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

[Bunnykid68]

I would be ok with the death penalty if we had a better justice system and people were not locked up for circumstantial evidence or just like in the OP's case here.

 

[rambone]

Problem is that when they go on death row they set in a cell for plenty of years sucking up our tax dollars, some 40K each year to keep some one alive in a jail cell with cable and AC. A little hard to swallow for someone that has to pay for their own food and housing.

If saving money on prisons is something you want to honestly discuss, we should look at ending the Drug War.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If saving money on prisons is something you want to honestly discuss, we should look at ending the Drug War.

 

[vitamink]

Did anyone actually read the evidence in this case or are we just quoting one side of the story regarding what the now very rich attorney said about his client? Oh wait this INGO...

I'm not convinced the guy is innocent.

some facts they left out:

His friend, who had nothing to do with the apartment complex, told police that Ayers called him and confessed that he murdered the lady and how he did it.

Ayers said he didn't call anyone and his friend was lying

Records show that Ayers made an hour long call to his friend prior to the body being found.

The confession that Ayers made in his jail cell to Hutchinson, followed the timeline exactly. He stated that when he went to help the lady up he noticed the $700 on the nightstand and returned later when he thought she was asleep..she woke up and he grabbed the closest thing and beat her with it as he was afraid of losing his job and therefore his $50.00 a month apartment.

The confession he made to the police when he was going to ditch his PD and have his friend pay for a private attorney. His friend told him that he'd only take the case if he was honest...so he confessed...again.

He didn't get released because they all of a sudden found out he was innocent. He got released as they argued on appeal that the jailhouse informant (hutchingson) acted as the state when he questioned Ayers, got a confession, and therefore violated his right to counsel as he already had asked for a lawyer. He admitted to making that confession (though obtained illegally) however he argued that the confession was a small part of everything that he had said. maybe something like "yeah i killed her, but i was nice about it, and cleaned up her apartment when i was done". This was his third confession.

"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."

 

[rambone]

I'm not convinced the guy is innocent.

Maybe he shouldn't be released until his innocence is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[BigMatt]

Did anyone actually read the evidence in this case or are we just quoting one side of the story regarding what the now very rich attorney said about his client? Oh wait this INGO...

I'm not convinced the guy is innocent.

some facts they left out:

His friend, who had nothing to do with the apartment complex, told police that Ayers called him and confessed that he murdered the lady and how he did it.

Ayers said he didn't call anyone and his friend was lying

Records show that Ayers made an hour long call to his friend prior to the body being found.

The confession that Ayers made in his jail cell to Hutchinson, followed the timeline exactly. He stated that when he went to help the lady up he noticed the $700 on the nightstand and returned later when he thought she was asleep..she woke up and he grabbed the closest thing and beat her with it as he was afraid of losing his job and therefore his $50.00 a month apartment.

The confession he made to the police when he was going to ditch his PD and have his friend pay for a private attorney. His friend told him that he'd only take the case if he was honest...so he confessed...again.

He didn't get released because they all of a sudden found out he was innocent. He got released as they argued on appeal that the jailhouse informant (hutchingson) acted as the state when he questioned Ayers, got a confession, and therefore violated his right to counsel as he already had asked for a lawyer. He admitted to making that confession (though obtained illegally) however he argued that the confession was a small part of everything that he had said. maybe something like "yeah i killed her, but i was nice about it, and cleaned up her apartment when i was done". This was his third confession.

"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."

I agree. I am not saying he should be in jail or out, but I do agree that he isn't necessarily innocent.

 

[lucky4034]

One of the biggest problems with our society is that no one ever wants to take responsibility for their actions.

In addition the touchy feel good liberals have to concoct some excuse as to my someone did something wrong. And that bastardizes the system. Welcome to 2013

No offense... but I can't think of the last time Conservatives have taken responsibility for much of anything. They do just as the "touchy feel good liberals"... they point the finger just like you did in the second half of your post.

Search the word "liberal" in this conservative forum and marvel at the finger pointing. If something goes wrong, it was those dirty, rotten no-good-for-nothing Hatfields ... uh..McCoys ... I meant LIBERALS!!!

The problem is that AMERICAN'S don't want to accept responsibility for THIS COUNTRY (and half the countries around the world). We created this mess... Our parents, grandparents and their parents and grandparents before them.

 

[vitamink]

Maybe he shouldn't be released until his innocence is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind you want these officers charged, called them liars and said this stuff happens all the time. The only thing that happens all the time, is you chosing not to investigate the 1 sided stories you regurgitate here every day. The guy is guilty. He said he was guilty 3 times to 3 different people, his best friend, an attorney, and his cell mate. The only reason he was released was that when his cell mate said he told him he did it they said go back and get how, why and with when...he came back with the information that matched the timeline, the wounds and the reason why. The problem was the evidence was admissible the first time but when they sent him back in he was "working for the state". Appeals felt the 3rd confession should have been thrown out but wasn't. Therefore he gets released. He wasn't released because he didn't do it.

Here is what you had to say:

A man spent 13 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

WRONG...he did it, and said he did it, 3 times.

Cleveland police detectives set him up by coercing false testimonies and by withholding evidence that would exonerate him.

WRONG Where is this mythical false testimony? The attorney is referring to the guy in the cell with him. The testimony matched his other confessions.

It takes a real monster to frame an innocent man

Hello pot, i'm the kettle!

Those detectives are as dangerous to society as any real murderer. They destroy lives.

WRONG they got a murder off the street. The appeals court sent him back. Morons awarded him money.

I have read that coerced cellmate confessions happen a little more often than we may realize.

You have read a lot of things that doesn't make them true. I give you this story as exhibit A.



No word on whether the corrupt detectives will face charges.




Why should they? And what happens to you? You don't know what you're talking about as you didn't bother to research it (BIG surprise there). You've convinced the jury of public opinion (see the other posts) that these Detectives are liars, worse than murders, and should be charged. You just did the same thing to them and made your judgements based on ONE article you read interviewing the attorney on the murderer's side. Luckily your condemning finger of judgement doesn't point back towards yourself...you'd be on death row by next week for all BS you post.

 

[rambone]

Are you going to bother giving sources for anything you're saying?

You also skipped over the DNA evidence which exonerated him.

 

[dross]

No offense... but I can't think of the last time Conservatives have taken responsibility for much of anything. They do just as the "touchy feel good liberals"... they point the finger just like you did in the second half of your post.

Search the word "liberal" in this conservative forum and marvel at the finger pointing. If something goes wrong, it was those dirty, rotten no-good-for-nothing Hatfields ... uh..McCoys ... I meant LIBERALS!!!

The problem is that AMERICAN'S don't want to accept responsibility for THIS COUNTRY (and half the countries around the world). We created this mess... Our parents, grandparents and their parents and grandparents before them.

I've done nothing to create "this mess."

 

[Hohn]

This is a good reason to oppose capital punishment. The state is too corrupt, and honest mistakes also happen. Better to let 100 criminals walk free than convict an innocent man.

Also remember stories like this when you are tempted to deride a convicted man's right to appeal.

This^^.

If justice was perfect, then I would have zero qualms with capital punishment. But you can't un-execute someone. It is the ultimate injustice for capital punishment to be meted upon the innocent.

I used to be pretty hard core on my death penalty support. Then I found out just how many times innocent people get thrown in jail.

I simply can't support any death penalty with a non zero change of an innocent person being wrongly convicted.

Besides, "death row" guys end up costing way more in appeals and housing than most lifers do. I think mandatory labor is far better an idea than death row.

Let them get outside and get some fresh air.



Heck, even the Nazis were smart enough to get some work outta people before you just haul off and kill them.

 

[Hohn]

Here's a good book about innocent people being convicted through incompetence and malice.

Worth a look.

Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong

I read Grisham's "The Innocent Man" and it changed my mind on the death penalty.

 

[vitamink]

Are you going to bother giving sources for anything you're saying?

You also skipped over the DNA evidence which exonerated him.

MY source is the case and his various appeals, not some one sided article by an attorney in a liberal newspaper. I'll quote directly instead of paraphrasing...it'll be longer though.


To exonerate is to "free from blame". The evidenced did exonerate him from something he wasn't ever charged with. Ayers attorney alleges there was a sexual assault (not the state) and that the DNA test showed he didn't do it, therefore he didn't kill her. here are the FACTS of the case:

“***The victim’s body was discovered at approximately 2:45 p.m. on the afternoon of December 17, 1999 and showed signs of numerous serious
−3−
injuries, including a fractured skull, trauma to the brain, fractures of the face,
[and] a broken finger on each hand***. Although the victim was discovered nude from the waist down***, there were no signs that a sexual assault had occurred.
{¶ 6} “There were signs of robbery at the scene***. There were no signs of forced entry***.\"

Again he was never charged with Rape. The state did do DNA testing. He later argued that the blood found in the apartment wasn't his. That's because it was hers. The blood that was found was on a paper towel away from the scene.

"
{¶ 24} As to the blood, “The sole reference to blood evidence found in the record is suspected blood found on a paper towel.***[It] was DNA tested and matched the victim’s DNA profile.***Further, the fact that Ayers was excluded as the source of the blood was presented to the jury, which nevertheless convicted Ayers. Ayers, therefore, has failed to show that DNA testing of the blood would be outcome determinative.”
{¶ 25} As to the fingernail scrapings, the record failed to reflect that any “skin” was found under the victim’s fingernails. “A review of the trial testimony
−8−
and Coroner’s Office Laboratory Examination Report reveals that only fibers
were noted within the victim’s fingernail scrapings.****[N]othing else of note.” Since “the record establishes that no biological material was obtained***[it follows] no parent sample exists.” Under these circumstances, the court was “precluded from accepting Ayers’ application with respect to the fingernail scrapings.”

Essentially there were 3 things tested by DNA blood hair and fingernail scrapings. The blood was all hers as he wasn't hurt. The Hair was all hers or someone else's. There was no BIO material in her fingernails meaning that her 75 year old self wasn't able to scratch him while he was beating her face with an Iron. Her wounds were defensive meaning that she was trying to block the strikes.


Here is what he said to his friends:¶ 9}

“The phone records relating to appellant’s home phone showed that he received two phone calls from a Kenneth Smith on December 17th.***Smith testified at trial that the appellant told him about the murder of Ms. Brown during the course of these phone calls***. This testimony is significant because both of the phone calls were made prior to the time that the victim’s body was discovered***.
{¶ 10} “***According to [state’s witness Donald] Hutchinson’s testimony, the appellant told him that he [went] to the victim’s unit in the early morning
−4−
hours of December 17, 1999 with the intention of stealing money[,]***killed the
victim when she woke up[, and] told him that the murder weapon was a small, black iron that was located in the vicinity of the recliner where the victim was positioned.”


Keep in mind that if you are a young man and go to an old folks home, you can beat someone with an iron to death and not leave any DNA evidence.

 

[public servant]

USA Today? Really?

Let's see what other little tid-bits of interesting journalism this rag has to offer, shall we?

Well, here they are weighing in on the controversial proposal to remove guns from the possession of those deemed mentally unstable by the state...

Wintemute commends California's existing law, which allows police or special agents to remove guns from the homes of people whose names have been newly added to the national database. More than 10,000 guns have been collected under this law since 2007, according to the California Department of Justice.

And here they weigh in on gun laws...

States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital.

The leader investigator behind the research hopes the findings will drive legislators to pass gun reform across the country and increase federal funding to research on gun laws and violence.

"Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. "Legislators should take that into consideration."

Some people believe anything they read I suppose.

 

[inxs]

Yeah, do away with the death penalty. that way the dirtbag who shoots and kills on video, and confesses to it, can get a life long paid vacation and enrich countless lawyers through the appeals process. How is that justice? If you can't sit on a jury and hand out the death penalty when earned, then you should probably not consider yourself worthy of being a citizen.

 

[45fan]

Im all for not putting innocent people to death. But when there is no doubt that a person has committed the crime, then they should be removed from society. Screw lethal injection, electric chairs and gas chambers. Hanging is too good for them too. Just cremate them, so when they are gone, they wont be wasting space in the ground either.
Society has been so kind and gentle with vicious criminals, and wonders why there is a crime problem in this country. We need to start treating them like the animals that they are, and not coddling them.

 

[Expat]

Dang... now I am confused... rambone may have been wrong and whipped up people into a frenzy with a bunch of one sided misinformation... that is just so atypical that it strains credulity...

 

[dross]

The problem with the idea of only putting people to death when you're "sure" is that:

1. That's what we're supposed to be doing now, yet we've executed innocent people all through our history including recent times, and
2. You have to accept on principle that no matter how sure you are, a mistake is possible

You can let someone out of jail. You can't give him twenty years back, but you can at least let him out. You can't undo dead.

That's why I oppose the death penalty.

Also, when we let people go free because the police or the prosecutor misuse their power (what some call "technicalities") we make all of us safer. I'm a lot less worried about the relatively rare homicidal maniac than I am about an army of government officials who don't fear breaking the rules to get convictions.

 

[dross]

Dang... now I am confused... rambone may have been wrong and whipped up people into a frenzy with a bunch of one sided misinformation... that is just so atypical that it strains credulity...

Snap.

 

[rambone]

Although the victim was discovered nude from the waist down***, there were no signs that a sexual assault had occurred.

That public hair found in her mouth belonging to John Doe is pretty inconvenient though, isn't it? Combine that with the illegal testimonies and zero physical evidence tying the defendant to the scene and you've got yourself one sloppy assed case.

USA Today? Really?

Let's see what other little tid-bits of interesting journalism this rag has to offer, shall we?

Well, here they are weighing in on the controversial proposal to remove guns from the possession of those deemed mentally unstable by the state...

And here they weigh in on gun laws...

Some people believe anything they read I suppose.

Those things you quoted are not even Op-Ed pieces. They are sourcing quotes, studies, and existing law. That's allowed in journalism. Big deal.

Have you done a background check on the people in this case? How do those detectives feel about gun control?