As I've said before, I don't really want to post details of any "movement." I'm just wary of the wrong people getting the info and using it to try to defeat any future actions on our part. But, we've got good news regarding things that could potentially constitute new evidence, or lead us to new evidence. Fingers crossed.
And, in other news, I heard from one of Michael's brothers, posting here as Jerry. Glad he found the blog, and me. It's nice to hear from a family member. Welcome!
As we approach December, we also approach the 33rd anniversary of Michael's (wrongful) conviction. Thirty three years. That's over 12,000 days. Twelve. Thousand. Days. In prison. This will be his 34th Christmas as a prisoner. Keep him in your thoughts.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Michael's Artwork
I have nothing new to share regarding our efforts to address Michael's wrongful conviction. But, I did think it might be nice to post these photos of two pieces of his art that I just received from him.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Latest
It's been a month since my last post. Just in case anyone is checking to see if there's any news, I wanted to post something.
There has been movement in the investigation. However, I don't feel it's prudent to post details in a public forum. I will say that a number of persons of interest have been located, two of whom have been interviewed. No small feat when you consider that the case is 33 years old! If you have an interest in the case and wish to receive a more detailed update, feel free to send me an email.
Also, remember that there's a facebook group, Justice for Michael Ustaszewski. Consider visiting us there. Thanks!
There has been movement in the investigation. However, I don't feel it's prudent to post details in a public forum. I will say that a number of persons of interest have been located, two of whom have been interviewed. No small feat when you consider that the case is 33 years old! If you have an interest in the case and wish to receive a more detailed update, feel free to send me an email.
Also, remember that there's a facebook group, Justice for Michael Ustaszewski. Consider visiting us there. Thanks!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
August 2010
It has been brought to my attention that some folks who have accessed this blog have had trouble following it. The reason it is not in "perfect" chronological order is because I have written as I have gathered info, had ideas, etc. But, the best way - for those who want to know as much as possible about Michael's case - is to use the Blog Archive to the right.
Click on 2009. Then click on November. Then, start with the lowest posting (i.e., Degrees of Separation). From there, work your way toward the present. I.e., then December 2009, then January 2010. And, again, within each month, start at the bottom, reading the lowest post first and work your way up.
This is not a "web site," but a blog. It is a free way of sharing this information. I cannot afford to maintain a "real" website about Michael's case so this is the next best thing.
I should add that the case history is confusing. I've read, and re-read, the transcripts, the police file, Michael's letters, etc. and I still get confused! So, if you're confused, you're not alone.
I have been asked about how people can help. Those of you in Ohio can help by writing to people in the state legislature or to newspapers. I have written to state legislators in Districts 46 (Sears), 47 (Walter), 48 (Brown), and 49 (Szollosi) as well as State Senator (District 2) Wagoner. I have also written to Rose Russell, a reporter at the Toledo Blade. Not that it's a real surprise, but none of these individuals has extended me the courtesy of a reply.
The biggest help of all, of course, would be fundraising. Through the generosity of one donor I was able to hire a private investigator to start working on the case. But, at $75/hour, money goes fast. He has developed some good leads, but I don't want to post those publicly, at least not just yet. Michael knows what is being done. If you have any way of raising funds or can make even a small donation yourself, please use the FundBunch link on the right of this page. Every little bit helps!
Again, if you can't help financially, please consider helping by spreading the word. It only takes one interested person in the "right" place to get the ball rolling!
That's it for now. If you have questions, feel free to contact me directly at msheridaneh@gmail.com. Thanks for reading!
Click on 2009. Then click on November. Then, start with the lowest posting (i.e., Degrees of Separation). From there, work your way toward the present. I.e., then December 2009, then January 2010. And, again, within each month, start at the bottom, reading the lowest post first and work your way up.
This is not a "web site," but a blog. It is a free way of sharing this information. I cannot afford to maintain a "real" website about Michael's case so this is the next best thing.
I should add that the case history is confusing. I've read, and re-read, the transcripts, the police file, Michael's letters, etc. and I still get confused! So, if you're confused, you're not alone.
I have been asked about how people can help. Those of you in Ohio can help by writing to people in the state legislature or to newspapers. I have written to state legislators in Districts 46 (Sears), 47 (Walter), 48 (Brown), and 49 (Szollosi) as well as State Senator (District 2) Wagoner. I have also written to Rose Russell, a reporter at the Toledo Blade. Not that it's a real surprise, but none of these individuals has extended me the courtesy of a reply.
The biggest help of all, of course, would be fundraising. Through the generosity of one donor I was able to hire a private investigator to start working on the case. But, at $75/hour, money goes fast. He has developed some good leads, but I don't want to post those publicly, at least not just yet. Michael knows what is being done. If you have any way of raising funds or can make even a small donation yourself, please use the FundBunch link on the right of this page. Every little bit helps!
Again, if you can't help financially, please consider helping by spreading the word. It only takes one interested person in the "right" place to get the ball rolling!
That's it for now. If you have questions, feel free to contact me directly at msheridaneh@gmail.com. Thanks for reading!
Monday, June 21, 2010
The 1979 Appeal
Just a comment on something I noticed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 9 February 1979.
The opinion reads, "The record contains overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of aggravated murder, including the testimony of Michael Morris, another participant, who disclosed the details of how he and defendant robbed and stabbed Henry Cordell [sic] to death. The testimony of Michael Morris and much additional corroborative evidence attains to that high degree of probative force and certainty which the law demands to support a conviction of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of aggravated murder. Judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County is affirmed..." [italics mine]
I don't know what evidence from the trial they reviewed. It surely isn't from the same transcripts I've read. The only corroborative evidence provided was the testimony of the fellow inmate who, having been charged with a first degree felony, was suddenly able to plead to a fourth degree felony. That was it for corroborative evidence.
Further, the "overview" provided in the opinion, as it appears in LexisNexis, states, "defendant made a statement that he had committed the crime." Who prepares these things? Nowhere, ever, did Michael make a statement that he had committed the crime. What a travesty that this appears in the the record, State of Ohio, Appellee v. Michael W. Ustaszewski, Appellant, C.A. No. L-77-299.
I keep reading, I keep thinking, I keep being shocked at how badly this whole thing played out...
The opinion reads, "The record contains overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of aggravated murder, including the testimony of Michael Morris, another participant, who disclosed the details of how he and defendant robbed and stabbed Henry Cordell [sic] to death. The testimony of Michael Morris and much additional corroborative evidence attains to that high degree of probative force and certainty which the law demands to support a conviction of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of aggravated murder. Judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County is affirmed..." [italics mine]
I don't know what evidence from the trial they reviewed. It surely isn't from the same transcripts I've read. The only corroborative evidence provided was the testimony of the fellow inmate who, having been charged with a first degree felony, was suddenly able to plead to a fourth degree felony. That was it for corroborative evidence.
Further, the "overview" provided in the opinion, as it appears in LexisNexis, states, "defendant made a statement that he had committed the crime." Who prepares these things? Nowhere, ever, did Michael make a statement that he had committed the crime. What a travesty that this appears in the the record, State of Ohio, Appellee v. Michael W. Ustaszewski, Appellant, C.A. No. L-77-299.
I keep reading, I keep thinking, I keep being shocked at how badly this whole thing played out...
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Jailhouse Informant
I thought, given my comment at the end of the previous post, that I would write a bit about the jailhouse informant - separately from all the other posts - and explain why it is I find his testimony so suspicious.
On 9 September, Detective Thomas Ross located Michael Morris at his job at a gas station. Morris ran. The following day, he was able to speak with Morris and, telling him that he was not a suspect, got Morris to agree to go to the Safety Building for "investigative purposes."
At trial, Ross said that he told Morris he was focusing on him "due to the fact that since the time of the homicide, he had not been at the YMCA, and that . . . he ran on me, and I felt there was probably involvement on his part. . ."
On the basis of Morris' statement implicating him, Michael Ustaszewski was arrested the following day, 11 September 1977. As he has every day since, Michael denied involvement in the crime.
The only evidence against Michael was the statement provided by the man who would become his co-defendant, Michael Morris. This was problematic for the prosecution. While it's not impossible to convict someone solely on the basis of a co-defendant's testimony, it's not the tightest case to make. No physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, no confession, just the statement of Morris. We're all in big trouble if that's all it takes to get convicted, but that's an issue for another post.
On Wednesday, 23 November, Michael appeared in court on a motion to suppress. At issue was the following exchange between Ross and Michael on 11 September. They are discussing Michael's claims regarding the man he claims to have been with on the night of the murder. Ross asks, "Between you and I, will you tell me what you did? Michael asks, "Is this going on tape now?" Ross replies, "Yes, it's going on tape, but it's a departmental tape. It's completely confidential." Michael responds, "All right. We was making love." Michael did not want to discuss, within earshot of other officers, what he was doing to keep money in his pocket.
Everything on the tape after the statement, "It's completely confidential" was ruled excluded. Note: This entire exchange between Ross and Michael is fascinating, but it's too lengthy to reproduce here.
The following day, Thanksgiving, 24 November, Ross again interviewed Morris. When asked, at Morris' trial, the purpose of that interview, Ross stated, "The purpose of that was to determine whether he was to testify against Michael Ustaszewski." Note: Again, the details are interesting, but too lengthy to reproduce in this post.
On Monday, 28 November, Michael Ustaszewski appeared in court. The state had requested a continuance. Michael's trial was rescheduled for 19 December. Michael was ordered released on his own recognizance (ROR'd). He was taken back to his cell at the county jail so that he could collect his belongings.
The man in one of the adjoining cells was Carl Edward G-, Jr.
G- had been arrested on 2 October and charged with aggravated robbery. Using a pipe as a weapon, he had robbed a store of $180. At Michael's trial, G- testified that he had first come into contact with Michael "about a month after [he] was there." That would mean early November.
Kuhnle [defense attorney]: Had you ever had any conversations with Mike prior to this time [the 28th] about his case?
G: No.
K: You had never discussed it, what he was in there for or anything like that?
G: No.
Several minutes later, Kuhnle asks, "During the period of time that you were in there with Mike, had he ever professed his innocence to you at all, said he didn't do it, said they have nothing on me?"
G: Yeah.
K: Then you did discuss this with Mike previously?
G: Well, that's about as far as it went.
Moments later,
K: He had never said anything previous to this time other than the fact that I didn't do it, they haven't got anything on me?
G: [nodded affirmatively]
Prior to the 28th when Michael came back to gather his belongings, he either had discussed the case with G-, or he had not. Within a matter of minutes, G- makes both claims, ultimately agreeing that Michael had professed his innocence.
Other details about this encounter include the fact that Michael allegedly entered his cell, number four, reached through the bars to G- in cell number five, pulled the covers off his head and said words to the effect of "Just don't tell anybody that I did it." I say "words to the effect" because G- was not at all clear in his testimony saying, ". . . and he told me it was OR bond, and he said, you know, he did it, that he got out of the case and stuff, you know" and so on.
Just to be clear, here's the picture: G-, after being pushed on this point, says that they had discussed the case and that Michael had said he was innocent. Then, being ROR'd, Michael reaches through the bars to G-'s cell - an inmate that he had known for fewer than four weeks - pulls the covers off his head, wakes him up, and tells him the he had, in fact, committed the crime. You be the judge.
Let's recap the timeline...
10 September - Michael Morris is arrested. Attorney: Paul Geller.
11 September - Michael Ustaszewski is arrested. Attorney: Carl Kuhnle.
2 October - Carl G- is arrested and charged with aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. His attorney? Paul Geller.
Early November - G- encounters Michael Ustaszewski for the first time.
While incarcerated near each other during those 3 to almost 4 weeks, Michael tells G- that he is innocent.
14 November - G- pleads not guilty to aggravated robbery.
24 November [Thanksgiving Day] - Detective Ross again interviews Morris.
28 November [Monday after Thanksgiving] - The state requests a continuance, releases Michael Ustaszewski on his own recognizance. Michael allegedly then tells G- he is guilty.
And, now - for the punchline.
7 December - G- goes to trial and pleads guilty to grand theft, a fourth degree felony. Upon the request of the detective [Poiry] to whom he allegedly volunteered the information about Michael, G- is released on his own recognizance, pending sentencing.
When asked, at Michael's trial, "And how did it come that we found out your name, how did it come that we found out about you?" the following testimony was recorded:
G: Well, I was talking to Detective Poiry. Is that how you pronounce it?
Harris [prosecutor]: When did you talk to Detective Poiry?
G: About a week before I got out.
H: That would be in early December?
G: Yeah.
On cross-examination, Kuhnle asks, "When did you talk to Detective Poiry in regard to any involvement with Michael Ustaszewski?"
G: About two weeks before I got out.
K: This would have been - - you were released on December 7th?
G: Yeah.
K: And you talked to Poiry approximately two weeks before then?
G: A week or two weeks. It's really not straight with me.
K: Was it after this alleged statement by Mr. Ustaszewski?
G: Yeah.
K: And when did you hear this statement from Mr. Ustaszewski?
G: It was a Monday, the 28th, I think. I'm not sure though.
K: You're not sure of the date?
G: No.
K: Could you tell me what kind of conversation you had with Detective Poiry?
G: Well, he just asked me how I was doing, everything, and we discussed my case, and I told him what Mike said.
K: You just volunteered the information to him?
G: Yeah.
Testimony then gets to the details, above, of what Michael allegedly told him.
Am I the only one wondering why - around 28 November - just as Michael is ROR'd - Detective Poiry goes to chat up an inmate who, two weeks to the date earlier, had already been in court, pleaded not guilty, and was awaiting trial?
While some of the police testimony was damaging with regard to character, Michael was really convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence: 1) The statement of the co-defendant Michael Morris, and 2) The statement of the last minute - and only after the state requested a continuance - jailhouse informant, Carl G-. G-'s testimony was critical.
A footnote: I am fairly confident that, when giving his statement, Morris was unaware of the felony-murder rule and/or the statute regarding aggravated murder. That is, it is not a leap to imagine that he might have thought it better to confess to having been present, but blame someone else for the stabbing. This way, in his mind, he might have imagined that he would only be charged with robbery, leaving culpability for the murder to someone else. Just a thought...
On 9 September, Detective Thomas Ross located Michael Morris at his job at a gas station. Morris ran. The following day, he was able to speak with Morris and, telling him that he was not a suspect, got Morris to agree to go to the Safety Building for "investigative purposes."
At trial, Ross said that he told Morris he was focusing on him "due to the fact that since the time of the homicide, he had not been at the YMCA, and that . . . he ran on me, and I felt there was probably involvement on his part. . ."
On the basis of Morris' statement implicating him, Michael Ustaszewski was arrested the following day, 11 September 1977. As he has every day since, Michael denied involvement in the crime.
The only evidence against Michael was the statement provided by the man who would become his co-defendant, Michael Morris. This was problematic for the prosecution. While it's not impossible to convict someone solely on the basis of a co-defendant's testimony, it's not the tightest case to make. No physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, no confession, just the statement of Morris. We're all in big trouble if that's all it takes to get convicted, but that's an issue for another post.
On Wednesday, 23 November, Michael appeared in court on a motion to suppress. At issue was the following exchange between Ross and Michael on 11 September. They are discussing Michael's claims regarding the man he claims to have been with on the night of the murder. Ross asks, "Between you and I, will you tell me what you did? Michael asks, "Is this going on tape now?" Ross replies, "Yes, it's going on tape, but it's a departmental tape. It's completely confidential." Michael responds, "All right. We was making love." Michael did not want to discuss, within earshot of other officers, what he was doing to keep money in his pocket.
Everything on the tape after the statement, "It's completely confidential" was ruled excluded. Note: This entire exchange between Ross and Michael is fascinating, but it's too lengthy to reproduce here.
The following day, Thanksgiving, 24 November, Ross again interviewed Morris. When asked, at Morris' trial, the purpose of that interview, Ross stated, "The purpose of that was to determine whether he was to testify against Michael Ustaszewski." Note: Again, the details are interesting, but too lengthy to reproduce in this post.
On Monday, 28 November, Michael Ustaszewski appeared in court. The state had requested a continuance. Michael's trial was rescheduled for 19 December. Michael was ordered released on his own recognizance (ROR'd). He was taken back to his cell at the county jail so that he could collect his belongings.
The man in one of the adjoining cells was Carl Edward G-, Jr.
G- had been arrested on 2 October and charged with aggravated robbery. Using a pipe as a weapon, he had robbed a store of $180. At Michael's trial, G- testified that he had first come into contact with Michael "about a month after [he] was there." That would mean early November.
Kuhnle [defense attorney]: Had you ever had any conversations with Mike prior to this time [the 28th] about his case?
G: No.
K: You had never discussed it, what he was in there for or anything like that?
G: No.
Several minutes later, Kuhnle asks, "During the period of time that you were in there with Mike, had he ever professed his innocence to you at all, said he didn't do it, said they have nothing on me?"
G: Yeah.
K: Then you did discuss this with Mike previously?
G: Well, that's about as far as it went.
Moments later,
K: He had never said anything previous to this time other than the fact that I didn't do it, they haven't got anything on me?
G: [nodded affirmatively]
Prior to the 28th when Michael came back to gather his belongings, he either had discussed the case with G-, or he had not. Within a matter of minutes, G- makes both claims, ultimately agreeing that Michael had professed his innocence.
Other details about this encounter include the fact that Michael allegedly entered his cell, number four, reached through the bars to G- in cell number five, pulled the covers off his head and said words to the effect of "Just don't tell anybody that I did it." I say "words to the effect" because G- was not at all clear in his testimony saying, ". . . and he told me it was OR bond, and he said, you know, he did it, that he got out of the case and stuff, you know" and so on.
Just to be clear, here's the picture: G-, after being pushed on this point, says that they had discussed the case and that Michael had said he was innocent. Then, being ROR'd, Michael reaches through the bars to G-'s cell - an inmate that he had known for fewer than four weeks - pulls the covers off his head, wakes him up, and tells him the he had, in fact, committed the crime. You be the judge.
Let's recap the timeline...
10 September - Michael Morris is arrested. Attorney: Paul Geller.
11 September - Michael Ustaszewski is arrested. Attorney: Carl Kuhnle.
2 October - Carl G- is arrested and charged with aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. His attorney? Paul Geller.
Early November - G- encounters Michael Ustaszewski for the first time.
While incarcerated near each other during those 3 to almost 4 weeks, Michael tells G- that he is innocent.
14 November - G- pleads not guilty to aggravated robbery.
24 November [Thanksgiving Day] - Detective Ross again interviews Morris.
28 November [Monday after Thanksgiving] - The state requests a continuance, releases Michael Ustaszewski on his own recognizance. Michael allegedly then tells G- he is guilty.
And, now - for the punchline.
7 December - G- goes to trial and pleads guilty to grand theft, a fourth degree felony. Upon the request of the detective [Poiry] to whom he allegedly volunteered the information about Michael, G- is released on his own recognizance, pending sentencing.
When asked, at Michael's trial, "And how did it come that we found out your name, how did it come that we found out about you?" the following testimony was recorded:
G: Well, I was talking to Detective Poiry. Is that how you pronounce it?
Harris [prosecutor]: When did you talk to Detective Poiry?
G: About a week before I got out.
H: That would be in early December?
G: Yeah.
On cross-examination, Kuhnle asks, "When did you talk to Detective Poiry in regard to any involvement with Michael Ustaszewski?"
G: About two weeks before I got out.
K: This would have been - - you were released on December 7th?
G: Yeah.
K: And you talked to Poiry approximately two weeks before then?
G: A week or two weeks. It's really not straight with me.
K: Was it after this alleged statement by Mr. Ustaszewski?
G: Yeah.
K: And when did you hear this statement from Mr. Ustaszewski?
G: It was a Monday, the 28th, I think. I'm not sure though.
K: You're not sure of the date?
G: No.
K: Could you tell me what kind of conversation you had with Detective Poiry?
G: Well, he just asked me how I was doing, everything, and we discussed my case, and I told him what Mike said.
K: You just volunteered the information to him?
G: Yeah.
Testimony then gets to the details, above, of what Michael allegedly told him.
Am I the only one wondering why - around 28 November - just as Michael is ROR'd - Detective Poiry goes to chat up an inmate who, two weeks to the date earlier, had already been in court, pleaded not guilty, and was awaiting trial?
While some of the police testimony was damaging with regard to character, Michael was really convicted on the basis of two pieces of evidence: 1) The statement of the co-defendant Michael Morris, and 2) The statement of the last minute - and only after the state requested a continuance - jailhouse informant, Carl G-. G-'s testimony was critical.
A footnote: I am fairly confident that, when giving his statement, Morris was unaware of the felony-murder rule and/or the statute regarding aggravated murder. That is, it is not a leap to imagine that he might have thought it better to confess to having been present, but blame someone else for the stabbing. This way, in his mind, he might have imagined that he would only be charged with robbery, leaving culpability for the murder to someone else. Just a thought...
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Inmate Statements
During the early years of Michael's incarceration, he was approached by at least three different inmates who claimed to know of his innocence. In each case, their alleged knowledge was based on interactions with Michael's co-defendant. I have the handwritten statements of all three. One is too faint to scan. Two others are reproduced here.
The first is the statement of an inmate who had, at one time, been a cellmate of Michael Ustaszewski's co-defendant, Michael Morris.
The second, the two pages below, is the statement of an inmate who attended group counseling sessions with Morris.
Below is Michael's typed transcription of the above statement.
You might note, in the above statement, that the co-defendant, Michael Morris is alleged to have said, "The next time they showed me a page of paper, they say the white boy signed a statement that he saw me Stab the old Man - So I decided then I was taking him to Jail with me." Nowhere in the record - not in the police file, not in the trial transcripts - is there any indication that Michael Ustaszewski made such a statement.
I recently corresponded with Michael Ustaszewski about the issue of who brought up whose name when. This is what he had to say: "When the detectives came to the YMCA to interview me, they had asked me did I notice anyone not here at the Y that usually would be here. I sat and thought about it for a moment, and the only person that came to my mind was Morris. I had come up on some pot over the weekend and I was looking for him to cop some joints from me, but I hadn't seen him around for a few days, and that's when I said that I hadn't seen Morris around."
I suspect that the police genuinely thought that both men were involved in the crime, but they didn't know who, if not both of them, might actually have killed Cordle. Morris, arrested first, confessed to being at the scene, but pinned the actual murder on Ustaszewski. Ustaszewski, arrested the following day, has denied involvement in any aspect of the crime from the time of his arrest.
I have learned that the police have very broad discretion with regard to the use of lies and false evidence to try to get suspects to confess. The record here suggests that this is what was going on in this instance. I can only conclude that the police used the "He said, he said" game to try to get someone to spill it. Morris thought that it was better to admit being there, but pin the murder on someone else. Ustaszewski didn't play along.
Morris's "confession," however, was not going to be enough for a conviction. Thus, the jailhouse informant. More on that in a separate post.
The first is the statement of an inmate who had, at one time, been a cellmate of Michael Ustaszewski's co-defendant, Michael Morris.
The second, the two pages below, is the statement of an inmate who attended group counseling sessions with Morris.
Below is Michael's typed transcription of the above statement.
You might note, in the above statement, that the co-defendant, Michael Morris is alleged to have said, "The next time they showed me a page of paper, they say the white boy signed a statement that he saw me Stab the old Man - So I decided then I was taking him to Jail with me." Nowhere in the record - not in the police file, not in the trial transcripts - is there any indication that Michael Ustaszewski made such a statement.
I recently corresponded with Michael Ustaszewski about the issue of who brought up whose name when. This is what he had to say: "When the detectives came to the YMCA to interview me, they had asked me did I notice anyone not here at the Y that usually would be here. I sat and thought about it for a moment, and the only person that came to my mind was Morris. I had come up on some pot over the weekend and I was looking for him to cop some joints from me, but I hadn't seen him around for a few days, and that's when I said that I hadn't seen Morris around."
I suspect that the police genuinely thought that both men were involved in the crime, but they didn't know who, if not both of them, might actually have killed Cordle. Morris, arrested first, confessed to being at the scene, but pinned the actual murder on Ustaszewski. Ustaszewski, arrested the following day, has denied involvement in any aspect of the crime from the time of his arrest.
I have learned that the police have very broad discretion with regard to the use of lies and false evidence to try to get suspects to confess. The record here suggests that this is what was going on in this instance. I can only conclude that the police used the "He said, he said" game to try to get someone to spill it. Morris thought that it was better to admit being there, but pin the murder on someone else. Ustaszewski didn't play along.
Morris's "confession," however, was not going to be enough for a conviction. Thus, the jailhouse informant. More on that in a separate post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
