogation.

Amended opinion and order by the District Judge

Every bit of this case was sketchy. These detectives were sketchy. A jury, presented with all of the evidence, obviously agreed.

Is there a slim chance that the pubic hair in her mouth belonged to someone other than her killer? Sure. Is there a slim chance that a 76 year old woman slept naked? Sure. Is there a slim chance that this snitch's testimony was valid, despite all of the evidence suggesting otherwise? Sure.

So what facts do we have?

We have a confession that appears to have been fabricated. We have the testimony of a witness who appears to have been coerced. The only physical evidence that we have suggesting the identity of the killer points to someone other than the defendent. And we have a gay man crying and sobbing near the nearly-naked body of the woman he supposedly just murdered.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Please.