Michigan madness: More questions over who knew about Claude McCollum's possible innocence and when did they know it

A state police detective who's been in the middle of this controversy has just filed court papers responding to McCollums wrongful conviction lawsuit, and tells his side of the story.

Michigan State Police Detective James Young claims that he told the assistant prosecutor three months before McCollum's trial that he didn't think McCollum committed the crime. Young examined video evidence that shows McCollum was in a different location when the murder happened, and from that video, Young wrote a report concluding McCollum's innocence.

Now it's that report that's been in question. Who saw that report and when did they see it? The court papers just filed by Young never make it clear whether or not the prosecutors had it before Young's testimony at trial, but while they may have not had it in writing, Young's court papers specifically say that he met with prosecutors before the trial and told them he thought McCollum was innocent.

Many questions remain, but the attorney general is investigating the matter and will eventually release his findings into who knew what and when they knew it. The Ingham County prosecutors have also filed a response to McCollum's lawsuit, saying they never knew Young's report existed until the day he testified at trial.

Report here

Some background

Imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, Claude Zain-Shahee McCollum knows that sometimes justice really is blind. It took but a few days for authorities to blame him in the January 2005 rape, strangulation and beating death of a Lansing Community College professor.

The jury that convicted McCollum on Valentine's Day 2006 did so based primarily on a hypothetical statement painted as a confession, and it never saw a key police report that appeared to show McCollum in another building at the time of the attack. Michigan State Police wrote that report in March 2005, three months before a judge determined there should be a trial.

"Somebody knew that he couldn't have committed that offense," said Hugh Clarke Jr., who is expected soon to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of McCollum, now 30. "Somebody knew."

The crucial report, recently obtained by the Lansing State Journal, is an analysis of video surveillance evidence from LCC. It is part of an ongoing criminal investigation by the state attorney general's office. The probe involves "circumstances surrounding the McCollum investigation and trial," according to a Jan. 14 letter from the attorney general's office. That letter is the first confirmation that the review is a criminal investigation. Ingham County's top prosecutor requested that investigation last fall after a judge threw out McCollum's conviction.

Evidence of McCollum's innocence emerged in late summer when, according to State Police, another man confessed to the murder. Police then re-analyzed the video.

Why did it take another man's confession for officials to see the video as possible proof of McCollum's innocence? Why did McCollum have to serve a year and a half of a life sentence before his 2005 statement to police was no longer seen as an admission of guilt? And how could any of the mistakes have been made?

The State Journal spent the past three months seeking answers to those questions. It is unclear how the McCollum evidence was forwarded from police to prosecutors and to defense attorneys. Tracking is hit or miss. And without complete taping of police interrogations, the context of a suspect's statement can be lost.

Much more here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)