Businesses need to understand that the constitution is not suspended during a health emergency. This opinion article in the Washington Times explains it perfectly.
If government holds the authority to declare national emergencies, and then government holds the authority to order citizens at will, using these declared national emergencies as justification for the orders, think where that leaves the Constitution.
In a dust pile of tyranny.
In times of national crises, it’s incumbent on the citizens to ensure their civil rights are upheld. Because simply put: Government is not going to do it. Remember: Executive orders are not laws.
Many businesses are following the unlawful executive orders out of fear of losing their business licenses. Please understand that all of the mandates are unconstitutional. A federal judge in Pennsylvania correctly ruled that closures and mandates are unconstitutional. We need to fight this tyranny and inform as many people as possible that the government is being unlawful by placing constraints on businesses. You do not have to reduce capacity, space your tables apart, install plexiglass or place stickers and arrows on your floor. You do not have to require your employees or customers to wear masks. These are guidelines, not laws.
I recently discovered that NCDHHS has used unlawful language in their guideline bulletins by stating that the rules were required. This is not true. I sent this letter to their complaint division. I hope others will do the same. We need to fight the tyranny. Our constitution protects us.
NCDHHS
Complaint Intake Unit 2711 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-2711
I am filing a complaint regarding the wording on your Covid business guidelines. Your documents state that the listed guidelines for social distancing, masks, table spacing and more are required. Your agency has no authority to require businesses to do anything that conflicts with the United States and North Carolina constitutions. As stated by federal Judge William Stickman in his recent ruling in Pennsylvania:
“The governor’s efforts to slow the spread of the coronavirus “were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency,” Stickman wrote. “But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered.”
It is reasonable for your agency to offer CDC guidelines to businesses, but it is unacceptable to place these unlawful constraints on businesses regarding occupancy levels, spacing, cleaning methods and face coverings. Period. This is not subject to any judicial ruling. I am demanding that you follow the law.
The remedy is to immediately update all documents on your website to specify that these are guidelines, not requirements and to discuss the change at the earliest press conference so businesses can be informed.
I have included an example of the “requirements” outlined in the guidance letter for businesses. This must be corrected immediately so that businesses are not duped into believing you have the authority to dictate how their business must be run. You are breaking the law.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Technical articles about the Sars-CoV2 virus and Covid19 do not hold up to scrutiny. At a very basic level, we need evidence that the virus was properly isolated from an ill person and verified to cause the illness. It must also be absent in a healthy person. The virus has never been isolated and does not meet any of Koch’s Postulates.
Please watch this video to understand the academic fraud that is being used to influence policies that have us living in tyranny. It is critical that we understand how they are getting away with the largest psychological operation ever perpetrated in world history.
The governor’s mandates in most states have called for the isolation of nursing home residents, but understand that mandates do not suspend laws. A governor can not create laws. There is no emergency. Hospitals are not overwhelmed. Mandates need to be lifted, but until we can accomplish that, you can demand to visit nursing homes.
Request an in-person visit at the facility. If you are declined, get the names of the people who are preventing the visit and also the highest level person at the facility.
Find the Health Department Rights and state statutes for Nursing Home Residents in your state. It may be included on the Department of Child and Family Services website.
Find the section that specifies the rights and print it. Example, here is the section on the NCDHHS website.
North Carolina’s Bill of Rights for Nursing Home Residents
(Condensed Version) EVERY RESIDENT SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS: (1). To be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of personal dignity and individuality. (2). To receive care, treatment, and services that are adequate and appropriate, and in compliance with relevant federal and State statutes and rules. (3). To receive at the time of admission and during stay, a written statement of services provided by the facility, including those required to be offered on an as needed basis, and of related charges. Charges for services not covered under Medicare and Medicaid shall be specified. The patient will sign a written receipt upon receiving the above information. (4). To have on file physician’s orders with proposed schedule of medical treatment. Written, signed evidence of prior informed consent to participation in experimental research shall be in patient’s file. (5). To receive respect and privacy in his medical care program. All personal and medical records are confidential. (6). To be free of mental and physical abuse. Except in emergencies, to be free of chemical and physical restraint unless authorized for a specified period of time by a physician according to clear and indicated medical need. (7). To receive from the administration or staff of the facility a reasonable response to all requests. (8). To associate and communicate privately and without restriction with persons and groups of the patients choice at any reasonable hour. To send and receive mail promptly and unopened. To have access to a telephone where the patient may speak privately. To have access to writing instruments, stationary and postage. (9). To manage his/her own financial affairs unless other legal arrangements have been implemented. The facility may also assist the patient, but is required to follow stringent guidelines. (10). To have privacy in visits by the patient’s spouse, and if both are patients in the same facility, they shall be given the opportunity, where feasible, to share a room. (11). To enjoy privacy in his/her room. (12). To present grievances and recommend changes in policies and services personally, through other persons or in combination with others, without fear of reprisal, restraint, interference, coercion, or discrimination. (13). To not be required to perform services for the facility without personal consent and the written approval of the attending physician. (14). To retain, to secure storage for, and to use his personal clothing and possessions, where reasonable. (15). To not be transferred or discharged from a facility except for medical, financial, or their own or other patient’s welfare, nonpayment for the stay or when mandated by Medicare or Medicaid. Any such transfer shall require at least five days’ notice, unless the attending physician orders immediate transfer, which shall be documented in the patient’s medical record. (16). To be notified within ten days after the facility’s license is revoked or made provisional. The responsible party or guardian must be notified as well.
4. Write a letter to the head of the facility and copy the document pertaining to their rights infringements.
5. If they still refuse to allow in-person visits, file a complaint to the agency that established these rights. Stress the fact that an emergency does not suspend laws.
Please watch this short video courtesy of Peggy Hall and John Jay Singleton. Find a way to make it happen. The law is on your side.
Francisco “Fran” De Aragon, age twenty-six was working as a swim instructor at the Deerfield Beach Aquatic Center in 2015 when his world was turned upside down. May 20th started out as a normal day, and he was looking forward to taking a short vacation with his wife, Savannah to visit family. Instead, a deputy arrived at his place of employment and detained him with no explanation. There he sat for hours until police obtained probable cause to arrest him. Then he was transferred to the police station, handcuffs and leg restraints were placed on him and he was interrogated.
He was shocked when police informed him that he had been accused of inappropriately touching two six-year-old girls during their swim lessons the prior day. He was outraged and vehemently denied the accusations. He informed the detective that he had never been accused of anything of this nature and was a law abiding citizen with nothing more than a speeding ticket on his record. Detective Gittens lied and told him that he had DNA evidence to support the allegations. De Aragon maintained his position that he had never inappropriately touched a child and agreed to submit a DNA specimen. He did not ask for an attorney at any time during the interview.
He told the detective that he took his coaching and lifeguard responsibilities seriously. He was with the USA Swim Team where members are educated about the importance of avoiding any inappropriate contact. They are also subjected to frequent background checks. He had been working as an instructor/coach/lifeguard for the past ten years and had never received a single complaint. He’d worked with thousands of children.
The setting of the alleged abuse defies common sense. He and another instructor worked with entire classes of students who were transported to the facility from their schools. They would split the class in half so each instructor could work with approximately ten students at a time. As is typical with beginner swim lessons, the instructor would stand approximately five feet out and have the children take turns pushing off the wall and swimming toward them, often with the use of a kickboard. They would then be turned around and directed back to the wall. The entire class would be watching, and waiting for their turn. The teachers were close by, keeping an eye on the students. How could a child be abused in this setting with no one observing anything?
The Accusations:
The parents of six-year-old A. C. called the police the evening of May 19th and reported that their daughter had been inappropriately touched by a swim coach that day. Officer Sobrino with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office responded and spoke first to the parents. They told the officer about the alleged inappropriate touching described by their daughter. The officer then spoke privately to A.C., and she told him she was in the pool and a man touched her private parts inside her bathing suit, but there was no penetration.
The next day, at a separate precinct, parents of six-year-old B.E. reported that their six-year-old daughter was inappropriately touched by a swim instructor. The same details were described — that he touched her private parts inside her swimsuit. No penetration had occurred. This report was taken by Investigator Preston, also with the Broward Sheriff’s Office. Note that B.E. attended a different school than A.C. This reduced the likelihood that the children knew each other and possibly made up the claim after discussing it at school, but it shouldn’t eliminate the need for a thorough investigation into these very serious allegations. Unfortunately, police immediately accepted the claims as fact, and confirmation bias was a factor in the children’s interviews.
It’s important to distinguish between an allegation of touching versus penetration as the latter results in a sexual battery charge, which carries a life sentence.
Deputy Gittens
Things happened very quickly . . . almost too quickly. Detective Keith Gittens with the Special Victim’s Unit was assigned to the case the morning of May 20th. He called A.C.’s mother at 10:17 a.m. and then her school teacher at 10:49, but the odd thing is that Officer Sobrino did not speak to Gittens, and did not type up his report until 11:15 p.m. that night . . . so how did Gittens obtain the family’s number and the name of the teacher? At a deposition months later he explained that he must have received a draft copy of Sobrino’s report.
Whatever the case, before he’d even conducted forensic interviews with the children, he contacted the pool where Francisco De Aragon was employed and determined exactly where he was at that time and then sent a deputy to detain him until he secured probable cause for his arrest. De Aragon was detained at 12:22, held at his work location until Gittens completed his interviews. He was arrested at 3:54 p.m.
Normally when young children make sexual abuse allegations, authorities consult with child psychologists and medical professionals to verify or rule out the claims. There are recommended guidelines for questioning children in the 2-7 age range. For example, open-ended questions are supposed to be asked. That didn’t happen in this case. Outside specialists were not consulted, and open-ended questions were not asked. It was later learned that Gittens had never received any formal training in this area.
A.C. was interviewed first. He asked her simple questions — could she count to 100, did she know her alphabet? He felt comfortable that she understood the difference between truths and lies, then he jumped right into the “good touch/bad touch” questions. He proceeded to draw a body and asked the child to name the anatomical parts. Then he asked her if anyone had ever done a bad touch on her privates.
A.C. Yeah.
Gittens: Who?
A.C. When I went to the pool I was trying to swim and I couldn’t and they touched my privates.
If the child had been coached to make the accusation against the swim coach, the detective just led her right to that. There was no open-ended question about her day, or school or the swim lesson . . . just directly to the inappropriate touch questions.
Gittens: What was the person doing with you?
A.C. He was trying to push me on the wall for I can swim. (English was her second language)
Gittens: Uh-huh.
A.C. And then he put his hand on my bathing suit and touched my private.
(note: I am skipping ahead and omitting some of the irrelevant sections to avoid being too lengthy).
Gittens: So while you were in the water with the man is when he touched your privates?
A.C. We were playing and then trying to swim, he was touching my bathing suit and then he went under his hand. And then he touched my privates.
It sounds like A.C. could have been coached by someone to say, “He put his hand under my bathing suit . . .” , but it didn’t quite come out right.
Gittens: Okay. Did he put his hand inside your bathing suit, or outside.
A.C. Inside.
Gittens: Okay, and he touched your privates or?
A.C. Yeah.
Gittens: Okay, when he touched your privates did he do anything with his hand?
A.C. He just touched it.
Gittens: Okay. Did he only touch it like this or did he do something else?
A.C. He was touching it like this because I was with my bathing suit and I was trying to swim. And then when I was trying to swim when I did it wrong he went under my bathing suit.
Gittens: Okay. When he touched your private did his hand move around or stay still?
A.C. He keep his hand still.
Gittens: Okay. Did his hand go inside your private or stay outside?
A.C. A little bit outside.
Gittens: Well, let me ask you . . . did the man’s finger go inside your private or something else?
A.C. Inside my private.
He kept asking her the same question until he received the answer he wanted. Clearly, the detective was manipulating the child to secure the harshest possible charge against De Aragon — sexual battery. Does the child even understand what the detective means? We already know that the officer who responded to the complaint reported that no penetration had occurred, so why was this detective pursuing this line of questioning when it was clear the child denied it in both interviews? Gittens kept at it, and she told him that the coach also put his hand inside the butt area of her swimsuit, but based on the questioning and the responses, it does not seem like the child understands what the detective is talking about.
Gittens: So did he touch your private, then your butt or . . . tell me. Tell me what happened.
A.C. First I was on the bus — and the person on the bus she was staying on the bus. And then I got started and when they tapped me on the head, I had to go this way with my friends. And then when we were doing things what I was saying. And then after that we were playing and kicking. We were playing red light and green light.
He attempts to refocus her but doesn’t seem to be successful.
Gittens: When the man was touching you, was he showing you how to swim?
A.C. Yeah. He was showing some other kids. And then — we were going, my other friends. They were on this side, and my other friends were on this side.
Gittens wrapped up the interview shortly after that, having secured his first sexual battery charge. A.C. was unable to identify De Aragon in a photo line-up just after the interview.
Gittens interviewed B.E. next. She was crying hysterically as she entered the room, so he allowed her mother to stay for the interview. This interview is very important because the child told the detective that a boy from school touched her, and that a grownup had never touched her inappropriately.
Gittens: Has anyone ever touched you on your parts that they’re not supposed to touch?
B.E. Nods.
Gittens: Who touched you there?
B.E. Elijah.
Gittens: Huh?
B.E. Elijah.
Gittens: Elijah? Who is that?
B.E. Someone from my class.
Gittens: Somebody from your class touched you there named Elijah? Okay. A boy or a grownup?
B.E. A boy.
Gittens: A boy? Okay. Has anybody else touched you on your private? (B.E. shakes her head no) No? Okay. So, besides Elijah has any grownup touched you on your private there?
B.E. No.
At this point the detective should be considering the possibility that the child may have lied in the initial police report about the swim coach. Was it possible that it was the classmate, not the coach? Instead, he keeps pushing — even resorting to the use of a toilet paper roll and pen to simulate sexual penetration, in an effort to coax the child into admitting that penetration had occurred. He was determined to secure a second sexual battery charge.
Gittens: Besides mommy from bathing you there, has any grownup ever touched you there?
B.E.No.
Gittens: It’s okay. You can tell me. Mommy said it’s okay to tell me. Any grownup ever touch you there? Huh? Yes or no? You’re nodding yes?
B.E. (mumbling)
Gittens: I want to be sure I understand you. Okay? So, can you say yes or no? Which one?
B.E. I’m scared.
Gittens: Don’t be scared. No one’s going to hurt you. I promise.
B.E. Yes.
Gittens: So who was the grownup that touched you there?
B.E. I don’t know his name. Someone who works at the pool. And he did it to everybody that had on a bathing suit two-piece.
(skipping some of the dialogs)
Gittens: So, tell me about it. Tell me how the man touched you there.
B.E.I don’t remember.
Gittens: What were you doing at the time?
B.E. I was in the pool.
Gittens: You’re in the pool? Okay. Were you learning to swim? Yeah? And there were other kids there too? Okay. And were you by yourself with the man at the pool? No? Other kids were there? Were the other kids sitting on the wall? Yeah? Okay. So, then you went out when it was your turn? Okay. And was it then that he touched you there? Yeah? Okay. And you had on a two-piece bathing suit? Yeah? Okay. And he used his hand to touch you there? Yes or no?
B.E. Yeah.
Gittens: Did his fingers touch you there? Yeah? Okay. Was it inside your bathing suit or on the outside?
B.E. Inside.
Gittens: Inside? Okay. So, here we have a roll of toilet paper. Right? Right now where is the pen?
B.E. On the outside.
Gittens: On the outside? Okay, now where’s the pen?
B.E. On the inside.
Gittens: Were his fingers on the outside or did it go inside?
B.E. Inside.
Gittens assumed the child understood what he was referring to with this ridiculous pen demonstration, but I don’t believe it’s at all clear that she did . . . and it’s quite possible she interpreted the pen inside to mean inside the bathing suit. Remember that the police officer the night before reported that no penetration occurred.
Gittens then asked the child to pretend the pen is the coach’s finger, and show him how much of the pen went “inside.” The child points to a spot on the pen. That resulted in the second sexual battery charge. B.E. did identify De Aragon in a photo line-up, so this was enough for probable cause. De Aragon was immediately arrested and taken to the police station.
A third six-year-old girl, A.P. was interviewed the following day. She was in B.E.’s class, and it was established during later depositions that the two girls were friends and had discussed the touching. B.E. told her mother that the man touched A.P. too. B.E. then sent an email to A.P’s mother about this, and police were later contacted.
A.P.’s mother told police that her daughter was in the pool, then went to get a drink, and the lifeguard touched her . . . so this was very different than what the other girls had described. But Gittens didn’t ask A.P. anything consistent with her mother’s statement. He stuck with the same script . . . Did it occur while you were in the pool, etc? A.P. said she would scream if anyone touched her private parts . . . yet she didn’t scream at the pool that day. Gittens conducted the same toilet paper roll demo that worked well with B.E., but A.P. maintained that the pen remained outside the toilet paper roll — so no sexual battery charge this time.
B.E.’s mother also told police a contradictory story. She said that her daughter told her that the coach lined up all the girls wearing two-piece bathing suits and touched all of them. In fact, another lifeguard working that day described how she was the one who split the class in half for the lesson, and it was simply the first ten children who were sent to have their lesson with De Aragon. This apparently wasn’t a red flag to police that the stories weren’t matching up with what the children had allegedly described. Also, the mothers of B.E. and A.P. denied knowing each other, and denied that their girls had ever been to each other’s homes, even though the children said that they had.
The investigation was over at the time of De Aragon’s arrest. Gittens never attempted to determine whether A.P. and B.E. may have jointly planned to falsely accuse their instructor. He did not look into B.E.’s classmate Elijah, despite the fact that she’d named him as the person who did the inappropriate touching during her police interview. Shouldn’t he have considered the possibility that she (and A.P.) may have implicated De Aragon to protect Elijah? Someone that they would see at school each day? He did not question the other classmates to see if they’d observed anything at the pool that day.
Since A.P. and B.E. had been to each other’s homes, the parents may have been friends too, and there may have been collusion to frame De Aragon by coaching the children. Gittens never considered the possibility, or that the parents of these two girls may have known the parents of A.C., the third girl who attended a different school. A.C.’s swim lesson was actually scheduled right before the other girls’ lesson, so it’s quite possible the children knew each other from that, but Gittens never asked.
Gittens also failed to consider the possibility that the parents may have had had financial motives to make false claims. He never arranged for the children to be medically examined, did not collect their bathing suits for DNA, and did not inquire if the pool facility had cameras that may have captured the events of that day. In fact, no investigation took place at all, and the parents were actually brought in to make sworn statements after the arrest.
A spokesman with the Broward Sheriff’s Office informed the public about the arrest on the local news. He stated that he believed this man to be a predator, and asked the public to come forward if they had any information. No one ever came forward.
Detective Gittens was demoted from Detective of the Special Victim’s Unit to Deputy a few months after this incident. In his deposition, he stated that it was due to personal reasons. During a pre-trial hearsay hearing a judge was curious about the demotion and even asked the prosecutor if there was a reason why the detective was no longer a detective with the the SVU. He wondered if it was related to his interview technique. He referenced the end of one of the girl’s interviews in which the detective told the child that he believed her.
“It’s fundamentally flawed for him to say at the end we believe you. It’s fundamentally flawed for him to say at the end of the interview for him to tell the child he won’t do this to anyone else. There’s a huge problem with that because you are now making sure the child is now married to her statement and she has to stand by that statement now. She can never recant because she’s now the hero. They believe her and he’s the monster because of her testimony.”
Is it possible Gittens was demoted because he was involved in a set-up? He moved very quickly and did not conduct a proper investigation. Did he have something to gain?
Depositions
Fifteen months after the accusations were made, De Aragon’s private attorney, Scott Janowitz deposed the parents, the children, the detective, and the teachers.
A.C. was very quick to mention the touching. It seemed obvious she had been coached. Janowitz did a poor job questioning the witnesses, failing to ask open questions much like the detective.
Q. When you got into the pool, where did he first touch you?
A. In my private part.
This is clearly inconsistent with the earlier story — that she was touched while he was helping her swim.
Q. When you first got into the pool, he immediately touched your private part or did he touch some other part of your body?
A. No. First he keep pushing me and pushing me. And then until he just touched my private part. And then we were done I went home. And then, like in the night time I tell my mom, and then my dad came, and then my dad called the police.
A.C. did not seem to understand any questions about penetration.
B.E. was reluctant to discuss this again.
Q. Do you remember a day in which the swim instructor touched you? (Again, the attorney’s line of questioning was exactly like Gittens’)
A.No.
Q. Okay. Do you remember a time where the swim teacher put his hands inside your bathing suit?
A.No.
Then Janowitz began asking her about private parts and at that point she responded “yes” when asked about the touching. B.E. stated clearly that his hands remained outside her private part, thus no penetration. Stupidly, Janowitz was trying to encourage her to admit to the penetration, and even brought up the toilet paper roll demonstration. He asked her if she knew a boy named Elijah, and she said she did not.
Incentives to lie
Sometimes children are coached to lie about sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it’s common in divorce and child custody cases. One parent will accuse the other of sexually abusing the children to win full custody. Sometimes teachers, daycare workers, relatives, and youth counselors are falsely accused. The Tonya Craft case is well known — a kindergarten teacher falsely accused of sexually abusing three girls. A possible motive was that one of the mothers was upset that Craft didn’t believe her child was ready for first grade. A vendetta can be the incentive, and children can be coached. Craft had a strong defense team and was ultimately acquitted, but many aren’t so lucky. These cases are difficult because the physical proof isn’t needed to win a conviction. The child’s story is often enough.
One of the other incentives is financial. A false allegation can result in a massive lawsuit. In fact, at a hearsay hearing before trial, Judge Bailey was considering any possible motives for the children to have made false claims, and one of the things he referenced was civil lawsuits.
“I don’t find any motive to fabricate, as far as some of these cases end up in lawsuits, and civil actions, and so on. I don’t find anything of that nature here. It may be a question of whether because there’s a discussion at the school going on, that there’s no motive to fabricate.”
The judge stated that he didn’t see anything of that nature, however, there had been a pre-suit filing just five weeks after the alleged incidents. It was filed against the schools and the City of Deerfield Beach by A.C.’s and B.E.’s mothers, yet De Aragon’s attorney, Scott Janowitz did not bring it to the court’s attention. In fact, at trial, both women denied that they’d gone to the attorney together which was odd since both their names were on the documents. During De Aragon’s trial in May 2017, one of the mothers was asked if she was planning to pursue a civil lawsuit. She stated that she had no plans to do so.
In June 2017, De Aragon was convicted of capital sexual battery, three counts of lewd and lascivious acts and one count of battery. The first charge carries an automatic sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The children all testified, yet much like the questioning by police and during the depositions, claims of actual penetration were unclear, despite lots of coaxing. There’s a hearsay exception in cases like this, with children under the age of twelve, so all of the mothers were able to testify about what the children allegedly told them about the touching. All three women cried on the stand, even though they did not cry during any of their interviews or depositions. And this was two years later.
It didn’t matter that the sexual battery charge was never confirmed through testimony, because the jury was shown the taped interviews of the children and the responses to the toilet paper roll demonstrations were accepted as the children having admitted to there being penetration. The defense case centered around witnesses who were at the pool that day. Many lifeguards and teachers testified that they did not witness anything unusual, and that none of the children reported being touched inappropriately. At the sentencing hearing, De Aragon’s family testified about his character and how he’d been swimming since he was very young, and loved teaching people of all ages how to swim. Both of his parents were coaches as well. The family is obviously devastated.
In November 2017 a civil suitwas filed by all three families against the school, the City of Deerfield Beach, and Francisco De Aragon. A quick look at their public records revealed that one of the fathers is currently being sued for $170,000 in a lawsuit that was initiated close to the time of the accusations against De Aragon. Another father was arrested in 2018 for domestic violence and drugs. One of the mothers has a history of foreclosures. Maybe police should have investigated the families. The lawsuit could potentially yield a multi-million dollar award. Could this have been an incentive for what appears to be obvious false allegations? Did the families conspire to put an innocent man in prison for life for money? It certainly seems possible.
As an advocate for the wrongfully convicted, I became interested in this case after Francisco’s wife, Savannah posted about it on a social media site. I read the articles, and had to learn more. She provided me with the case files, and I’ve spent many hours reading through everything. I am convinced he is innocent because it defies common sense that any abuse could have occurred unnoticed in a public pool with dozens of people around. I will do what I can to raise awareness to this case, and hopefully one day he will be cleared of these charges.
You can listen to an exclusive jailhouse interview by WFORTV that occurred shortly after the conviction. De Aragon has appealed his conviction, but things seem to be moving rather slowly. I will post updates on this site.
Is it really true that one should never talk to police? While many wish to speak to police to “clear” themselves of suspicion, a lot can go wrong, so most attorneys advise their clients to remain silent. Exonerations certainly highlight the need for vigilance to avoid becoming wrongly convicted. We now know that many wrongful convictions are the result of law enforcement’s inaccurate statements from unrecorded interviews, or coerced confessions, or twisted words. There are many strong reasons to remain silent, and popular videos warn people to protect themselves. It’s a basic right that should certainly be exercised.
But, please understand that your silence can be used against you in today’s corrupted justice system. The Jason Young case illustrates this. A mistake on the part of Young’s attorneys resulted in the jury being told that he had ignored two civil complaints launched against him during the course of a murder investigation. Responding would have forced him to waive his 5th amendment right. At the advice of his attorney, he ignored the complaints because he was under investigation for the murder of his wife. Please read here to understand how these legal maneuvers pushed him into a corner. He continues to pay for his choice to remain silent, as he lost his recent bid for a new trial.
History
November 3, 2006 — Michelle Young found murdered in her home
2008 — Michelle’s family filed wrongful death suit, child custody suit against Young. Young did not respond.
December 15, 2009 — Jason Young arrested for the murder of Michelle Young
June 2011 — Trial — Mistrial declared — Jurors voted 8: not guilty, 4: guilty
March 2012 — Trial 2 — State introduced inadmissible evidence per NC statute 1-149 — Guilty verdict
April 1, 2014 — NC Court of Appeals grants Young a new trial citing that Judge Stephens abused his discretion by allowing the civil suit testimony.
August 21, 2015 — NC Supreme Court reverses CoA decision citing that his attorneys failed to preserve his grounds for appeal based on statute 1-149, as they never cited it in court.
June 15, 2017 — MAR hearing for ineffective assistance of counsel for attorneys’ failure to research inclusion of civil case, failure to properly object to its inclusion.
August 29, 2017 — Judge Ridgeway’s decision denying Young a new trial.
There is a lot to the case, but understand that there was no evidence connecting Young to the murder. There was a lot of unsupported circumstantial evidence, (much of which has been completely refuted on this blog site and in my book) and the state’s weak case resulted in an 8-4 vote for acquittal and a mistrial.
The prosecution used unlawful tactics to ensure a conviction in trial two. First, they asserted that Young’s silence was proof of his guilt — that surely he would have responded to the civil complaints if he was innocent. They stated that he had much to lose — custody of his daughter and four-million dollars in life insurance by maintaining his silence. But remember that he was following the advice of his attorney to refrain from talking during an ongoing investigation. Young hoped that police would solve the crime and absolve him of any involvement, and he could then regain custody of his child. He was using common sense and refusing to answer questions, as was his right.
Secondly, the prosecution elicited severely prejudicial testimony from a witness who stated that Judge Stephens (the very judge presiding over the murder trial) had declared Jason Young the slayer in a default judgment after he failed to respond to the wrongful death lawsuit.
Everyone knows that a jury is never to consider silence of the accused as proof of guilt, but the prosecution presented it, the judge allowed it, and the defense failed to properly object to it. Opinions of the judge about the case are also prohibited, yet the jury heard that the judge believed he was guilty of murder in the wrongful death suit.
As a result, Young was convicted . . . and is now immersed in a lengthy appeal process to undo the injustice.
The subject of the appeal has been based on a long standing statute that forbids the use of civil case information to assert the truth of the matter presented — to prove that he’s guilty of the murder.
No pleading can be used in a criminal prosecution against the party as proof of a fact admitted or alleged in it.
The reason it’s forbidden is because the threshold of proof in a civil case is low. Jason’s trial attorneys failed to cite statute 1-149 in their objection to the prejudicial civil testimony. It was a big mistake that they readily admit. The North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned the conviction citing that the judge abused his discretion by allowing the testimony. Unfortunately, the NC Supreme Court later reversed the decision, stating that the trial attorneys failed to properly preserve Young’s right to appeal since they never cited the statute in their objection. Note: If your attorney messes up, you will be the one to suffer the consequences. How many average citizens would know anything about a statute? Most people simply trust that their attorney has it covered. Chances are they don’t.
The Supreme Court sent the remainder of Young’s appeal issues back to the Superior court. In June, Judge Ridgeway heard arguments based on the same subject, but this time it was about Young’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and now, there’s a loophole that’s being manipulated. There are permissible exceptions to 1-149 which allow portions of civil case records, as long as it’s not used to assert the truth of the matter.
One of the exceptions is impeachment. If for example the accused makes one statement at a civil trial and a contradictory statement at a criminal trial, it is permissible to point out that inconsistency. This would be a permitted exception to 1-149. However, in the Young case, the prosecution never cited that they were presenting the civil testimony to impeach Young. And in fact, they are not able to claim they are using it for impeachment purposes because Young did not testify at the second trial.
So, what was their reason? At the Court of Appeals hearing, the government claimed they brought in the civil testimony because Young testified at his first trial and described specific details about his alibi. They have no way to prove he was being dishonest. They hated that he remained silent all that time . . . that he ignored the civil suits . . . that he waited until he had all the state’s evidence before speaking. But that’s his absolute right to do so. SO, they claim they used the civil testimony to illustrate that “See! If all he had to do was explain those minute details about his alibi, he had NO reason to remain silent by ignoring the civil complaints. His silence must be an indication of guilt!” There is no legal exemption of Statute 1-149 that permits such testimony.
Further, the testimony about the trial judge’s opinion of Young’s guilt in the civil matter IS clearly offered to assert the truth of the accusation. How could it be anything but that?
In my opinion, Judge Ridgeway was wrong in his opinion. He stated ” The admission of the civil pleadings was consistent with the Supreme Court’s explanation of N.C. General Statute 1-149 — the civil pleadings and evidence relating thereto was probative for impeachment purposes of defendant’s testimony at his first trial, to discredit his alibi, and to raise questions concerning defendant’s conduct in the several years following the murder.” Again, they can’t use ones silence as impeachment.
The case will now go back to the North Carolina Court of Appeal. I am hopeful they will find that the ineffective counsel claim is valid, and it’s so disturbing that all of this could have been avoided if public officials would behave in an ethical manner, instead of breaking the rules to “win.”
After watching Making a Murderer as a wrongful conviction advocate, I felt compelled to research the case further. I was pleased when the transcripts and reports became publicly available. I’ve focused most of my attention on the credibility of the bonfire story and the discovery, handling, and reporting of the bone evidence. I did so because I found it so difficult to believe that a body was burned in the location alleged — the burn pit behind Steven Avery’s trailer. The photos do not support the claim. My disbelief has been confirmed in my mind by a combination of evolved witness statements and inconsistencies.
It was shocking that no one bothered to document the presence of this very important evidence allegedly found on the Avery property. (The word allegedly wouldn’t need to be stated if they had simply done their job, and photographed and filmed it.) Not a single photo of a bone on site exists, despite the fact that the state crime lab sent photographers to the property. Yet everyone, including the defense team, seemed to accept the word of the investigators, despite the lack of documentation. I will highlight inconsistencies observed as I reviewed the statements and testimony from those involved in the discovery of the bones in the burn pit.
Sergeant Jost, of the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Office was the first to discover the bones in and near the burn pit. This discovery was a huge break in the case, in fact Jost’s report describes the light bulb moment when he realized the burn pit behind Steven Avery’s trailer had been overlooked. His report will be highlighted, but first let’s examine the bonfire story.
Was there a bonfire on 10/31/05?
In an earlier blog article, I highlighted the fact that none of the many initial witnesses interviewed recalled a bonfire that night, but the statements evolved in subsequent interviews. This is one of the clearest examples of an organized effort to coerce the witnesses to offer statements consistent with the official story — that bones were found in the burn pit. Investigators needed the bonfire for their story to work. In later interviews, witnesses changed their statements to reflect observation of a fire in the burn pit, and the fire grew in size on third and fourth interviews. Ultimately everyone accepted that there was a bonfire that night. In fact, in Brendan Dassey’s first interrogation interview, the police told him there was a bonfire that night. It had become a “fact” by then. Please read more about the evolution of statements in this detailed summary here.
This is really important, because the absence of a bonfire that night changes everything. It goes a long way toward refuting the claim that Halbach’s body was burned behind Avery’s trailer, and the lie becomes circumstantial evidence that the discovery of remains on the property was manufactured evidence, just like the key. Many like to claim that the bones were planted, but I go one step further and suggest that they didn’t even need to be planted. Maybe they were never there at all. There is no proof. Someone simply supplied Dr. Eisenberg with a box of bones from who knows where. Done. There is a reason that courts require documentation of evidence and chain of custody. It is too easy for fraud to occur, but no one objected to the inclusion of the evidence, so all of the bonfire/bones testimonies were in.
Here are portions of Jost’s narrative from November 8, 2005:
“>11/08/05@ 1247 Hrs .: I, Sgt. Jost, drove Unit 70 down to that property. I allowed Officer Joanne Mignon to take a break. Officer Mignon gave me the log sheet, and she then drove Unit 70 back to the command post area. While I was waiting for B&M WASTE REMOVAL to return from Green Bay,I walked toward the south encl of the property, still keeping watch on the septic tank. While at the SW corner of the property, I noted the burn pit area which was located to the south of the garage for STEVEN AVERY’S residence.
While I was standing near the SW corner of the STEVEN AVERY property, I noted several items lying within close proximity to the burn pile. The items were as follows:
There were numerous rings of wire lying in and around the area of the burn pile. I recognized these as steel beltings from inside tires.
There was a tire which had not been burned. This was on the SE corner of the burn pit area.
There was a rubber mallet which was on the grass, SE of the pile.
There was a metal hammer, believed to be a claw hammer, lying on the ground, NE of the pile.
There was a gravel shovel which was tipped upside-down, located on the west side of the pile.
There was a burned/charred metal scraper with a wooden handle attached which was laying NE of the pile, on the grass area.
Earlier, when I had been in the command post area, I remembered someone mentioning that JOSHUA RANDANDT had checked on his hunting trailers on Monday evening. He saw there was a large fire burning near STEVEN AVERY’S property. The fire was described as being “larger than usual.”
Let’s examine Josh Radandt’s statements to police.
This information was included in Avery’s recent motion.
Similar to other witnesses, Radandt’s statements evolved. Initially there was only mention of a burn barrel fire, but investigators likely coerced him to modify his statements in a subsequent interview to “open burn pit, large fire.”
Update: Radandt signed a new affidavit in February, 2017 that describes the coercion. If it happened to him, and we know Brendan Dassey was coerced, why stop there? It’s likely ALL the witnesses were coerced about the bonfire.
It is interesting that Jost became suspicious that a body may have been burned in the burn pit based only on a described burn barrel fire. But statements would confirm that Jost’s intuition was right (absent documentation of the findings).
Jost’s statement, continued
I, Sgt. Jost, started to piece all of this information together. I felt this area, if not already looked at, should be checked for any type of evidence. When Officer Mignon returned, I spoke with her about my feelings of the burn pile. She stated she also felt that something was unusual with that area. Upon returning to the command post, I made contact with CASO Lt. Sippel. I explained to him that I felt the burn pit area specifically should be checked further. He responded to the property with me. Without disturbing the area, we walked close to the burn pit to take a further look. I mentioned to
him that due to the aggressiveness of the dog, it was very possible that the other K9 handlers may not have walked their dogs this close to the area. This also may have hindered officers from specifically going to this location.
As we were looking at the ashes lying in the area, it was evident that someone used some type of front end loader to remove ground from this particular location. The ashes were inside this area. As we looked at the ash pile, we observed that there was a bone lying near the south side of the pile, on the east side. Without disturbing the bone, I looked at it as closely as I could. It appeared as though it may have been a vertebrae bone. I could see another bone in the pile. At this time, we decided that someone from the Crime Lab or DCI needed to further investigate the area.
I, Sgt. Jost, remained at the burn pit area. A short time later, I believe it was TOM STURTEVANT from DCI who walked over to the burn pit with one of his female partners. Utilizing a small twig that was present, TOM moved the bone mentioned above. Without touching it, it still appeared to be some type of vertebrae bone. He moved some of the steel belting wires which were located on the east side of the burn pile and found there appeared to be several other items which appeared to be burns. One piece appeared to be in the shape of a part of a skull.
Based on this information, I returned to the command post to speak with the Crime Lab. Members of the Crime Lab responded to the scene. Using their sifting equipment, they sifted through the majority of the burn pile. They located numerous bones and teeth which were present among the ashes. These items were later given to the CASO for processing. No further details to add.
To summarize — Jost thought the burn pit seemed important, he discussed it with Sippel, the two of them walked over to the pit, discovered what appeared to be a vertebrae, Agent Sturdivant showed up, Jost went back to the command center to inform the crime lab of their findings.
Next, let’s look at Sippel’s report.
Lieutenant Sippel of the Calumet Sheriff’s office accompanied Jost to the fire pit. Here is his account of the discovery of bones.
It’s already obvious that their stories are inconsistent. In Sippel’s version, he went to the command post to inform them about the possible bones they’d discovered; Jost remained at the burn pit with Sturdivant.
Finally, let’s look at Sturdivant’s account. Keep in mind that neither Jost or Sippel testified at any of the preliminary hearings or the Avery and Dassey trials, therefore, these inconsistencies would not be brought to light.
Special Agent Sturdivant
Interestingly, Sturdivant describes how he was assigned to look at items of interest, but how was he assigned to look at Jost’s discovery of the bones, when both Jost and Sippel had just discovered them when Sturdivant walked up?
Sturdivant describes a red flag near the bone Jost had discovered. Interestingly, Jost never mentioned placing a red flag to mark the item. Maybe the inconsistent story is the red flag.
Sturdivant claims to have been the one to contact the crime lab unit, and John Ertl testified that he received a call from Sturdivant requesting the sifting equipment. If true, it means that Sippel and Jost did not notify the crime lab of their discovery as they described in their reports. These inconsistencies may seem inconsequential, but it is circumstantial evidence of deception and possible fabricated evidence. This aspect of the investigation should have been memorable to all involved, so why do their stories differ? How was Sturdivant summoned to the location? Why weren’t Jost and Sippel called to testify?
Is it possible this “discovery” was made up? It’s interesting to note that Sippel described seeing the bones on top of crusted ash. This is circumstantial evidence that they were placed there OR there is also the possibility that the investigators were dishonest, and that no bones were actually found at all. That is the reason documentation is so important. The issues with the bones does not stop here. Please read more about the bone evidence here and here. Thus far, nothing about this case holds up to even a minimum amount of scrutiny.
Jason Young appeared in court on Thursday for a hearing to discuss a motion for appropriate relief. The claim is that his trial attorneys — Brian Collins and Mike Klinkosum failed to do necessary legal research to counter prejudicial testimony the state planned to present at the second trial in March, 2012.
Timeline
November 3, 2006 — Michelle Young found murdered in her home
December 15, 2009 — Jason Young arrested for murder of Michelle Young
June 2011 — Trial — Mistrial declared — Jurors voted 8: not guilty, 4: guilty
March 2012 — Trial 2 — State introduced inadmissible evidence per NC statute 1-149 — Conviction
April 1, 2014 — NC Court of Appeals grants Young a new trial due to the inadmissible evidence creating an unfair trial
August 21, 2015 — NC Supreme Court reverses CoA decision citing that his attorneys needed to properly object to the evidence citing the statute. They did not.
June 15, 2017 — MAR hearing for ineffective assistance of counsel
After the state was unable to secure a conviction in the first trial, they made a decision to solicit testimony about civil lawsuits filed against Jason by Michelle’s family. Statute 1-149 prohibits the inclusion of civil proceedings, specifically
No pleading can be used in a criminal prosecution against the party as proof of a fact admitted or alleged in it.
Young’s trial attorneys knew the state was planning to introduce the evidence. A simple legal search would have shown that the evidence was inadmissible per the above statute, but they failed to conduct research, and simply objected based on rule 403, which was not good enough according to the Supreme Court. They were required to object based on the specific 1-149 statute, according to the decision.
Why was the evidence damaging?
Before Jason’s arrest, his attorney advised him not to respond to the wrongful death and child custody suits because he would have had to submit to a deposition and psychological evaluation — essentially removing his 5th amendment right to remain silent. Please refer to this article for more details about that. His failure to respond to the wrongful death suit allowed a judge to issue a default judgement — basically declaring a win for the plaintiffs. In this particular instance, the signing judge (Judge Stephens) was the same judge who presided over the murder trial. The default judgment declared Jason a Slayer as part of a Slayer statute and the plaintiffs were later awarded $15 million dollars by Judge Smith. The judges stated in the filings that based on the material included in the suit, they believed it was more likely than not that Jason was the killer.
One may think . . . Well, that sounds pretty convincing. Yes, but understand that Jason did not have the opportunity to defend himself against the claims because he didn’t respond. Even if he had, it’s unlikely he could have won, which was described in the article linked above. This is precisely why civil outcomes are not admissible in criminal cases. The burden of proof is much lower, and it would prejudice the jurors to hear that the accused was “found guilty” in a civil case. So, in the second trial, Judge Stephens allowed the state to introduce the civil testimony, but ruled
“that the fact that a wrongful death and declaratory judgement action had been filed and that defendant, the primary beneficiary under Ms. Young’s policy of life insurance, elected to be defaulted and in response to the wrongful death action and permitted by law for the Court to enter a judgement disqualifying him from benefiting from the death of Michelle Young may be a factor, that is, might be relevant to any number of matters that the jury has already heard and will hear and are considering, and so I do believe it’s relevant and I do believe that the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.”
The jury heard this testimony from the clerk of court, Lorrin Freeman (now District Attorney). They heard that the same judge who was seated at the bench declared Jason the Slayer, and they also heard that the plaintiff’s attorney and Detective Spivey believed Jason was guilty of the murder through testimony about the civil filings. How could one possibly expect the jury to find him innocent after hearing this?! Young’s attorneys failed to object based on 1-149.
At the recent MAR hearing, Jason’s attorney, Robert Trenkle made the argument that they not only should have objected based on 1-149, but there is another statute that applies — NC 15A-1222 — which “prohibits the trial judge from expressing any opinion in the presence of the jury on any question or fact to be decided by the jury.” Certainly the testimony about the declaration of Slayer by the trial judge should have been barred!
Note that 1-149 can permit inclusion of evidence from the civil matters as long as it’s not used as proof of a fact. During oral arguments before the NC Court of Appeal, the state suggested that they brought in the civil testimony to impeach Young’s alibi. They attempted to make the case that since Young refused to respond to the civil summons and disqualified himself from collecting the $4 million life insurance pay-out, that he must have had a strong need to avoid discussion of his alibi . . . that he wanted to wait until he learned the state’s evidence so that he could fully explain his alibi to the jury at his criminal trial. According to them, his failure to respond was the issue. If that’s their assertion, then only evidence describing his failure to respond should have been included in the second trial. That was not the case. Note that the state never stated at trial that they were introducing the civil matters for impeachment purposes, and how could they, since Young did not testify at the second trial? Nonetheless, they got away with it.
At the MAR hearing, Trenkle pointed out that even if civil suit testimony was used as the state asserted — for impeachment purposes, the testimony should have been limited to his failure to respond to the suits, and NOT about him being declared the Slayer and opinions through affidavits that he murdered his wife. This point is so strong, that I can’t imagine how Judge Ridgeway could possibly disagree. Plus it was clear that the civil testimony resulted in a conviction because without it, the jury voted 8 to 4 to acquit Jason.
The judge will need some time to review the materials before making a ruling. To me, the most disturbing part of this is the fact that the prosecution violated long established statutes to win a conviction in a case with very weak circumstantial evidence, at best. Did they not know about 1-149 either? Isn’t it common sense that that type of testimony would be forbidden? If they knew that and intentionally proceeded regardless, that is extremely unethical. This case has been going on for a long time now. Jason Young is in prison because those who should be trusted to conduct themselves ethically and professionally screwed up. It seems to be just a game to them. “Let’s see if we can get away with bringing in the civil matters!” Yep, good strategy. Well, it was in fact a good strategy because it worked, and Jason suffers the consequences, and the case remains unsolved.
For more details about the case that have never been shared with the public, please read Absence of Evidence.
This video provides highlights of the MAR testimony.
Mark Carver was convicted in 2011 for the murder of UNC student, Ira Yarmolenko. Yarmolenko’s body was found near her car, at the bottom of a steep embankment at the Catawba River in Gaston County, North Carolina. Carver was fishing nearby with his cousin, Neal Cassada.
Evidence used to convict Carver was “touch DNA”, a mixed sample. Reports are now indicating that this type of evidence is unreliable, and can even be the result of secondary transfer. The vehicle which was swabbed for DNA was also contaminated as several police officers touched the vehicle during the investigation.
The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence who is representing Carver requested DNA reports that were never shared with the defense, as well as additional DNA testing. The judge is allowing it.
Aside from the DNA, there was no other evidence linking the men to the crime. It is frightening that people can be convicted with nothing but flimsy evidence. Hopefully this new testing will finally free Mark Carver.
The Charlotte Observer has been covering the story.
On November 3, 2006 Meredith Fisher dialed 911 to report that she had just found her sister lying on the floor and that she believed she was dead. Paramedics arrived and confirmed the death. Her husband, Jason who was out of town on a business trip would be convicted of the murder in 2012 with no evidence linking him to the murder.
Investigators observed that two of the three drawers were missing from a jewelry box. Why would the killer(s) take the drawers? Why not simply take the valuables? Michelle’s diamond wedding ring set was removed from her finger. Also, Young’s family noticed that expensive jewelry was missing, while the costume jewelry was left behind.
While researching this case in an effort to find new evidence that could prove Jason’s innocence, I came across an evidence sheet in which Detective Spivey obtained the jewelry box from Meredith Fisher following the first trial. I was surprised because I assumed the item would have been stored as evidence. However, I learned from Jason’s family that police swabbed the box for DNA and placed it back in the home. It was there when the house was released following the two week investigation.
Jason never entered the home again after leaving for his business trip the evening of November 2. He knew it would be too painful to ever go back there. He put it up for sale and he and Cassidy moved in with family. When the house finally sold, Jason’s family packed everything up and put most of the belongings into a rented storage facility nearby. The box would have been stored there, though the Youngs didn’t give it much thought. They were all coping with a lot, as there were online vigilante attackers harassing them, and it seemed like investigators were focused solely on Jason — despite the fact that he was verified checking into a hotel one-hundred and seventy miles away the night/morning that Michelle was murdered and no evidence pointed toward Jason.
Meredith likely took possession of the box in the spring of 2009 — shortly after Judge Stephens issued a default judgment against Jason in a civil wrongful death lawsuit launched by Michelle’s mother, Linda Fisher. Jason’s storage shed was accessed by Linda and Meredith around that time. According to Jason’s family, they informed the storage manager that they were entitled to access Jason’s belongings as a result of the civil judgement. Whether it was legal or not, they did take things. The jewelry box must have been taken at that time. If not then, it’s very puzzling how she could have ended up with it.
The jewelry box had been a special gift for Michelle. Jason’s mother, Pat Young had it hand-made for her. Why would Meredith have wanted a jewelry box with missing drawers that should have held no sentimental value to her? And why weren’t investigators puzzled about it? How did they find out that Meredith had the box? That is unclear.
In 2011, a DNA swab from the box was sent to LabCorp for more sensitive testing than the SBI’s capabilities. Analyst, Shawn Weiss identified x-chromosome (female) DNA from the swab. Since investigators only provided LabCorp with Michelle’s and Jason’s DNA profiles to compare to the various swabs, it seems no one has ever attempted to identify the origin of that female DNA on the box. They did of course eliminate Jason and Michelle as contributors.
Banana Republic Bag
On November 16 2006, investigators collected a Banana Republic bag while conducting the initial crime scene investigation. It is unclear if it is a store shopping bag or a purse/hand-bag/travel bag. The bag contained a slew of items, to include the following (from court bates stamp 002084): assorted receipts, travel documents, gift cards, photos, calendar, address book, scraps of paper with notes, names, and phone numbers, luggage tags, knife and sheath, answering machine, plug and power supply cord, financial records, and other miscellaneous documents. The investigator noted that it was collected for “trace evidence to reconstruct events.” The bag was sealed in a box where it likely remains as stored evidence. There is no indication that police ever attempted to test the bag or the items inside for DNA and finger-prints. The items are consistent with what one may expect to find in a large jewelry box like Michelle’s. In fact, at trial the defense asked Meredith what sort of items Michelle kept in the box. It’s been a while since I watched the trial, but I recall her saying that Michelle kept jewelry in there and also gift cards. That makes it even more likely that the bag may contain the contents of the jewelry box. Perhaps the killer(s) forgot to take it with them, or simply forgot it in the rush to clean up after the crime. Perhaps the bag is the key to determining who killed Michelle.
During closing arguments in Young’s first trial, the defense presented the jury with specific details of Young’s fuel purchases during his business trip beginning the evening of November 2, 2006 and into the next day. The evidence is compelling proof of innocence. The receipts line up perfectly with Young’s version of events. There is no logical explanation to refute this. Young would have had to somehow purchase fuel with cash along the way . . . but how would he have been able to ensure that his credit card fuel purchases would be consistent with him not driving back to Raleigh that night as alleged by the state? It seems practically impossible.
The alleged stop at 4 Brothers in King, North Carolina doesn’t account for it either. He would have run out of fuel before even arriving at that location. Further, he would have needed additional fuel before arriving at his customer location that morning. If the state would have been able to provide proof that he left the hotel that night, they would have had a strong case. They failed to do so.
Please watch this video to see what the jurors were shown. It’s unfortunate that the defense didn’t repeat this for the second trial. Maybe he wouldn’t have been convicted.
The parents of six-year-old A. C. called the police the evening of May 19th and reported that their daughter had been inappropriately touched by a swim coach that day. Officer Sobrino with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office responded and spoke first to the parents. They told the officer about the alleged inappropriate touching described by their daughter. The officer then spoke privately to A.C., and she told him she was in the pool and a man touched her private parts inside her bathing suit, but there was no penetration.
At this point the detective should be considering the possibility that the child may have lied in the initial police report about the swim coach. Was it possible that it was the classmate, not the coach? Instead, he keeps pushing — even resorting to the use of a toilet paper roll and pen to simulate sexual penetration, in an effort to coax the child into admitting that penetration had occurred. He was determined to secure a second sexual battery charge.
Is it really true that one should never talk to police? While many wish to speak to police to “clear” themselves of suspicion, a lot can go wrong, so most attorneys advise their clients to remain silent. Exonerations certainly highlight the need for vigilance to avoid becoming wrongly convicted. We now know that many wrongful convictions are the result of law enforcement’s inaccurate statements from unrecorded interviews, or coerced confessions, or twisted words. There are many strong reasons to remain silent, and popular 
but the statements evolved in subsequent interviews. This is one of the clearest examples of an organized effort to coerce the witnesses to offer statements consistent with the official story — that bones were found in the burn pit. Investigators needed the bonfire for their story to work. In later interviews, witnesses changed their statements to reflect observation of a fire in the burn pit, and the fire grew in size on third and fourth interviews. Ultimately everyone accepted that there was a bonfire that night. In fact, in Brendan Dassey’s first interrogation interview, the police told him there was a bonfire that night. It had become a “fact” by then. Please read more about the evolution of statements in this detailed summary 
Stop Wrongful Convictions 
