MI: A very shaky conviction

Saying there's an "appearance of bias whether it exists or not," Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Michael Hathaway removed himself from a case in which two defendants were asking him to overturn convictions Hathaway himself handed down. Bias or no, the judge made it clear he's had all he can stomach in a case he's "sick of." "The post-conviction half of this case has been fraught with lies, probably by both sides," Hathaway said at a hearing Jan. 30. "In the end, I think it's a good idea for a fresh set of eyes to review this case. I think in the interest of justice, it should be done."

Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Carolyn Breen made animated arguments that Hathaway should keep the case involving two Ecorse men convicted of attempted murder charges in 2001. From the outset, Marvin Reed and his nephew, DeShawn Reed, have claimed innocence (see "in the blink of an eye,"June 4, 2008).

It's a screwy case because the only witness — victim Shannon Gholston, who was left a quadriplegic as a result of a March 2000 shooting — keeps changing his story. At times he's claimed to have seen the Reeds shoot him; at other times, according to court records, he's said he doesn't know who fired the shots that left him paralyzed.

The flip-flops seem to be straining nerves all around. Breen's arguments were fast and furious.

"Try to calm down a little," Hathaway told her. Breen declined to elaborate on why she wanted Hathaway to stay on but said during the hearing that Michigan court rules specify when judges may remove themselves because they have a personal bias in the case. This case did not meet the threshold, she said. He disagreed. "I am sick of the Reeds and I am sick of Shannon Gholston," Hathaway said. "I have lost all confidence in the conduct of both sides of this case. ... I can really understand why an objective observer from the defense side would feel legitimately insecure about my ability to handle the case."

Hathaway, in a 2001 bench trial, convicted the Reeds of assault with intent to commit murder after Gholston testified at their trial that he saw the Reeds shoot him. Hathaway cited that testimony as the basis for his verdict. No physical evidence tied them to the shooting, no gun was found with them and several witnesses corroborated their alibis. Marvin Reed is currently in the Saginaw Correction Facility while DeShawn Reed is in the Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit. They're serving 20-year sentences.

In 2005, Gholston recanted his trial testimony on videotape to a private investigator the Reeds hired. But then, months later, he reversed course again, telling an investigator from the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office that his trial testimony was accurate. Last December, according to court filings from the prosecutor, Gholston told the same investigator he did not see who shot him. He's said members of his family pressured him into identifying the Reeds, according to the Reeds' attorneys.

The Reeds are represented by David Moran and Bridget McCormack, University of Michigan Law School faculty members who opened the Innocence Clinic last year to deal with questionable convictions that do not have DNA evidence. The Reeds were one of their first cases, taken on last year. Moran and McCormack also argue that the Reeds' verdict should be overturned on the basis of evidence that either wasn't available or wasn't properly considered at trial. Two of the witnesses identified Tyrone Allen as the man who shot Gholston as he was driving. Between the time of Hathaway's 2001 verdict and the sentencing several weeks later, then-attorneys for the Reeds, who were different from the trial lawyers, searched for Allen because he had not testified at trial.

They discovered Detroit police had shot and killed him between the time Gholston was shot in March 2000 and the Reeds' trial in 2001. Allen had two guns when he was killed, and the Reeds had them tested at the Michigan State Police lab. But Hathaway declined to postpone sentencing until the ballistics report came back. Just 10 days after he sentenced the Reeds to decades in prison, the report showed one of the guns found with Allen was a match to the gun that shot Gholston.

The Reeds appealed that conviction, but their then-attorneys did not include that ballistics report. The Reeds now argue that was "ineffective assistance of counsel." They also consider Gholston's recantation "newly discovered evidence." With Hathaway's recusal from the case, a blind draw reassigned it to Wayne County Circuit Judge Patricia Fresard. She'll hold an evidentiary hearing where, McCormack says, Gholston will be subpoenaed to testify.

Original report here



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

TN: Shoved Walmart greeter sues suspended policeman

One can only hope he wins against the goon but he is up against it

A 71-year-old Walmart greeter who contends he was shoved to the ground by a Chattanooga detective when he asked the detective for a receipt and touched his arm has filed a federal damage lawsuit.

The Walmart employee, Bill Walker, says in the suit that Chattanooga has a history of failing to discipline or otherwise prosecute its officers. The suit names the detective, an accompanying officer and the city.

The detective, Kenneth Freeman, has been suspended without pay for 28 days for conduct unbecoming an officer, improper procedure and excessive use of force.


The Chattanooga Times Free Press reports that the Christmas Eve altercation at the Collegedale Wal-Mart happened while Freeman was on duty. No criminal charges have been filed. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating.

Original report here



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

For Justice, End Legal Immunity

Much of what we read on the LRC page and elsewhere involves unjust or criminal actions by people employed by governments. Whether it be the aftermath of the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape, Non-Kidnapping, and Non-Sexual Assault Case, the Little Rascals Case, or yet another situation involving a wrongful prosecution and conviction, we are given example after example of government wrongdoing and outright criminal behavior.

In any of these stories, one or all of the following will have occurred: (1) Prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence or just lie, (2) prosecutors suborn perjured testimony, (3) police officers lie on the witness stand, and (4) judges sit back and do nothing while an innocent person is railroaded. As it is my contention that there never is an excuse for a wrongful conviction, whenever we see someone wrongfully convicted, we can be assured that the authorities either were willfully dishonest or incompetent.

What we rarely see, however, are the people who were at fault ever being charged as criminals or being on the end of lawsuits brought by the victims. Most of the times, the real victims have no recourse at all.

The reason is that governments confer immunity upon those privileged to work in the police and "justice" systems. (In some places, like California, most government workers are given astounding amounts of immunity when they break the law, even if it is not "job-related.") The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune for anything they do that is considered within the lines of their official duties.

Many years ago, a lower-level judge in New York City purchased coffee from a street vendor, but did not like it. He had the vendor arrested, put into handcuffs, and then dragged before the snarling judge in his courtroom to be lectured on the evils of bad coffee. The outraged vendor sued and won a large judgment, but SCOTUS stepped in and overturned the verdict (and the judgment, of course) and ruled that since the judge was sitting on his bench, he had the power to do whatever he pleased.

In subsequent rulings, courts have spread immunity to prosecutors and police and others in government "acting in their official duties." The reasoning of the courts and legislators (who also have written immunity into various statutes) is that the duties that these government employees are so important that they cannot work under the stress of being sued for their misconduct.

For example, Michael Nifong, the architect of the infamous Duke case, is claiming that the law protects him for whatever he did in that case; the reason he is legally vulnerable, it turns out, is that Nifong also directed the police investigation of the case, and it was as an investigator that he engaged in much of his egregious conduct. However, he has absolutely no legal vulnerability for his lying in court, his public statements, his desperate attempts to manipulate the case timelines, and his changing of the charges after the infamous December 15 hearing in which attorneys were able to get one of his star witnesses to admit that he and Nifong agreed to withhold important exculpatory evidence.

(Nifong’s vulnerability came because the North Carolina State Bar was able to file charges against him, and ultimately disbarred him for what he did as a prosecutor. Likewise, Judge W. Osmond Smith III jailed Nifong for a day for lying in court to him about the evidence. However, the real victims of Nifong’s predations could do nothing regarding what he did in his "official" prosecutorial actions.)

Likewise, the police in Durham are claiming the same immunity and the two judges, Ronald Stephens and Kenneth Titus, who gave Nifong a free hand in their courtrooms to do a number of outrageous things, are absolutely immune for their official actions. Whether or not the federal judge handling the civil case will agree with the police officers is another matter.

If one steps back and examines the reasons given for immunity, they translate to the following: judges and legislators are not willing to expose the government employees in the "justice" system to legal liability because it might "distract" them from their duties or make them legally vulnerable. This reasoning is rich, very rich, and absolutely ironic.

What they are saying is that police and those employed by the courts should not be subject to the very legal procedures that they force upon the rest of us. They are saying that they cannot trust the courts to do what is right if THEY are sued. The same people who drag us into court, who charge us with ridiculous "crimes," and who impose judgment after judgment on us, cannot possibly be expected to face the system that governs the rest of us, as it might "distract" them from their duties.

That should strike everyone as hypocritical at best and utterly dishonest at worst. If the court system is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for the people who are in charge of that system?

This reminds me of the old Soviet Union, which had "yellow-curtain" shops in which only those who were paid in "Class-D Rubles" could shop. Those were the people who were politically-connected and who either were members of the Communist Party or who had the most "prestigious" jobs. All of the other workers in the "Workers’ Paradise" were paid in regular Rubles and were not permitted to enter those stores.

The essence of modern American "justice" is precisely that of the "yellow-curtain" shops; all Americans are equal, but those employed as police officers, prosecutors, and judges are more equal than everyone else. If lawsuits for misconduct should not be imposed upon these miscreants, then why should the rest of us be left vulnerable to them? If these legal procedures are good enough for other Americans, then why are they not good enough for the government "law" employees?

It is not enough to say that lawsuits would "distract" these "public servants" from their duties (as is claimed). After all, everyone outside this "justice" system faces such lawsuits, and the courts have ruled that such suits are just fine.

No, the reasons given are not morally or even legally legitimate. They are nothing but an exercise in raw power, the power of the state.

We cannot make police, prosecutors, and judges into honest people. However, we also have to understand that the very immunity that protects these government employees also provides a powerful incentive for fundamentally dishonest people to seek these careers. What other line of work (other than being an elected politician) permits those duly employed to lie, to kill, to kidnap, and to engage in other acts of oppression and bullying with almost no consequences for such behavior?

The market system, which these same people constantly disparage and attempt to destroy via their own "justice" system, does not reward this kind of criminal behavior. As we have seen in the current economic meltdown, ultimately the lies that some of the players attempted to foist on the market were discovered, and the market participants exacted a brutal form of justice.

That does not happen in the "justice" system. Instead, when someone like Nifong actually does face some small consequences for criminal behavior, we are told that it is "extraordinary." Wow. A prosecutor lies in court, hides evidence, foists a major frame on innocent people, and we are supposed to believe that it is "extraordinary" that he loses his job.

No, we cannot make sociopaths like Michael B. Nifong honest people. However, we can take away their legal immunity and make them vulnerable to the same sanctions that the rest of us face. That would provide a small amount of justice in a system in which the participants no longer care about being just.

Original report here



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

When Teens Make Their Own Porn, Who's Being Exploited?

Not so long ago, you could take an album or two (of music, not photos) and record a bunch of different songs, copy them to a cassette tape as a mix, and give the music to a friend. Now, if you do the same thing with online tools, it's called "file sharing" and has gotten many individuals sued. It also used to be easy to grab a Polaroid camera, take a naked photo, and hand it to a friend. That friend might pass the photo around without you knowing it, but these things happened and this was the risk you took when you pointed the camera at your uncovered bits. It was not totally uncommon for people under the age of eighteen to do this; hormones raging, it happened, and if you got caught you'd be in a lot of trouble. But you were likely mostly embarrassed. And then totally grounded.

Now if people under eighteen do the same thing with online tools and cell phones, they're being charged with trafficking child pornography or charged as sex offenders - even when they've taken the photos themselves. In March 2004, a 15-year-old Pittsburgh girl was arrested for taking nude photographs of herself and posting them on the Internet; she was charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography. Okay, so maybe in 2004 the people interpreting these laws were slightly more ignorant about how the Internet works and that the legal system just needed to "catch up." Or so you'd think.

In October 2008, a 15-year-old Newark, Ohio girl was charged with felony child pornography charges for sending nude photographs of herself to a classmate in a text message. Charged with "possessing criminal tools and the illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material," she'd taken a nekkid pic of herself and sent it to a 13-year-old classmate (male). She currently faces felony sex offense charges, and the likelihood of having to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of her life.

But wait, there's more. This month, three girls from Greensburg, Pennsylvania, that police say are "14 or 15" years old, allegedly sent nude self-portrait phone camera images to three, male Greensburg Salem High School classmates aged 16-17 - and police there have decided to charge all the kids involved with trafficking in child porn. Never mind that school officials and police had seized the images, "investigated" and has had possession of the photos since October of last year. That's creepy to think about, actually. This month, officers arrested all of the teens and according to WPXI.com, the girls are "being charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys face charges of possession."

"It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude," said Capt. George Seranko of the Greensburg Police Department. "Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it," said Seranko.

Yes, nothing good can come from taking nude self-portraits of yourself - as if this is a reasonable justification for filing charges that will ruin these kids' adult lives. Never mind that there's a difference between the healthy desire to communicate normal erotic self-expression, and sexual exploitation. These things are one and the same for Captain Seranko.

Let's do a little "where are they now" with teens who have been charged with felony sex crimes: take the case of Wendy Whitaker, now 29 years old. She's been on Georgia's sex offender list for more than a dozen years. Last year, Whitaker was evicted from her home; a nearby church was running an unadvertised daycare service and Georgia's law prevents sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, swimming pools, school bus stops, day care centers, parks, recreation centers or skating rinks. At a November 13, 2008 hearing, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper declined to halt Whitaker's eviction. Whitaker sued, but how did she become a sex offender in the first place? When she was 17, she gave a 15-year-old high school classmate a blowjob (and obviously, got caught). She said she feels "punished over and over for something I did as a teenager."

Yes, this is all crazy-headed. For a teenager whose sexuality is blossming, peer validation is the social glue that binds their identity together. These kids aren't being sexually exploited; their sexuality is being criminalized. The people enforcing and deciding how to apply adult sexual laws to kids (across the nation, it seems) are like totally not paying attention that what kids have always done, is what they're doing now. It's like they've become so entrenched in ideology that intellectual honesty has been thrown out the window; baby, bathwater and all. They've forgotten about the kids they're trying to "protect." And that's losing far more than an argument about teens taking nudie pics of themselves, posting them online, or sending them to each other.

Local reporter for Ars Technica Jacqui Cheng writes, "This might seem like a one-off story, but last month, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released survey results that said 20 percent of all teens have sent a nude photo of themselves to someone else electronically. More than two-thirds of those who have sent photos claim they sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend, but 15 percent say they have sent them to people they only "know" from the Internet. And they're not staying private, either - a quarter of teen girls and a third of teen boys said that they've had nude images originally meant for someone else shared with them."

So, rather than the cultural perception of the Internet being the means by which kids are ever in danger from supposed hoards of predatory pedophiles, it looks like they're more at risk from each other - of consensual sexual contact. Let's not forget that one in three girls and one in six boys are sexually abused before their 18th birthday; most sexually abused children know their perpetrator (60-80 percent), and the abuser is typically a family member or family friend.

Actually, kids are at significant risk at having their lives ruined by adults when kids self-initiate sexual expression with technology: they're at risk for having their lives ruined by adults like Captain Seranko. So, since underage porn is illegal, what should be done with underage people who make it themselves?

Original report here



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

Hearing in Austin could lead to posthumous exoneration

Tim Cole, convicted of rape of Texas Tech student in 1985, died in prison in 1999. It's likely that Cole's wrongful conviction came with a death sentence. A lifelong asthmatic, he'd been able to treat the condition by the time he got to college. Not so in prison. He died of an asthmatic attack in 1999. See here

For Tim Cole's family, a return to a courtroom this week renews hope they've clung to since he was convicted of rape more than two decades ago. Cole and his relatives for years claimed he was innocent in the rape of a Texas Tech student in 1985. But until DNA from the crime scene was tested last year, no one else believed them. That test showed another man, already imprisoned for rape, committed the crime for which Cole was sentenced to 25 years. His family will ask an Austin judge on Thursday to overturn the conviction, but Cole won't be with them. He died in prison in 1999 at age 38.

Cory Session, Cole's brother, said the DNA test served its purpose. "That's vindication," Session said. "We need exoneration. We are extremely hopeful that this process will actually get him cleared." It would be the first posthumous DNA exoneration in Texas, according to attorney Jeff Blackburn of the Innocence Project of Texas, paving the way for a pardon by the governor and, eventually, expunging Cole's record. "For us it's got to be one step at a time," Blackburn said.

Blackburn has enlisted the help of Barry Scheck, who helped found Innocence Project, a national organization that assists prisoners who could be cleared by DNA testing. The case against Cole relied primarily on identification by Michele Mallin, his alleged victim. The Associated Press does not typically identify rape victims but Mallin has come forth publicly to help clear Cole's name.

Blackburn and others working on Cole's behalf allege the photo lineup used in 1985 was flawed. Mallin picked Cole out of a photo array that included at least six other pictures. All were standard jail mug shots except for Cole's photo, which was a Polaroid. Mallin, who Blackburn said would be at the hearing, later identified Cole in a live lineup and again at trial.

Also instrumental in the efforts to prove Cole innocent was Jerry Wayne Johnson, shown by DNA tests last spring to be Mallin's actual attacker. Johnson, now serving time in a Snyder prison for two other rapes during the 1980s, has been trying for more than a decade to convince authorities that he raped Mallin. He got no response.

Then on May 11, 2007, Johnson sent Cole a letter addressed to his mother's Fort Worth home. Not knowing Cole had died in prison years earlier after an asthma-induced heart attack, Johnson admitted raping Mallin and offered to help prove him innocent. "If this letter reaches you, please contact me by writing so that we can arrange to take the steps to get the process started," wrote Johnson. "Whatever it takes, I will do it." The letter reached Cole's family, who contacted a reporter and the Innocence Project.

Johnson, 49, also will be at the hearing and will probably testify, Blackburn said. A bench warrant will allow him to travel from his cell at the Price Daniel Unit in Snyder to Austin for the hearing, which could last a couple of days. No one is expected to oppose the effort to overturn Cole's conviction, Blackburn said. The hearing is the first step in a Court of Inquiry - an obscure and rarely used legal procedure - for which Blackburn's petitioned. "We're anxious to hear what (Johnson) has to say," Session said. "It'll be a very emotional court hearing and it will take us all back."

Lubbock County prosecutors have acknowledged the DNA test shows Cole was not the rapist. There is, however, no simple legal channel to formally exonerate someone who has died. An effort earlier this year to establish a Court of Inquiry was denied by the 99th District Court in Lubbock, Blackburn said. Blackburn was granted a hearing from the 299th District Court in Austin.

Session said for now all the family wants is to have Cole's name cleared. He did not rule out pursuing civil damages for his brother's wrongful conviction. "There's not one remedy that will bring Tim back," Session said. "That is a pain I still do not know how my mother deals with."

Original report here



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

The real Nazis here are the unaccountable "child welfare" officials

How dare they break up a loving family when there is absolutely no evidence of any harm to the children?

The father of three children who have names associated with Nazis is accusing the state Division of Youth and Family Services of taking his children under false pretences and said one appeared neglected when he saw them last week. Heath Campbell said on Saturday that he and his wife, Deborah, have been allowed to see their children once since state child welfare workers removed them from the family's home on January 9. Campbell said his two-year-old daughter, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, appeared sick and had a runny nose and dirty diaper when he and his wife visited the children last week under the supervision of state social workers.

DYFS has not said why JoyceLynn and siblings Adolf Hitler Campbell, 3, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, who will be one in April, were removed. Kate Bernyk, a DYFS spokeswoman, said on Saturday that confidentiality laws prevent the agency from commenting on specific cases.

Campbell said the agency told him the children were taken because they were in "imminent danger", but he believed the removal was spurred by publicity surrounding the children's names. "In three years, they've never been involved with us," he said, referring to DYFS. "They said it's not about the newspaper articles, but they took them because of their names. I don't care what anybody says."

The family made headlines in December when a ShopRite supermarket in Greenwich, near the family's home in Holland Township, refused to decorate a birthday cake with their son's name. A Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania wound up decorating the cake, but the resulting publicity put the family under media scrutiny. Heath Campbell said he and his wife are staying with relatives because neighbours and others are harassing them.

Police in Holland Township are investigating a mailed death threat that was received by a woman whose last name is Campbell but is not related to the couple. A hearing in Hunterdon County family court was postponed earlier this month because the Campbells were unable to retain a lawyer. Heath Campbell said on Saturday they still have not done so.

Original report here




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

Man Serving Life Sentence Freed 23 Years After Wrongful Murder Conviction

Shaky bite-mark "evidence" again

MILWAUKEE - A man sentenced to life in prison for killing a woman in 1984 had his conviction overturned and was released Friday after spending 23 years behind bars. Robert Lee Stinson, 44, of Milwaukee, walked out of the New Lisbon Correctional Institution in street clothes and hugged his sister and members of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. A judge vacated the sentence after the Project argued that bite-mark analysis and DNA evidence that didn't match evidence from the crime scene, defense attorney Byron Lichstein said.

Stinson was convicted in 1985 of first-degree murder in the death of a 63-year-old Milwaukee woman. Evidence suggested she had been raped, and her body also had eight different bite marks, Lichstein said. Stinson still faces a charge of first-degree homicide related to the woman's death, Lichstein said. A status hearing is set for July 27, according to online court records. Stinson was released on a personal recognizance bond, meaning he must return to court.

At trial, two forensic odontologists testified that Stinson's teeth were a match, even though Stinson was apparently missing a tooth in a place where the bite marks indicated a tooth, Lichstein said. Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said in a statement Friday that Stinson's conviction was not wrongful, and that he was convicted based on "state-of-the-art scientific evidence available at the time of his trial." "The question today is whether there is newly discovered evidence in this case to warrant a new trial, and we agree that such evidence exists," Chisholm said. The statement did not specify the evidence.

Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Norman Gahn said he has six months to decide whether to retry Stinson. Lichstein, who last spoke to Stinson on Thursday, said his client was happy but in shock. "I don't think it had completely sunk in," Lichstein said. "Personally, I feel a real sense of relief. It's been a long time coming for Mr. Stinson."

Stinson's conviction was based almost exclusively on evidence suggesting that bite marks matched Stinson's teeth, Lichstein said. The lawyer said he did not know why special technology was necessary if the missing tooth could have indicated there was no match. "I wish I could tell you. I wasn't around back then," he said.

Steven Kohn, Stinson's trial attorney, said he didn't remember the details of the prosecution but recalled that the two state experts had discussed the case at a conference for forensic odontologists, leaving them unable to serve as defense witnesses. Kohn said he was forced to rely on an expert whose expertise was in dental records, not forensic odontology.

DNA taken from saliva on the victim's sweater also did not match Stinson. For a decade, attorneys and even some forensic experts have ridiculed the bite-mark identification as sham science and glorified guesswork. Critics say human skin changes and distorts imprints until they are nearly unrecognizable. As a result, courtroom experts end up offering competing opinions. But odontologists insist the science is sound if applied properly.

Since 2000, at least eight people in five states who were convicted largely on bite-mark identification have been exonerated, according to the Innocence Project.

Stinson attended a celebratory reception with family and other Innocence Project lawyers Friday afternoon. He previously told lawyers the first thing he wanted to do as a free man was to eat shrimp, which he did later at an Applebee's restaurant in Wisconsin Dells. He maintained his innocence and said he planned to work on a book about his experiences, adding: "I'm finally out and I'm going to enjoy my life."

Original report here



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

Supreme Court Broadens the Disgrace of Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity

The Supreme Court has unanimously overruled the Ninth Circuit in the case of Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, and broadened absolute prosecutorial immunity to include district attorneys whose poor supervision of subordinates may result in wrongful convictions. I wrote about the case last April:

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Thomas Goldstein, an ex-marine who was convicted of murdering his neighbor. Goldstein served 24 years before his conviction was thrown out when the main witness against him was shown to have lied. That witness was a lifelong criminal who was given a deal on his own charges in exchange for testimony that Goldstein confessed to him in a jail cell. Goldstein alleges that the district attorney's office that prosecuted the case routinely used the testimony of so-called "jailhouse snitches" prosecutors knew or should have known weren't reliable.

Goldstein's case is unusual because he's not suing the prosecutor who convicted him, but John Van de Camp, the district attorney who supervised that prosecutor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has allowed Goldstein's case to go forward, causing the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear it.

This isn't terribly surprising, but it's too bad. All the incentives for prosecutors right now point toward winning convictions. There's very little to hold them accountable when they go too far. Currently, even if a prosecutor knowingly withholds exculpatory evidence in a case that results in a wrongful conviction, he can't be sued.

Original report here



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

More injustice from Britain's "child protection" police

And no apology, of course. Targeting decent people is all they seem to want to do. Feral parents can (and do) kill their kids without the social workers lifting a finger.

Social services banned a mother from being alone with her baby after she took him to hospital with a tiny mark on his ear. Lyndsey Craig worried that six-month-old Daniel might have meningitis after she found the blemish. But doctors who examined him referred the case to social services who then banned Mrs Craig and her husband Tim, 30, from being alone with the child while they investigated.

Responsibility for Daniel had to be handed to his grandparents. Mrs Craig, 24, who works as an accounts assistant, took Daniel to Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool last month as he was suffering from vomiting and had a small purple mark on his ear.

She said doctors took blood tests and confirmed he did not have meningitis, but decided to keep him in overnight for scans. During this time, she and her husband were asked questions about domestic violence and a social worker was sent round to check their home in Liverpool. When the scans and X-rays came back clear the Craigs expected to be given an apology from social services. But instead they were told they were not allowed to be left alone with Daniel. Mrs Craig said: 'They said that if I took him home, they would be able to arrest me and put both of my children into foster care. That's when I broke down.'

Daniel was discharged from the hospital when his grandparents Florence and Jim Craig signed a form promising to 'support, supervise and monitor' his care until a child protection conference on January 8. The couple, from the Lake District, who are both retired and in their 60s, had to move in with the family.

Social services visited the Craigs, who also have a three year old son Sam, three times during the ban. Officers finally visited them on New Year's Eve to say the ban was lifted, more than three weeks after their ordeal began. But they weren't officially cleared until the child protection conference on January 8 in which ten people voted unanimously against putting Daniel into care. Mrs Craig requested a photograph of the mark on her son's ear and showed it to those attending the conference. She said they were shocked when they discovered the tiny blemish had been the cause of the problem. It has since disappeared and remains unexplained.

Mrs Craig said: 'Right now, there are probably thousands of children who are getting beaten up and abused and they have wasted all this time and money on us.' A Liverpool council spokesman said: 'We recognise these situations are stressful. However, we do have a legal duty to investigate.' An Alder Hey spokesman said the referral was standard practice for any child admitted to hospital with 'unexplained injuries'.

Original report here. (Via PC Watch)



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

BBC personality made 40 false but very damaging rape allegations against her ex-boyfriend

And the British police still have him recorded as a possible rapist

A BBC personality has shattered her ex-boyfriend's life by falsely accusing him of rape. The woman, who has broadcast to television audiences of millions, accused him of raping her 40 times throughout their two-and-a-half-year relationship. He was arrested, held in a police cell and handcuffed as police searched his flat for evidence of his crime. But she retracted her allegation weeks later, and the officer investigating the claims described them as 'inconsistent' and 'not credible'.

Despite the lack of evidence, the incident remains on the Police National Computer thanks to a legal loophole, which campaigners say is blighting the lives of falsely accused men. Even if the 'victim' withdraws their allegation, it will show up under enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checks that are undertaken regularly on people who apply for jobs with employers such as the NHS or schools. It will also prevent them from travelling to the United States.

The boyfriend cannot be identified to protect his accuser's anonymity, but wants to make his case public. He said: 'The lies she told have ruined my life. Yet, while I have lost out on jobs and been left paranoid and scared of women, she has got away without punishment. We're not even allowed to reveal her identity. Rape is a horrific crime, and there is no way I am capable of committing it. 'I don't care how successful she is, she should be sent to prison. Of course, the BBC doesn't know what she has done. But if they were to find out I would like to think they'd sack her.'

Fewer than six per cent of reported rapes result in a conviction, but according to Tim Murray of the False Rape Society, this case is typical. 'Thousands of innocent men are tainted for ever by an unfair system,' he said. 'The accused should have the right to remain anonymous until a conviction. If they are cleared, the incident should be erased from their records.'

Robert - not his real name - is an articulate man in his 50s who met the BBC star in London in 2003. A keen amateur photographer, he was there to take promotional shots. The woman, who we will call Charlotte, was working for a commercial television station and asked Robert if he would take some publicity pictures to help further her career. Within weeks they had embarked on a physical relationship. 'In addition to being very beautiful she was intelligent and funny. She was, still is, ambitious. Her career and becoming famous meant more to her than anything,' he said.

The pair filmed many of their encounters at his Central London flat, something he said was Charlotte's idea. 'It turned her on and I enjoyed it too,' he said. 'We agreed from the start that we'd have an open relationship. But we didn't just have sex. We cooked together, went to restaurants. I supported her whenever she was down.' Robert, who separated amicably from his wife, with whom he has two teenage children, ten years ago, was introduced to her friends, but not her family. 'They have strict views on sex before marriage and Charlotte wanted them to believe she was a virgin.'

Still in her 20s, there was a considerable age gap between the two. 'It was flattering at first,' he admits. 'But as the months went by I became more self-conscious about it. Plus, I started to mistrust Charlotte. She lied to me about her whereabouts. And I knew she wanted to marry another boyfriend.' By March 2006 he decided to end the relationship. He arranged to visit Charlotte's London home to pick up the keys to his flat from her.

Yet as he was waiting outside in his car, he was arrested. He was taken first to Hendon Police Station in North London, then to Marylebone police station, where he was accused of raping her, spiking her drinks, blackmailing and threatening to kill her. 'I was confused and powerless. I imagined myself in prison for life. I respect women and would not dream of touching one against her will.' While in custody, Robert, a former employee of an international trading company, suggested the police visit his flat to pick up the DVDs he and Charlotte had made. 'I knew they should prove my innocence,' he said. He also thinks the footage was the reason for his arrest in the first place. 'Once I ended the relationship she became paranoid I would blackmail her with the DVDs,' he said. 'But she was judging me by her standards.'

After seven hours, he was released on bail. 'I dreaded telling my children and ex-wife what had happened,' he recalled. 'Charlotte had befriended them, even picking my children up from school. Luckily they supported me from the start.'

In police records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and seen by The Mail on Sunday, Charlotte claimed that Robert had been blackmailing her by threatening to sell the DVDs to the Press. She said he spiked her drink before they had sex and threatened to kill her if she left him. 'It was all nonsense, fabricated to substantiate her claim,' he said. 'She once told me she had been raped twice before. Now I think she uses both the allegation, and sex in general, as some kind of tool to get what she wants.'

As the days passed, the police began to find Charlotte's evidence increasingly 'tenuous'. The DVDs showed that Charlotte 'would appear to be fully participating in sexual acts'. On May 18, perhaps knowing her account contained, as police put it, a 'number of inconsistencies', she withdrew the allegation. The police officer recorded the incident as 'no crime'.

Robert then received a letter saying he was released from bail and that no further action would be taken. 'But there was no apology from Charlotte or the police,' he says. His anger was exacerbated when police told him in a letter that 'the matter remains recorded as rape'. It was eventually downgraded to 'an allegation of rape' after he protested. Although the allegation had been withdrawn, one police officer had written in his records that: 'There is insufficient additional verifiable information to determine that no notifiable offence has been committed.'

Surprisingly, the law permits officers to register their disagreement with the outcome of a case in police records, with potentially devastating repercussions. While Charlotte's anonymity is guaranteed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 1976, Robert's ordeal will remain on his file indefinitely. He believes he has been rejected from a job as a Home Office interpreter because he failed to clear criminal checks. An application for a US visa requires him to state whether he has ever been arrested for a crime, and he says he did not apply for a job as a photographer in London schools because his records would stop him being offered it.

A police spokesman would not discuss individual cases but said: 'The current Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines state that police forces retain allegations of serious crime for ten years. We are liaising with ACPO and the Information Commissioner about a review of this policy.'

Original report here. (Via PC Watch)



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

5 pardoned after wrongful conviction in Neb. crime

Coerced plea-deals again

Five people imprisoned for the 1985 rape and murder of a 68-year-old woman were pardoned Monday, two months after investigators said DNA evidence proved they were innocent. In all, six people were convicted in the death of Helen Wilson of Beatrice. Investigators had described a gruesome crime scene in which Wilson was held down and raped in front of a group of people. Her hands were bound, and she died of suffocation.

Assistant Attorney General Corey O'Brien told the parole board Monday that only one man committed the crime. And the three men and three women convicted of the crime were innocent "not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt," he said.

"It finally puts closure on something I knew all along," 43-year-old Thomas Winslow said after being pardoned. Yet, Winslow and the other four pardoned Monday had pleaded guilty to the rape and murder. Only Joseph White, who didn't seek a pardon because his conviction was overturned last year, had maintained his innocence. "If it wasn't for him being stubborn and saying he's innocent all along, we wouldn't be here right now," said 44-year-old James Dean, who was released from prison in 1994.

Investigators now say the real killer was Bruce Allen Smith, a former Beatrice native who returned to the city days before the murder, then went back to Oklahoma. He was among the original suspects, but DNA tests performed in the original investigation appeared to exclude him. Newer tests performed recently showed that the earlier test result was flawed. Smith died of AIDS in 1992 at age 30.

The five defendants who pleaded guilty said they were threatened with the death penalty and told that others had implicated them in the crime. They were offered plea deals to confess. "I had a 14-month-old baby," said 45-year-old JoAnn Taylor, who spent 19 years in prison. "I was told they'd make me the first female on death row."

Deb Shelden, 50, said she was surprised she got a pardon. She has maintained that she was at the scene but didn't participate in the crime, but said Monday, "I don't know what to believe any more." "They say the evidence shows we weren't there," she said. Her husband, Clifford, said his wife was confused by a psychiatrist who helped her "recover" what she came to believe were memories.

O'Brien said Shelden and others may have been brainwashed. Shelden and Kathy Gonzalez, 48, completed their sentences in 1994. In 2007, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that White and Wilson could ask for DNA tests to try to prove their innocence, after lower courts had denied them the tests on the basis that they wouldn't absolve the men. Nebraska's DNA testing law is about 8 years old and requires the state to test DNA evidence if it is likely to produce evidence that someone else committed the crime.

A pardon doesn't mean a person is considered innocent of the crime, and it doesn't erase a criminal record. O'Brien said he would ask a judge to order the criminal records for the six former inmates expunged. The pardon restores civil rights, such as the right to get a passport, vote and serve in the military.

Nebraska might soon join 25 states and the District of Columbia that have laws entitling exonerated inmates to government compensation. Sen. Kent Rogert of Tekamah has introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would provide for a minimum of $50,000 for each year an innocent person is incarcerated. Rogert wants to make the law retroactive. The state might end up paying either way. Several of the former inmates said they're working with an attorney to file a lawsuit. If I don't, I'm a fool," Dean said.

Original report here



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

Wrongfully convicted man still pursuing the crooks who put him inside

BOSTON -- A month after the city of Lowell reached a settlement in its federal court battle with Dennis Maher over his wrongful imprisonment, a federal judge has set a March hearing date for the town of Ayer to renew its motion to dismiss the case.

After a two-year federal court battle, Maher, through his lawyers, reached a $160,000 settlement with the city of Lowell last December in his conviction for the alleged rape and sexual assault of two women in 1983. He was sentenced to life in prison, but Maher won his freedom in 2003 after tests showed his DNA did not match that found on one of the women. He spent more than 19 years in prison for crimes he says he did not commit.

In the civil rights lawsuit, filed on March 22, 2005, Maher accused Lowell and Ayer police of using improper identification techniques, failing to disclose evidence, failing to investigate and fabricating evidence against Maher to win convictions.

Named in the suit is the city of Lowell and the town of Ayer, former Lowell police Superintendent Edward Davis, who was a detective in 1983, Lowell officers Garrett Sheehan and Mark Grant, and former Ayer Officer Nancy Taylor-Harris.

Ayer's portion of the case is still active in federal court. With the settlement, Lowell's portion of the federal case was dismissed; however, Ayer's portion is pending trial. To avoid a trial, attorneys for the town of Ayer have filed a renewed motion for summary judgment, essentially asking the judge to rule in favor of the town and dismiss the case.

A hearing is scheduled for March 30 in U.S. District Court in Boston. Maher always blamed the incompetence of his former defense attorney, Patrick Clooney, now deceased, and the police departments for his wrongful convictions. But to win the federal lawsuit, legal experts say a wrongful conviction is not enough. Maher will have to prove that his convictions involved police misconduct.

Maher claims in court documents that one of the victim's struck a "secret deal" with Ayer police to identify Maher if an unrelated criminal charges against the victim was dismissed and that Taylor made suggestive comments after Maher had been identified, tainting her identification.

But Ayer's attorneys wrote in court documents that the victim denies there was a secret deal and that Maher's then-defense attorney and the prosecutor were aware at the time that the victim's criminal charges were being dismissed.

As for the suggestive comment, the grand jury heard about the comment and still indicted Maher.

Original report here



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

Justice finally done over a very sad story

A CORONER who cleared a woman of killing her baby sister when the woman was two — finding that her mentally ill mother was instead responsible for the death — has commended the now 49-year-old for her "extraordinary strength and courage" in pursuing the truth.

Ann Kramer grew up thinking she had killed her sister Margaret Loomes, who was six-months-old when she died in March 1961. In an inquest into the baby's death the same year, Coroner Harry Pascoe found that Ann had accidentally suffocated Margaret while playing with her in her crib in their Clayton home. The girls' mother, Phyllis Loomes, told police she went into the rear bedroom to get Margaret for a bath and found Ann, two years and nine months, kneeling on the bed with her arms across her little sister in the crib. She said Margaret's head was covered by a blanket and plastic bag, and she was not moving.

But confessions by Mrs Loomes before her death in 1983 led a Supreme Court judge to overturn the original finding last October. After a new inquest, coroner John Olle yesterday found that Mrs Loomes had killed Margaret.

Ann Kramer and her 77-year-old aunt, Joan Keating, Mrs Loomes' sister, cried and embraced when Mr Olle gave his finding. Both women told police that Mrs Loomes had confessed to them that she was responsible for Margaret's death.

Mr Olle said Phyllis Loomes had placed a plastic bag over Margaret's head, which she falsely attributed to Ann, because she was not coping with her infant. He said Mrs Loomes was probably suffering post-natal depression at the time. Mr Olle noted that Mrs Loomes suffered significant mental illness. He said she was admitted to various psychiatric institutions between 1960 and 1980, whose patient records contained references to killing Margaret.

In 1980, Mrs Loomes was charged with murdering her former husband, Colin, by striking him with a heavy object. She was found unfit to plead at the Victorian Supreme Court in 1981 and committed suicide at Pentridge Prison two years later.

In a statement to police in May last year, Mrs Kramer said: "I grew up thinking I had killed my little sister. As I grew older I had terrible guilt and thought that I must have been jealous of my little sister. "Even though I knew as a child I couldn't have known the danger of plastic bags, I still thought that maybe I had been mean to my little sister because I didn't want to share my parents with her. "It was something I was ashamed of and tried hard to put out of my mind, although I was frequently reminded of my guilt when my mother told people that she had seven children, but only six were living."

Police reopened the investigation into Margaret's death after she wrote to the State Coroner in 2006 to challenge the official version. Her mother told her in the early 1970s that she had killed Margaret because Mr Loomes had not wanted another daughter, and she had been "sick" at the time.

Mrs Kramer addressed Mr Olle from the courtroom floor to express her gratitude "for the opportunity to finally have the truth heard and understood". "The reason it's taken so long is because, with our family history, it was thought better to ignore this and pretend it didn't exist — but it did for me," she said. "When mum confessed I felt better, relieved, but it didn't make everything OK because everyone thought I was a murderer. It has caused me considerable distress. "This has not been easy for some members of my family, some of them think it would be best left unexamined, because life is easier that way." She commended her aunt for supporting the renewed investigation and focusing on events that were "extremely difficult for her to relive".

Mr Olle had high praise for both women. "The burden carried by Ann Kramer is now lifted," he said. "Throughout her life, culminating in her determination to right a wrong, she has displayed extraordinary strength and courage. Her Aunty Joan has also displayed enormous courage, to ensure that the truth has prevailed." The women held hands as they left court after the finding.

Original report here



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

No justice for British paternity fraud husband

A husband was conned for 17 years by his wife into bringing up her lover's child as his own, a court heard yesterday. Mark Webb only found out the truth from DNA tests conducted after the girl turned 18, it is alleged. He has tried to sue his ex-wife Lydia Chapman for deceiving him over the paternity of her daughter.

In the first 'paternity fraud' case to reach the Appeal Court, Mr Webb said his former wife and her alleged lover conceived the girl at a hotel in 1985. Mr Webb, 47, claims he was given no reason to believe the girl was not his and she was registered as the couple's child. He claims that three months after the girl was born, Mrs Chapman and her alleged lover again met at a summer barbecue, where they sneaked away to a nearby picnic area to have sex. He alleged that they also discussed the baby's paternity and deliberately set out to make Mr Webb believe the girl was his daughter.

Mr Webb claimed that, for years, his wife had continued with the deception, even giving her husband Birthday and Christmas cards from his 'daughter' referring to him as her 'daddy', the court heard. Mr Webb, from Bournemouth, claimed he financially supported the girl from birth without a penny in maintenance from the 'true father'. Mrs Chapman, who denies deceiving her ex-husband, allegedly told Mr Webb in 2002 that he was not the girl's father and filed for divorce the following year.

Mr Webb's barrister, Nicholas Mostyn, QC, told the court it was not until 2004 – by which time the girl was 18 – that a DNA test confirmed that he was not the girl's father. Mr Mostyn argued the case raised 'profound questions' about a spouse's 'duty of candour' to their partner. He told the court: 'Honesty and good faith lie at the very heart of the contract of marriage.' Describing 45-year-old Mrs Chapman as an 'inveterate liar', he insisted she had 'a fixed and certain knowledge' that Mr Webb was not the girl's father.

Mr Mostyn said Mr Webb's 'sense of injustice' meant he wanted to pursue his case to the House of Lords if necessary, but the Appeal Court judges denied him that opportunity yesterday. They refused him permission to appeal against a Bournemouth County Court judge's dismissal of his damages claim. Lord Justice Thorpe said the case involved 'interesting socio-legal arguments' but would 'visit upon the litigants huge burdens, both financial and emotional, which are disproportionate to any prospects of success'.

The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Bennett, said: 'This whole case can be categorised as a misfortune to all those engaged in it. I would not wish to be the one to extend their misfortunes further.' At her 250,000 pound red-brick cottage in Southampton, Mrs Chapman refused to talk about the case last night. Her alleged lover also refused to comment.

Original report here



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

British police still doing their specialty -- attacking people who are harming no-one

There are few things more tiresome than strippagrams - male or female. If I'm in a pub or at a party and someone bursts in, wearing a police uniform, and starts singing 'Happy Birthday', my heart sinks. But I don't want strippagrams made a criminal offence - unlike Grampian Police. Over the past couple of years, they've spent o170,000 trying to convict male stripper Stuart Kennedy - aka Sergeant Eros - for impersonating a police officer. They have arrested him six times since March 2007, and he has appeared in court 22 times, without them securing a single conviction. They even charged him with possessing an offensive weapon. Is that a rubber truncheon in your pocket . .?

Stuart charges 115 pounds a time to strip, and poses for photos with a strategically placed policeman's helmet. He does it to pay off his student loan. How on earth, you might ask, could he be confused for a real copper? But then I read at the weekend that cops are subsidising their wages with part-time jobs, including throwing underwear parties. Operation Ann Summers, anyone? Wasting 170,000 on this ridiculous persecution campaign is an outrageous abuse of police resources.

If other officers can have a sideline knocking out lacy thongs and nipple tassels, then the Chief Constable of Grampian should be forced to moonlight as a strippagram until every single penny of that o170,000 has been paid back.

Original report here



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

British speed camera negligence

More evidence of police devotion to the "easy cop". When there is more than one car in the picture, they are supposed to give the apparent offender the benefit of the doubt. No apology for a false accusation from the animals, of course

It is hardly the boy racer's vehicle of choice. About 14 years old and with 130,000 miles on the clock, the Honda Civic driven by Dale Lyle was barely capable of reaching the speed limit. So when he received a ticket for apparently driving at almost 100mph on the motorway, he told magistrates the mobile speed camera must have got it wrong. Prove it, they said. He did . . . but it wasn't easy.

Mr Lyle, 21, who has a clean driving licence, had already sold the car to a friend for 600 pounds. He had to take out a bank overdraft to buy it back. Then he had to pay an independent driving expert 600 pounds to test the 1.3litre Civic's top speed at a circuit in Bedfordshire. The result was as expected. Even when driven flat-out, the Honda could still only do a top speed of 85.4mph in fourth gear and 81.3mph in fifth.

Next, Mr Lyle obtained the mobile speed-camera footage of his alleged offence - travelling at 98mph on a 70mph three-lane carriageway of the A38, near Plymouth, on December 13, 2007. The three-minute film shows three other cars in the frame at the same time, he said, which he believes means his vehicle was mistaken for another.

Mr Lyle could have faced a maximum 1,000 pound fine and a six-month ban for the speeding charge. He said: 'The video evidence the CPS sent me was just appalling. They are just picking on innocent motorists. It makes you wonder how many people say, "Fine, give me the points", when they are not guilty.

Eventually, his hard work paid off, and the Crown Prosecution Service informed him the case had been dropped. 'I'm really glad I fought the system and won,' he said. 'It's shocking how hard it has been for me to prove my innocence.' Mr Lyle, a finance worker, from Staple Hill, Bristol, recalled his feelings when first served with the prosecution. 'I was in total disbelief when I opened the letter,' he said. 'I've never driven my car over the speed limit, let alone at 98mph. It's such a small car I wouldn't feel safe. 'I told the magistrates that the car was ancient and that there was no way it will do that speed.'

He intends to return to court to seek compensation for the 1,200 he spent proving his innocence. The CPS said: 'We came to the conclusion that there was no longer sufficient evidence to provide a prospect of a conviction. Recompense is a matter between the defendant and the court.'

Original report here



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

Mississippi justice again: The Wrongful Conviction of Gladys and Jamie Scott

This story is all too familiar. It's the corrupt police who should be in prison

Fourteen years ago in a small town, Forest, MS, two young Black women, who are sisters, were given a double life sentence. This sentence was for a crime, in which they did not commit. The alleged crime was Armed Robbery of two Black men. No one was killed or harmed during this alleged robbery.

Three young Black men confessed to the robbery. They also implicated that Gladys and me, Jamie Scott, were involved and participated in this crime. On December 24, 1993, Scott county Sheriff's Department arrested Gladys and me for armed robbery. This was the beginning of a real life nightmare for everyone in our family: our parents, our children, and especially us.

Our trial began on October 4, 1994. Gladys, nineteen, and I, Jamie, were twenty-two years old. The three young men called the "Patrick Men" because they were related. Through coercions, threats and promises they chose to turn states evidence against Gladys and me. These men were promised a lenient sentence, in return for their testimonies.

During our trial, the tale began to unravel. One of the Patrick men testified he didn't write the statement used as evidence against Gladys and me. He testified that the police coerced and threatened him with a long sentence at Parchman State Prison, if he didn't sign the written statement. The Scott county Police used fear, threats, and intimidation against the Patrick Men to sign a statement against us.

This man testified regarding the coerced statement on the witness stand; however, the jury found Gladys and me guilty. We received a double life sentence.

Prior to our trial, the two victims who had been robbed went to our parents with a bribe. They requested a large sum of money in exchange for there disappearance and unavailability to testify against us. However, our attorney advised our parents to cease all communications with the victims.

We contend our innocence. Our parents believe in our innocence and the Patrick Men know we are innocent.

In 1998, one of the Patrick Men wrote a sworn affidavit clearing Gladys and me. But, the courts never heard the affidavit. Our attorney, Chokwe Lumumba, filed our Post-Conviction, regretfully, too late. The most devastating and unfair thing about this is the police and investigators know we are innocent.

What began as an implication and outright miscarriage of justice, has catapulted to destroyed an entire family. These accusations and subsequent convictions have totally destroyed mine and Gladys' life. Causing a chain reaction which has led, Gladys, a nineteen year old, mother of a seven year old daughter and pregnant with another child, myself, Jamie, a twenty-two year old mother of three children; seven, three and one years of age, during the time of our arrest, conviction and sentencing for a crime we did not commit. Before being eligible for parole, we will have to serve a total of twenty years.

We have exhausted all of our appeals in our fight for freedom. We now realize we are unable to receive justice within the Mississippi Judicial System. Our hopes and dreams of freedom lie with the American people. Who can become our voice and assist us with our plight for freedom. By voicing their opinions, speaking our against this atrocious miscarriage of justice, and a court system that has denied us our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are compelled to plead and ask for a public outcry. Attention needs to be given to public officials and a county that refuses to let justice be served.

Our situation is complex, multidimensional, and heart-wrenching. We will never cease speaking out against the disservice done to us. However, we have discovered our voice carries very little weight, especially now, we are convicted as violent offenders serving a double life sentence.

Horror, frustration and humiliation of being subjected to life in prison for a crime, we did not commit, has made both of us feel hopeless and helpless at certain times; but we will continue to fight for our lives. This is a story that could happen to anyone.

My mother, Evelyn Rasco, decided to leave the state of Mississippi due to this "miscarriage of justice" inflicted upon Gladys and me. There is a great deal more to our story than what we are revealing presently. Events which have happened to us during fight for freedom.

Hopefully, someone will find this story worthy enough to be exposed and to show what has happened in a small town in Mississippi, during this time in America. Someone may decide to come forward and speak out against what has happened to my sister and me. We pray this will happen.

This is not a movie, it is a real-life situation, this happened to real people. An untruth has taken away our lives. A life that included our parents and children (now grandchildren). Unless someone decides to take a stand against the county, it's officials and not allow intimidation and fear to discourage them from helping us with our fight for freedom; our children will be adults before we are free citizens.

The injustices that have occurred are pattern within this county and their police departments. This type of injustice and exploitation has been done to many African-Americans who have lived in this county for many years. They have been very successful in destroying many lives. This should not be happening in America today. This is a time we show Americans what really occurs in most small towns in the state of Mississippi.

We are convinced that once this chain of events is exposed and unraveled, the events that occurred, the lives that have been destroyed, the pain and suffering the citizens of Scott County have endured; everyone will be utterly amazed, astonished and compelled to assist us in our plight for freedom. We pray, the people would insist upon an investigation into their misconduct and miscarriage of justice.

The officials in this community should be exposed and reprimanded for all they have done and continue to do to others and us. Once this has occurred, and revealed; perhaps, it will bring an end to this horrific story we have endured and experienced for the past fourteen years.

We need someone willing to take a stand for our families, to be our voice and us. Also, to assist, guide and lead our mother, because she is fearful. Our mother and children need us. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

May God Bless You,

Jamie Scott

Please visit http://www.freejamieandgladyscott.blogspot.com/

Jamie and Gladys Scott have been wrongfully convicted of armed robbery and received double life sentences each. No one was murdered or taken to the hospital during this robbery, no one was even injured. The transcripts state that 9, 10 or 11 dollars was stolen. Witnesses confessed during the trial, that the sheriff coerced and threatened them to lie on the Scott Sisters. That testimony was obviously not taken into consideration by Judge Marcus Gordon. They have been in prison now for 14 years.

Original report here



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

British Rape outrage

Britain really knows how to protect the weak and vulnerable! (NOT)

Thugs who doused a girl with caustic soda after gang-raping her have escaped with “insultingly low” jail terms, it was claimed last night. The 16-year-old victim, who has a mental age of eight, nearly died from the effects of the powerful drain cleaner. But the laughing teenagers — some of whom filmed the rape on mobiles as she begged for mercy — ran off, leaving her screaming in agony.

Yesterday three of her attackers — the only members of the ten-strong gang to be convicted — were jailed for a total of 23 years. However each will only serve HALF the sentences minus the amount of time spent on remand. That means none will spend more than FOUR YEARS in jail.

Kathryn Stone OBE, chief executive of charity VOICE UK, said: “These sentences don’t come close to reflecting the brutality and horror. “They send completely the wrong message.”

The girl — still badly disfigured despite repeated surgery — was lured to an empty house in Tottenham, North London, before being repeatedly raped by the gang, some wearing hoods. She still suffers nightmares and panic attacks.

Judge Shaun Lyons told Wood Green Crown Court: “Her life changed irretrievably. In her eyes and her mother’s her life was ruined. It is doubtful what form her life will take and whether she can operate fully as a young woman.”



Rogel McMorris, 18, from Stockwell, South London [pic above], who threw the caustic soda, was sentenced to nine years but will serve just over four. Rapist Jason Brew, 19, who got six years, will do two and a half years. Hector Muaimba, 20, will serve just over three years of an eight-year term for rape and an unrelated robbery.

Original report here



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

A change of heart in Ohio

A year ago, Ohio prisoners requesting a DNA test to prove their innocence were repeatedly rejected or ignored. Now, at least in Franklin County, where one man was exonerated last year, prosecutors are searching and finding lost evidence and even reconsidering DNA testing requests that they previously opposed. So, Prosecutor Ron O'Brien is going to give Charles A. Dumas another chance at freedom.

"This test means my life; it's my last chance to prove to my children I didn't do this," said Dumas, an inmate at the North Central Correctional Institution near Marion. Dumas, a 37-year-old Columbus man without a previous felony record, was convicted in 1998 of raping a 4-year-old Reynoldsburg girl. He was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison. His original request for a DNA test was rejected in 2004 and then stymied again in 2007 when he was told the best evidence in his case had been lost or destroyed.

Without prodding from defense attorneys, O'Brien told his staff in October to search again for Dumas' evidence. The search produced two slides containing sperm samples recovered from the victim during a medical examination after the rape. "I had somebody turn everything upside down to look for it," O'Brien said. "We were able to find the rape kit in a closed file in storage, rather than a property room where it should have been."

Yesterday, O'Brien and the Ohio Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal clinic at the University of Cincinnati law school representing Dumas, completed a testing agreement. An official order is expected to be filed in Common Pleas Court next week for sending the evidence to a private lab in suburban Cincinnati.

David Laing of the Ohio Innocence Project praised O'Brien and his staff for their cooperation. "They've been absolutely fabulous," Laing said. "I have to give a great amount of credit to O'Brien and Kim Bond (an assistant prosecutor). They went the extra mile and are supportive of the testing."

O'Brien said the Robert McClendon case changed his view of DNA cases. The Columbus man was released in August after serving 18 years for a child rape that DNA testing showed he didn't commit. As in the Dumas case, DNA testing at the time of McClendon's trial proved to be a dead-end. But last year, advanced testing at a private lab identified semen on the victim's underwear and showed that it couldn't have come from McClendon.

O'Brien agreed, with skepticism, to more testing after a private lab, DNA Diagnostics Center, offered it free as part of the Dispatch series "Test of Convictions." Dumas' case was among 300 reviewed by The Dispatch last year but wasn't a candidate for testing because the evidence had been lost. In 2004, Dumas' DNA request also was rejected in part because, as with McClendon, the evidence already had been tested years earlier to no avail.

"What we found with the McClendon case is it makes us more willing to take a second look at evidence that may have been previously tested," O'Brien said. DNA Diagnostics has agreed to test Dumas' evidence at no charge, as well.

Dumas was babysitting his girlfriend's two daughters, an infant and a 4-year-old, when the older girl was raped on Oct. 29, 1997. Dumas says he was drinking and partying when the 4-year-old went outside to play. When she came back inside, Dumas said, she was in pain and her genitals were bleeding. The girl later identified Dumas as her rapist, prosecutors said. DNA testing at the time was inconclusive, but a jury convicted him. Now, there appears to be enough sperm to obtain a DNA profile of the attacker, thanks to advanced testing technology.

Both sides agree that the testing should settle questions about Dumas' guilt once and for all. The victim's mother didn't respond to messages seeking comment. Dumas always has maintained his innocence, although he acknowledges feeling terrible about what happened. "I was a pretty (lousy) babysitter," he said. "I ain't going to say it's my fault, but I should have been there for her."

Dumas has two children of his own, now teenagers, who have grown up without him during his more than 11 years in prison. "I just want to be exonerated for my kids' sake. My kids need me." Dumas isn't scheduled to appear before the parole board again until 2012, and officials have warned inmates that a DNA test confirming their guilt will be used against them. "I'm not worried about that," Dumas said, "because I didn't do this."

Original report here



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

Clyde Charles: Cleared of rape conviction after DNA test and after 17 years in La. prison

This was a disgraceful case. Around 30 letters requesting DNA testing were ignored by the authorities until the Innocence Project took up the matter



Clyde Charles, the first inmate to use a federal civil rights law to sue for DNA testing that not only cleared him of a Louisiana rape conviction but also sent his brother to prison for the same crime, has died. He was 55. Mr. Charles died Jan. 7 of natural causes at his home, relatives told The Courier newspaper. His health problems included diabetes that required dialysis, they said.

He was the first inmate to sue under the federal Civil Rights Act to get his DNA compared to DNA samples held as evidence, said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, a legal center specializing in wrongful conviction cases. After Mr. Charles was sentenced to life in prison for the 1981 rape of a nurse who identified him as her attacker, he pleaded with authorities to conduct DNA testing against evidence collected in the case.

Although investigators had semen samples from the victim, the technology to compare DNA samples didn't exist during Mr. Charles' trial. "Back then you didn't have DNA evidence, so you had to take the word of the victim and work with the evidence you had," then-Detective Jerry Larpenter told The Associated Press in a 2000 interview.

Terrebonne Parish authorities agreed to have Mr. Charles' DNA tested after Scheck, a former O.J. Simpson defense attorney, filed the civil rights lawsuit in 1999. When the DNA samples didn't match, Mr. Charles was soon exonerated and released from prison just before Christmas that year.

The investigation then focused on his brother, Marlo. During Clyde Charles' trial, Marlo Charles testified he had been near the crime scene (the brothers had been drinking at a nearby Houma home) and a court document named him as an alternate suspect. Marlo Charles' DNA was on file in Virginia; authorities confirmed in 2000 that his DNA matched the Louisiana evidence. Marlo Charles was convicted of the nurse's rape in 2002 and sentenced to life in prison.

Clyde Charles had a tough life after his release from prison, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares and terrible pain from his diabetes, Scheck said Tuesday. In early 2003, Mr. Charles was arrested on a charge that he had stabbed one of his other brothers, but was released on $100,000 bail for intensive drug rehabilitation. That case was continued indefinitely in a deal brokered with state prosecutors. "I wish I could tell you they lived happily ever after. But they didn't," Scheck said.

Original report here. Background on the case here



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