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.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Parole: Denied
First, I just want to acknowledge that Michael just had a birthday. Having been sent to prison at 18, he turned 51 on June 1st.
On the second of June I received word that Michael had been denied parole for something like the seventh or eighth time. I don't know that he was hopeful, but it would be an understatement to say that the specifics of the denial are anguish inducing.
First, a step back. When I visited Michael in April, he had been meeting with a prison psychologist. As is general practice, her report would be part of the file shared with the parole board. In the course of their conversation, she said something about him being a sex offender. He was horrified. Never has that been a part of his past. He was, of course, upset. She ended the interview. Then, he wondered, was it a set-up? Did she say that only to see how he would react? If you don't know much about prison, let me tell you that sex offenders are the lowest of the low. As my drill sergeant would have said, "Lower than whale shit and that lies on the bottom of the ocean." Not only was he upset that his file was incorrect, but that it was that, of all things. Several days after I left he met with her again. Lo' and behold, she stated that the record had been incorrect and apologized. Okay, fast forward.
First I heard that he had gone before four members of the parole board and was told that the vote was 2-2. He was told that he would then go before the full board. The next thing, I found out that he had been denied. Not only was he denied, but he found out from an inmate before he got the news! See, in Ohio, offender information is available online. You can see the parole date, etc. Apparently an inmate's wife was checking on some of the guys that she knew had gone before the board. Bad news travels fast.
Then, Michael received the official letter. His next review is October 2012. That's two years and five months. But, it's worse. Although I've not seen the actual letter yet, he tells me that under the section labeled "Rationale," the board representative wrote that the victim had been stabbed 60 times. I'm not splitting hairs over whether it really matters that is was 37 and not 60. What does, I think, matter is that the record keeping is so careless.
The letter goes on to say, "Offender has done over 32 years, has decent programs and only one ticket that resulted in segregation since last hearing. Extensive criminal record and was just released from juvenile supervision. Due to prior criminal record and very vulnerable victim this offender's release would not be consistent with the welfare and security of society." The box that is checked contains the standard language: "There is substantial reason to believe that due to the serious nature of the crime, the release of the inmate into society would create undue risk to public safety, or that due to the serious nature of the crime, the release of the inmate would not further the interest of justice or be consistent with the welfare and security of society."
Read that again closely. First, the "extensive criminal record" consisted of juvenile offenses for petty theft, marijuana possession, and other things consistent with his adjudication as delinquent and commitment to the Ohio Youth Commission. I don't believe that there were any violent crimes on his record. His arrest for Henry Cordle's murder was his first arrest as an adult. The language "extensive criminal record" and "prior criminal record" makes it sound, to me, like we're to think that, as an adult, he had a lengthy and violent criminal history. This was not the case.
But, consider this as well. Between now and October 2012, the italicized sections in the excerpt above, will not change. That is, the rationale that is provided says, essentially, Even though 'offender has done over 32 years, has decent programs . . .' the specifics of his life at the time of the conviction and the specifics of the conviction prohibit his release." What can change that will satisfy the parole board? Apparently nothing.
I realize that the US abandoned a rehabilitative model of corrections long ago. It's all about retribution, punishment, isolation. But, why, then, even have a parole system? Nobody - nobody, nobody, nobody - can change the circumstances of his or her life prior to incarceration. And, nobody can change the circumstances of the crime for which s/he was convicted. If that's the case, then doesn't a parole review have to consider what you've done during your incarceration? How much time has past? Have you "paid your debt to society"? If a parole board is only interested in facts that cannot be changed, there's no point in going through the motions.
Let me be clear. I wholeheartedly believe that Michael is innocent of the murder of Henry Cordle. But, since the parole board doesn't think so, let's look at this from the perspective of someone who believes him to be guilty. What about the time served? The programs completed? The maturity? The parole system seems to have decided that what Michael has done - or not done - since 21 Dec 1977 is meaningless. All that matters are the circumstances of his life prior to that date. And, those he cannot change.
On the second of June I received word that Michael had been denied parole for something like the seventh or eighth time. I don't know that he was hopeful, but it would be an understatement to say that the specifics of the denial are anguish inducing.
First, a step back. When I visited Michael in April, he had been meeting with a prison psychologist. As is general practice, her report would be part of the file shared with the parole board. In the course of their conversation, she said something about him being a sex offender. He was horrified. Never has that been a part of his past. He was, of course, upset. She ended the interview. Then, he wondered, was it a set-up? Did she say that only to see how he would react? If you don't know much about prison, let me tell you that sex offenders are the lowest of the low. As my drill sergeant would have said, "Lower than whale shit and that lies on the bottom of the ocean." Not only was he upset that his file was incorrect, but that it was that, of all things. Several days after I left he met with her again. Lo' and behold, she stated that the record had been incorrect and apologized. Okay, fast forward.
First I heard that he had gone before four members of the parole board and was told that the vote was 2-2. He was told that he would then go before the full board. The next thing, I found out that he had been denied. Not only was he denied, but he found out from an inmate before he got the news! See, in Ohio, offender information is available online. You can see the parole date, etc. Apparently an inmate's wife was checking on some of the guys that she knew had gone before the board. Bad news travels fast.
Then, Michael received the official letter. His next review is October 2012. That's two years and five months. But, it's worse. Although I've not seen the actual letter yet, he tells me that under the section labeled "Rationale," the board representative wrote that the victim had been stabbed 60 times. I'm not splitting hairs over whether it really matters that is was 37 and not 60. What does, I think, matter is that the record keeping is so careless.
The letter goes on to say, "Offender has done over 32 years, has decent programs and only one ticket that resulted in segregation since last hearing. Extensive criminal record and was just released from juvenile supervision. Due to prior criminal record and very vulnerable victim this offender's release would not be consistent with the welfare and security of society." The box that is checked contains the standard language: "There is substantial reason to believe that due to the serious nature of the crime, the release of the inmate into society would create undue risk to public safety, or that due to the serious nature of the crime, the release of the inmate would not further the interest of justice or be consistent with the welfare and security of society."
Read that again closely. First, the "extensive criminal record" consisted of juvenile offenses for petty theft, marijuana possession, and other things consistent with his adjudication as delinquent and commitment to the Ohio Youth Commission. I don't believe that there were any violent crimes on his record. His arrest for Henry Cordle's murder was his first arrest as an adult. The language "extensive criminal record" and "prior criminal record" makes it sound, to me, like we're to think that, as an adult, he had a lengthy and violent criminal history. This was not the case.
But, consider this as well. Between now and October 2012, the italicized sections in the excerpt above, will not change. That is, the rationale that is provided says, essentially, Even though 'offender has done over 32 years, has decent programs . . .' the specifics of his life at the time of the conviction and the specifics of the conviction prohibit his release." What can change that will satisfy the parole board? Apparently nothing.
I realize that the US abandoned a rehabilitative model of corrections long ago. It's all about retribution, punishment, isolation. But, why, then, even have a parole system? Nobody - nobody, nobody, nobody - can change the circumstances of his or her life prior to incarceration. And, nobody can change the circumstances of the crime for which s/he was convicted. If that's the case, then doesn't a parole review have to consider what you've done during your incarceration? How much time has past? Have you "paid your debt to society"? If a parole board is only interested in facts that cannot be changed, there's no point in going through the motions.
Let me be clear. I wholeheartedly believe that Michael is innocent of the murder of Henry Cordle. But, since the parole board doesn't think so, let's look at this from the perspective of someone who believes him to be guilty. What about the time served? The programs completed? The maturity? The parole system seems to have decided that what Michael has done - or not done - since 21 Dec 1977 is meaningless. All that matters are the circumstances of his life prior to that date. And, those he cannot change.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The "Search" for DNA Evidence
At the time of Michael's trial, forensic testing was - by comparison to today - prehistoric. There was, apparently, no testing of the knives that were seized. It doesn't even appear that they were given to the folks at the Bureau of Criminal Investigation for testing. There were apparently some small stains of something on the jeans that were seized from Michael's room; while they were able to identify them as blood, they were unable to determine if they were human or animal, let alone type the blood. And, I would add - small stains of blood on jeans allegedly worn by someone who stabbed someone 37 times? This time of year I get blood on my clothes just by slapping a mosquito...
The note regarding the fingernail scrapings of the victim is illegible, but no lab results tied them to either defendant. None of the other evidence (i.e., blood from the scene and items from the scene) was used to tie either defendant to the scene. The technology was just too limited.
When DNA evidence started to be tested with new - and incredibly advanced - techniques and state law permitted such requests, Michael immediately pursued this option. He was confident that the knives would reveal no trace of blood. Yes, even when "cleaned," the new technology can show amazing things. He was confident that the knives and fingernails scrapings would exonerate him.
In response to his application for DNA testing, in 2005 the state went "looking" for DNA evidence so that it could be tested. If you click on the below images, they will enlarge. You will see that a police officer in the Property Room stated that the property room journal noted, "On January 24, 1979, per the prosecutor's office, all evidence was destroyed." What I can't figure out is why the evidence was ordered destroyed so quickly. When did the Court of Appeals affirm the Lucas County Common Pleas Court decision? February 9, 1979.
It is true that the actual appeal might have taken place earlier, even before January 24th. I don't have that information (yet). But, it still seems a bit hasty to have destroyed the evidence thirteen months after a conviction for aggravated murder that resulted in a life sentence. Hasty even for the 70s.
Perhaps most intriguing - it's one thing to have the prosecutor go looking for evidence that might exonerate someone they convicted. It's another thing to have the person who was the lead detective on the case go looking. Thomas Ross, "serving as a Secret Service Investigator by and/or on behalf of the Criminal Division, Lucas County Prosecutor's Office" was sent to do the looking. He was the person who interrogated Michael back in 1977. Below is his two page affidavit of 17 Feb 2005, stating that no evidence was to be found. Call me crazy, but...
After an appeal, regarding the search for evidence, in which the Court told the state, essentially, "No, you actually have to try to find the evidence," the prosecutor's office again sent Thomas Ross on the hunt.
Below is the two page affidavit, again, stating that no evidence could be found. The affidavit makes reference to the serologist leaving the evidence in court on "12-12-77." This was during the co-defendant's trial, not Michael's. His trial began a week later, on December 19th. Note the care with which the document is prepared. Michael's last name is misspelled, as are several other things. Yes, it's a difficult Polish name, but c'mon. Note: I was shocked at the number of errors in both the investigative file and the trial transcripts.
Finally, this is the affidavit of Charles Broshious, a "Special Deputy" with the Lucas County Sheriff's Department. He states that he searched the courthouse and came up empty.
No evidence = No DNA. No DNA = no DNA testing of evidence. No DNA testing of evidence = a much more difficult situation.
Was the evidence really destroyed? Maybe. Only recently did Ohio pass a law addressing the preservation of evidence. Or, with the fox guarding the hen house, did they just not happen to"find" it? Chances are we'll never know.
But, it seems an egregious error to send the man who was the lead detective on the case looking for evidence that might well have shown that when he got his man, he got the wrong guy.
The note regarding the fingernail scrapings of the victim is illegible, but no lab results tied them to either defendant. None of the other evidence (i.e., blood from the scene and items from the scene) was used to tie either defendant to the scene. The technology was just too limited.
When DNA evidence started to be tested with new - and incredibly advanced - techniques and state law permitted such requests, Michael immediately pursued this option. He was confident that the knives would reveal no trace of blood. Yes, even when "cleaned," the new technology can show amazing things. He was confident that the knives and fingernails scrapings would exonerate him.
In response to his application for DNA testing, in 2005 the state went "looking" for DNA evidence so that it could be tested. If you click on the below images, they will enlarge. You will see that a police officer in the Property Room stated that the property room journal noted, "On January 24, 1979, per the prosecutor's office, all evidence was destroyed." What I can't figure out is why the evidence was ordered destroyed so quickly. When did the Court of Appeals affirm the Lucas County Common Pleas Court decision? February 9, 1979.
It is true that the actual appeal might have taken place earlier, even before January 24th. I don't have that information (yet). But, it still seems a bit hasty to have destroyed the evidence thirteen months after a conviction for aggravated murder that resulted in a life sentence. Hasty even for the 70s.
Perhaps most intriguing - it's one thing to have the prosecutor go looking for evidence that might exonerate someone they convicted. It's another thing to have the person who was the lead detective on the case go looking. Thomas Ross, "serving as a Secret Service Investigator by and/or on behalf of the Criminal Division, Lucas County Prosecutor's Office" was sent to do the looking. He was the person who interrogated Michael back in 1977. Below is his two page affidavit of 17 Feb 2005, stating that no evidence was to be found. Call me crazy, but...
After an appeal, regarding the search for evidence, in which the Court told the state, essentially, "No, you actually have to try to find the evidence," the prosecutor's office again sent Thomas Ross on the hunt.
Below is the two page affidavit, again, stating that no evidence could be found. The affidavit makes reference to the serologist leaving the evidence in court on "12-12-77." This was during the co-defendant's trial, not Michael's. His trial began a week later, on December 19th. Note the care with which the document is prepared. Michael's last name is misspelled, as are several other things. Yes, it's a difficult Polish name, but c'mon. Note: I was shocked at the number of errors in both the investigative file and the trial transcripts.
Finally, this is the affidavit of Charles Broshious, a "Special Deputy" with the Lucas County Sheriff's Department. He states that he searched the courthouse and came up empty.
No evidence = No DNA. No DNA = no DNA testing of evidence. No DNA testing of evidence = a much more difficult situation.
Was the evidence really destroyed? Maybe. Only recently did Ohio pass a law addressing the preservation of evidence. Or, with the fox guarding the hen house, did they just not happen to"find" it? Chances are we'll never know.
But, it seems an egregious error to send the man who was the lead detective on the case looking for evidence that might well have shown that when he got his man, he got the wrong guy.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The $64,000 question - and more
QUESTIONS – Note: I don’t know exactly what the police and/or prosecutor were obligated to share back then – that is, to what degree were they able to conclude that something was not useful and not share it with the defense? Some of these questions are based on the assumption that Carl Kuhnle, the defense attorney, did know about the interviews and/or witnesses discussed in the post below. Some echo what is stated in the post below, but are repeated as questions for ease of review.
1. Why was June Kramer the only witness called by the defense?
1. Why was June Kramer the only witness called by the defense?
2. What was the result of the examination of the blood in the stairwell, etc?
3. Why, if admissible, wasn’t information about Dennis Cordle, Bobby Confer, etc. introduced by the defense to plant a seed of doubt as to whether or not others might have been “after” Henry Cordle? I don’t really think they had anything to do with it, but wouldn’t this have been a reasonable defense strategy?
4. Why didn’t the defense call John Miller? Miller had stated that he had been spending about 75% of his time with Ustaszewski and that he had never seen the knife in question (the knife Ustaszewski alleges he purchased from Russell on 9/9/77) before 9/11/77. Why wouldn’t the defense have raised this as potential evidence of the fact that Ustaszewski didn’t own the knife in August? Note: In the trial transcript, but not in the file, is testimony regarding Morris and Soinski trying to sell a "long knife" to one of the desk clerks, Justin George.
5. What happened to the “tests” of the knife, referred to above? I know that the technology in 1977 would have precluded getting much, if anything, from a knife that has been washed, etc., but I don’t believe this was ever raised at trial. Wouldn’t it have made sense for the defense to raise the issue of the lack of blood evidence on the knife? I don’t believe they did so.
6. What about the jeans? How does one stab someone 37 times and get small stains of blood on his pants, so limited and dirty that tests are inconclusive as to anything except that they were blood? Why wasn't more made of this in the defense's closing argument?
7. Why didn’t the defense call Harold Beat to testify about seeing the black man run out of the building between 0200 and 0400 hours? Even though the interview with Soinski suggests it was not Morris, given Percy Wright’s statement this would have been worth introducing. Not only is the time inconsistent with Morris’ testimony, it is interesting that Beat saw only a black man leave and not a white man. Would Ustaszewski simply have gone back to his room after stabbing someone 37 times?
8. What happened to the photos that came from the camera? Strange, too, that the camera was clean of prints.
9. When the defense called June Kramer, why was she was not asked about the caller who threatened her and her conclusion that it was a black man who called the day after she provided the camera to the police?
10. Soinski is the mystery man here. He seems to have been a friend of Morris and he, too, disappeared shortly after the murder. Why? And, what does he know? Note: I've been in touch with Soinksi and he is puzzled by some of the material in the police file. [March 2012]
11. Why didn’t the defense call Percy Wright to testify that he had seen a black man in the victim’s room some time between 2:30 and 3 in the morning (night) of the murder? The time frame in which Wright describes having seen and heard the person completely contradicts Morris’ testimony that he was there briefly, and around 10, and fled. It would also be worth noting that he did not see a white man in the room, nor did he hear the noises he would have heard if Morris’ testimony was truthful in regard to the sounds that occurred.
12. Unrelated to the file materials, but from the trial transcript, did anyone try to track down the two men (i.e., Beady and Falsted) that CG, the informant, testified were in the cell when Ustaszewski allegedly confessed to him? Although CG stated that he didn’t believe they had heard the exchange, why wouldn’t the defense have called them to testify regarding exactly that; that they didn’t hear anything?
NOTE: I now know the above referenced inmate to actually be Jack Beatty, not Beady as indicated in the trial transcript. Again, the errors amaze me! [2 Sep 2010]
13. Unrelated to the file materials, but from the trial transcript, does anyone else find it suspicious that Ustaszewski was in jail with CG, asserting his innocence for weeks, and then, the state - having asked for a continuance - released Ustaszewski on his own recognizance only to have him suddenly tell CG he did it? And, CG's attorney was the co-defendant's (Morris) attorney, too? Oh, and CG, who was in jail awaiting trial for a first degree felony copped to a fourth degree felony? Coincidence?
14. Unrelated to the file materials, but from Ustaszewski, he eventually recalled that he had had a client at the Commodore Perry on the night of the 20th. Did anyone, on either side, investigate this? Ustaszewski said he was with a “William, or Bill, from Detroit” in room 800. Apparently nobody ever went to the hotel to see if such a person could be identified. Too late now – the hotel operation is long gone - but nothing indicates that they followed up.
15. Unrelated to the file materials, but from work of the Ohio Innocence Project. Detective Thomas Ross was the lead detective on the case. He now works as a special agent, of sorts, for the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office. After winning an appeal re the testing of DNA evidence, Ross was the person sent to the TPD property room to search for the evidence. His affidavit states that records show it was destroyed in January 1979, per the Lucas County prosecutor. As I've stated elsewhere, isn't this the fox guarding the hen house. Isn't there just a bit of conflict of interest here?
16. The $64,000 question is whether Carl Kuhnle – currently practicing law in Toledo - simply ignored all of the options he had to for creating doubt in the mind of the jury or whether he never had any of this information? He had recently spent three years in the prosecutor’s office. Is it really possible that he thought the case was so open and shut that he just never considered that they had any other information besides the obvious? Or, did he believe it was so open and shut that he didn't bother to do more than a sham of representation?
So, unbelievably ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, or both? Carl Kuhnle knows. Who else has the answers? Do they care that some whose eighteenth birthday had barely passed has now spent 32 years in prison - and that they may have contributed to the conviction of someone innocent of the crime for which he was convicted?
Summary of Notes re Toledo PD File (1977)
This will be a long post. I hadn't planned on posting this information publicly, but I am very frustrated. I can't afford to hire a PI to conduct interviews. Relevant parties I have contacted have not responded. This includes one of the prosecuting attorneys, Henry G. Harris, who has been an Episcopal priest since 1985. Clearly many members, and former members, of the so-called justice system are more interested in covering various body parts than they are in actual justice. I'm not surprised, just disappointed. I shouldn't be. But, I am. A man spends 32 years in prison for a crime evidence suggests he did not commit. And, the system churns forward. Or backward, depending on how you look at it.
In April, I received materials from the original Toledo Police Department investigative file. I'm sure it's not the complete file because of some things that should be there that are not. But, what is there is very interesting. Below are some of my notes regarding said file.
Background -
The defense called only one witness, June Kramer. She was the desk manager at the Y.
The state called several witnesses. Most were those involved in the investigation (i.e., police officers, YMCA staff, coroner, etc.). E.g., Detective Thomas Ross spoke about his interview with Ustaszewski. The coroner, Mignerey, testified about the knife wounds. The only two witnesses who spoke directly to the defendant’s alleged involvement were Michael Morris (co-defendant) and Carl E. G- (jailhouse informant). No physical evidence, confession, or other testimony linked Ustaszewski to the crime. Morris remains in prison, G- lives in Kentucky.
In April, I received materials from the original Toledo Police Department investigative file. I'm sure it's not the complete file because of some things that should be there that are not. But, what is there is very interesting. Below are some of my notes regarding said file.
Background -
The defense called only one witness, June Kramer. She was the desk manager at the Y.
The state called several witnesses. Most were those involved in the investigation (i.e., police officers, YMCA staff, coroner, etc.). E.g., Detective Thomas Ross spoke about his interview with Ustaszewski. The coroner, Mignerey, testified about the knife wounds. The only two witnesses who spoke directly to the defendant’s alleged involvement were Michael Morris (co-defendant) and Carl E. G- (jailhouse informant). No physical evidence, confession, or other testimony linked Ustaszewski to the crime. Morris remains in prison, G- lives in Kentucky.
Regarding the police file -
In addition to routine documents (e.g., crime report, Ustaszewski arrest report, other supplemental crime reports not described here), the police file – as provided - includes the following:
1. Supplemental crime report re evidence. Among the blood evidence were “(2) envelopes/specimens of blood from the stairwell. These were given to Thomas Carroll for analysis. To my knowledge, at trial, no mention was ever made of analysis of the blood in the stairwell or fingerprints associated with that blood. Other evidence was provided to the police Property Room, PR #2343. Carroll was not called as a witness.
2. Supplemental crime report, notice to Officer E. Marok from Det. Tom Ross. The narrative requests that Marok remove various pieces of the floor “for blood comparison to ascertain if the perpetrator(s) may have been injured. . . further request you test the blood located on the wall from the victim’s room and between the second and third floor stairwell as to type.” Again, at trial, no mention - that I recall - was made of blood in the stairwell and associated analysis.
3. One potential (defense) witness to Ustaszewski's actions, knives, etc. was Cotton DeWayne Russell. He was not called as a witness. He may have no longer been alive. Supplemental crime report, “Request T.W.X.” Detective Tom Ross sent a request to the Fort Wayne, IN police stating, “DeWayne Russell, -aka- “Cotton”, W.M., age 18, D.O.B. 4/1/59 is a witness in an Agg. Murder trial this city [sic], set for Monday, 11-28-77, in Lucas County Common Pleas Ct., Tol, OH. We received information he may have been a homicide victim himself in your city. Please reply if you have had any contact or information about or on said subj/…" Nothing else on Russell appears in the file.
4. Supplemental crime report, narrative stating, “I have received information that the victim of a homicide at the Central YMCA, did in the past have a great deal of trouble with his grandson one Dennis Cordell [sic], WM early 20’s. Also that this Dennis has a record and or is wanted at this time for other offenses. I have not checked this out. The person who told me this wishes to remain unknown, but knows or knew Mr. Cordell [sic] very well prior to his death. This person also knows that the grandson and friends had abused Mr. Cordell [sic] in the past. This person thinks that the grandson is a good suspect for the murder as he has harmed the grandfather in the past. Supposedly the grandfather (victim) did not report any of this to the Police.” This report ends, “Resp. JM” and “White copies sent to Detectives Perdeau and Ross. No information regarding Cordell or others who may have had conflicts with the victim was brought out at trial.
5. Supplemental crime report, narrative of interview with John E. Miller, 248 Linden Place, White Male, DOB 11/10/52, Works at Toledo Zoo. Miller was the friend of Ustaszewski’s and whom Ustaszewski later said he was with for at least part of the evening of the 20th. He was also with Ustaszewski on 9/11/77 when Ustaszewski was arrested. This statement is fairly lengthy and speaks to how well he knew Ustaszewski, how often he saw him, that Ustaszewski never mentioned Morris to him, that he didn’t know Morris, that he bought Ustaszewski the wooden-handled knife in the brown sheath. He also noted that 9/11/77, when he was with Ustaszewski in his room, was the first time he had seen the silver dagger. This is consistent with Ustaszewski’s claim that he had just purchased it from Russell on Friday, 9/9/77. Miller was not called as a witness.
6. Supplemental crime report, narrative statement by Thomas Ross. “Officer Cutsinger [responding officer] further stated . . . once inside he saw the room in complete disarray and a large amount of blood the length of the room.” Note: Contrast this with Cutsinger’s response, in the Morris trial, to a question about the condition of the room: “Total disarray, not at all. It was neat.” Ross described his interview with the resident in a nearby room, Thomas Trotzier. Trotzier stated that he fell asleep around 2:30-3 am on the night of the murder and “heard no unusual sounds come from the victim’s room.” In this statement, Ross notes that he and Investigator Inman “found what appeared to be blood smeared on the wall directly across from the victim’s door. We also discovered some coagulated blood on the staircase landing located on the west end of the building which leads to a large greeting room on the ground floor adjacent to the night attendant’s desk. The blood in the stairwell would be located between the second and third floors…” Ross also describes being contacted by the victim’s daughter, Theresa Crowe and her husband, Charles. This describes Cordle having visited their home on 8/20, the reason he was at the Y, etc. Ross also writes, “This officer found several letters from the victim’s son, Dennis E. Cordle, who is an inmate at Mansfield Reformitory [sic]. I pulled Cordle’s package and it reflects he has been sent up for 4-25 years. On 4-9-76 for Aggravated Robbery.” Note: Dennis Cordle is elsewhere described as the victim’s grandson, apparently the correct descriptor. Again, none of this, including presence of blood outside the room, was brought out at trial.
7. Supplemental crime report, submitted by Det. Charles Perdeau. This report describes meeting Otis Moses, a case work supervisor at the Ohio Youth Commission. Moses retrieved Morris’ property from the Y, including a green shirt that the author notes, “could have been the shirt that Morris was wearing on the night of the murder. According to the witness Percy Wright, he saw a black man in the victims [sic] room and thought he was wearing a pea green shirt. The shirt recovered from Morris’ property is a dark green. I went to the YMCA with the idea of showing Percy Wright the shirt to see if he could identify it. I found that Percy Wright has moved out of the YMCA on Sept. 9, 1977 and left no forwarding address. I checked with Toledo Metro Park System where Wright was last employed. I talked to Ranger Donahue who was Wrights [sic] boss. He said that Wright only worked three days. He didn’t show up for work two or three times, then called and said he had to leave town because he beat up on some guy. Ranger Donahue said that Wright got his money for the three days work and they have not seen him since. I place [sic] the shirt in the property room. This was marked with a O M by Otis Moses and a C.P. for Det. Charles Perdeau. Moses was not called as a witness.
8. The supplemental crime reports regarding the arrests of Michael Ustaszewski and Michael Morris (which occurred separately) are almost impossible to read. One line of particular interest that I can barely make out is that Ustaszewski appears to have been administered a polygraph exam by a “technician Alexander.” Three lines or so after that appear to refer to the exam, but are illegible. The last page ends with “homicide, then asked at this point to speak to his attorney. All questions at this time ceased and Mr. Ustaszewski was returned to the County Jail.” Ustaszewski said that a polygraph had been administered and I believe he said that they told him he failed, but it is never mentioned elsewhere. I don’t know what was permitted in 1977 re polygraph; I know that it was raised in Morris’ trial by his attorney, Paul Geller. If Ustaszewski did take a polygraph that implicated him, why wasn’t it brought out in trial? And, if he took one and “passed,” or it was inconclusive, why wasn’t that brought out in trial, if permitted?
8. The supplemental crime reports regarding the arrests of Michael Ustaszewski and Michael Morris (which occurred separately) are almost impossible to read. One line of particular interest that I can barely make out is that Ustaszewski appears to have been administered a polygraph exam by a “technician Alexander.” Three lines or so after that appear to refer to the exam, but are illegible. The last page ends with “homicide, then asked at this point to speak to his attorney. All questions at this time ceased and Mr. Ustaszewski was returned to the County Jail.” Ustaszewski said that a polygraph had been administered and I believe he said that they told him he failed, but it is never mentioned elsewhere. I don’t know what was permitted in 1977 re polygraph; I know that it was raised in Morris’ trial by his attorney, Paul Geller. If Ustaszewski did take a polygraph that implicated him, why wasn’t it brought out in trial? And, if he took one and “passed,” or it was inconclusive, why wasn’t that brought out in trial, if permitted?
9. Supplemental crime report, narrative report of a conversation with Mrs. Delores Carpenter, 2758 Lagrange Street, stepdaughter to the deceased, taken on 8/28/77. “She said that after the furnal [sic] and during the gathering of family and friends at one of the homes, a Belinda Clifton, W. F., who lives somewhere on Pickel Rd., address unknown, 20 yrs, who is a half sister to Dennis Cordel [sic], she is described as, “W.F., 20, 5’2”, dark brown hair, and four and one half months pregnant, employed as a Go-Go dancer at a [sic] unknown location, stated during a conversation that she remembers that back in 1971 she remembers that both Hanna and Confer [described elsewhere] were over to Henry Cordel’s [sic] home when he lived at 5622 Bannockburn Dr., both were high at the time on drugs. They came over to see Dennis, and while they were there they have Henry a hassle and as a result Henry told them to leave the home or he would call the police. They left but as they were going they threatened to get the old man. Dennis at that time told them that they would not get him while he was around. They told him that he would not always be around. She does not know how much truth there is to this information, but wanted to pass it along to see if there was anything to it. It does not appear that Hanna, Jim could have been at the residence as stated by this witness as he was in prison at the time. However, the witness further indicated that one of the Confer’s [sic] used to hang around the Monroe bar since Mr. Cordel [sic] moved into the Y.M.C.A. and it might be worth looking into this man.” This report appears to have been initialed by “N.M.” but the full name is illegible. Although I don't believe any of this information is probably relevant to the investigation, why wasn't it raised at trial and/or someone subpoenaed as a witness regarding these conflicts?
10. Document in which the top is illegible; some kind of supplemental report. This document contains information regarding the desk clerks who worked the weekend of 20-21 August. Harold Beat, a 74 year old man described as “very sharp,” said that “the night was on the quiet side, but that he did remember that a black man in his twenty’s [sic] dressed in dark clothes came running down the stairway sometime between 0200 and 0400 hours. He came down the stairway or the elevator. Mr. Beat was not sure of which. Joe Soinski, resident in room 534, then came running down the stairway which exits in front of the desk. Mr. Beat told him that the guy just went out the front door. Soinski then went back upstairs. He did not say anything to Mr. Beat. Mr. Beat said he would not know the black man if he saw him again.” Beat was not called as a witness.
11. The report includes the following: “On 8/23/77, June Kramer, the desk clerk manager, called me and said she had Kodak Instamatic 124 camera and two rolls of film. This property was turned in by a guest who found it under a stairway at the rear of the YMCA. She does not know the guest’s name, but she will try to get it the next time he comes in. He does not live at the YMCA. The camera was dusted for prints with negative results by Officer Maholak of the Bureau of Identification. The film was taken to Gross Photo to be developed.” On 8/24/77, June Kramer called me [Perdeau?] and said that at 1430 hours she got a call at the desk. She said the caller was a black man and said, “is this the desk clerk.” [sic] June Kramer said, “yes, it is.” The caller then said, “you keep your mouth shut, baby.” Then he hung up the phone. June said she did not recognize the voice. Though Kramer was a witness, this call was not raised at trial.
12. The report also describes an interview with Joseph Soinski, white male, 23, 10/3/53, and resident of room 534, about the incident that desk clerk Beat reported. The interview with Soinski states that an unknown black male had been his room around 2:30 am and had tried to take small bag of marijuana from one of the other two men in the room with him. “Soinski put this black man out of room and shut the door. About five minutes later, somebody in the hallway yelled, “I'll get you.” Soinski said he jumped up and went out into the hall to see who said that, but the person was going down the elevator. Soinski said he ran down the steps to the first floor to see who it was, but the man had gone out the front door." The other two men in the room showed up when Soinski was being interviewed and corroborated his story saying they didn't know the unidentified black man. The police are alleged to have tried to contact Soinski again only to have been told by his parents that he had "joined the circus." Soinski, it appears, still lives in Toledo. Thus, Soinski was not called as a witness.
13. The report also describes an interview with Percy Wright, a “colored [sic] male, 22 years (9/7/54). The report states, “I talked to Percy Wright in room 304. [Victim's room was 325] . . . Mr. Wright said that on Sunday morning, 8/21/77, at 0330 hours he came home to the YMCA. He said that he had been out drinking and dancing. When he came home it was raining and Mr. Wright went to his room and took off his wet clothes. He put on his bath robe and was going to the first floor to get a half pint of milk out of the machine. Mr. Wright said that as he walked by the victim's room, he noticed the door open about two inches and the light was on. Mr. Wright said he looked in as he walked by and he could see and black male with and [sic] afro wearing a pea green shirt. As he looked into the room, the door closed. Mr. Wright went down and got his milk and then returned to his room. When he walked by the victim's room this time, the door was open about three or four inches and the light was out. Mr. Wright said he did not see anything so he went to his room, which is about fifteen feet up the hall on the opposite side. Mr. Wright said he left his door wide open and drank his milk. He said he heard the victim's door close so he looked out into the hallway, but he did not see anyone. Mr. Wright then closed his door [illegible]. Mr. Wright said he did not get a look at the face of the colored male that was in the room. He said that he was sure that the man had an afro that was combed and it was fairly long. Mr. Wright said he would not know this man because he did not get a look at his face.” This information contradicts Morris' testimony regarding both the time of the crime and how long he was in the victim's room. Wright was not called as a witness.
Note: Although a search on the actual name of the informant may reveal a cached version of the blog that provides his real name, I've changed it here because I know that he spends a fair amount of time online. He may already have read the blog. But, he's one twisted SOB and I figure since his name is irrelevant to getting the word out, might as well leave it out of publicly available materials.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Photos
Finally made some time to scan the photos. Here's one of Michael, alone. You have to pay for the photos before you go to the visiting room and they won't make change so I ended up getting 7 photos since they're $3 a pop and all I had was a twenty and a one! Go here to see the younger Michael - about 27 years ago. All this time, in prison...
Michael and I, Marion Correctional Institution, 22 April 2010.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Update - April 2010
On Monday, 19 April, I met with a private investigator in Columbus, Ohio who had been successful in obtaining the police file on the crime for which Michael was convicted. Some of the copies are unreadable and I'm sure there are things missing. For example, there was a witness who testified in court who must also have been interviewed during the course of the investigation, but there's no paperwork on that. There is, however, a lot of other interesting paperwork.
I'm hesitant to post any particulars because I wouldn't want to give anyone a specific heads-up - if we are ever able to have the PI or Ohio Innocence Project conduct some interviews - about what it is we find suspicious. Let's just say that I was shocked at some of the information that is contained in the file that never came out in trial.
Right now we're at kind of a standstill as I'm not in a position to travel to Ohio and hope that people will talk to me, yet neither can I afford to hire the PI to do the work. But, I'm going to keep trying to get the word out - maybe some benefactor will come along who wants to make a donation in the name of justice. As you'll see, with the "button" to the right, there's now a way to contribute to these efforts. Unfortunately, we're not in a position - at least not at this point - to file for tax exempt status. Thus, donations are not tax deductible. But, every little bit helps and is appreciated more than words can say.
I visited with Michael for six and half hours on 22 April. I think he's having a hard time right now. He had a conflict over the art room and is, as I understand, banned for 30 days. I think his art is a major part of what keeps him going so that's hard for him. Then, he has a parole hearing next month. He was meeting with the psychologist and was told that there was something in his history that wasn't true. He didn't handle it well. I think he also wonders if she didn't just say that to gauge his reaction. He's going to try to follow up with the warden.
He knows that he'll be denied parole again so it's not that he's hopeful. He's been denied six or seven times because, as you might know, if you don't "accept responsibility for your crime," you won't get paroled. And, as an innocent person, Michael can't accept responsibility for Henry Cordle's death. The big question, I think, is whether his next parole date will be 2012 or 2015. He was getting two year "flops," but, as I understand it, last time, they made it five years. So, between the art room, the conflict with the psychologist, and the upcoming hearing, I think he's a bit more stressed than usual.
I shared the contents of the police file with him and, suffice it to say, he, too, was shocked by some of the contents. It's hard knowing that there are leads to pursue, but that we're just not in a position to do that right now. And, of course, even if we get really good material, the hurdle to getting him a hearing is quite high. But, one step at a time.
So, that's about it. I'm still on the road, but when I have a chance I'll scan a current photo of Michael and add it to the blog.
Please - whether you're family, friends, prison volunteers, or you just stumbled upon this blog because it came up in a search - spread the word. Michael has been incarcerated since he was eighteen years, six months, and twenty-eight days of age. He turned fifty last June. He never should have been incarcerated for this crime. It's time to find a way to exonerate him.
I'm hesitant to post any particulars because I wouldn't want to give anyone a specific heads-up - if we are ever able to have the PI or Ohio Innocence Project conduct some interviews - about what it is we find suspicious. Let's just say that I was shocked at some of the information that is contained in the file that never came out in trial.
Right now we're at kind of a standstill as I'm not in a position to travel to Ohio and hope that people will talk to me, yet neither can I afford to hire the PI to do the work. But, I'm going to keep trying to get the word out - maybe some benefactor will come along who wants to make a donation in the name of justice. As you'll see, with the "button" to the right, there's now a way to contribute to these efforts. Unfortunately, we're not in a position - at least not at this point - to file for tax exempt status. Thus, donations are not tax deductible. But, every little bit helps and is appreciated more than words can say.
I visited with Michael for six and half hours on 22 April. I think he's having a hard time right now. He had a conflict over the art room and is, as I understand, banned for 30 days. I think his art is a major part of what keeps him going so that's hard for him. Then, he has a parole hearing next month. He was meeting with the psychologist and was told that there was something in his history that wasn't true. He didn't handle it well. I think he also wonders if she didn't just say that to gauge his reaction. He's going to try to follow up with the warden.
He knows that he'll be denied parole again so it's not that he's hopeful. He's been denied six or seven times because, as you might know, if you don't "accept responsibility for your crime," you won't get paroled. And, as an innocent person, Michael can't accept responsibility for Henry Cordle's death. The big question, I think, is whether his next parole date will be 2012 or 2015. He was getting two year "flops," but, as I understand it, last time, they made it five years. So, between the art room, the conflict with the psychologist, and the upcoming hearing, I think he's a bit more stressed than usual.
I shared the contents of the police file with him and, suffice it to say, he, too, was shocked by some of the contents. It's hard knowing that there are leads to pursue, but that we're just not in a position to do that right now. And, of course, even if we get really good material, the hurdle to getting him a hearing is quite high. But, one step at a time.
So, that's about it. I'm still on the road, but when I have a chance I'll scan a current photo of Michael and add it to the blog.
Please - whether you're family, friends, prison volunteers, or you just stumbled upon this blog because it came up in a search - spread the word. Michael has been incarcerated since he was eighteen years, six months, and twenty-eight days of age. He turned fifty last June. He never should have been incarcerated for this crime. It's time to find a way to exonerate him.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Quick Note
I spent six and a half hours with Michael today. He mentioned that some of the folks from the Kairos of Ohio Prison Ministry had visited the blog, but hadn't been able to leave comments. I have now enacted the comments feature. They will require moderation, but will be posted shortly after I receive a message that a comment has been left.
I hope to soon have the time to post an update about work on Michael's case. Thanks for visiting!
I hope to soon have the time to post an update about work on Michael's case. Thanks for visiting!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Ohio
Ohio Enacts Historic Reforms
"A bill signed into law today by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland will enact sweeping criminal justice reforms to help free the innocent from prison, prevent wrongful convictions and apprehend the real perpetrators of crime."
More From Ohio: "A Wonderful Day for Justice."
"As we reported here, Ohio yesterday enacted one of the most sweeping packages of reforms to address wrongful convictions in the nation. In the video above, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland says the plight of the wrongfully convicted was a driving force behind the legislation. 'Being in prison – year after year after year – knowing you are an innocent person, is one of the worst things I can imagine.'"
For the full article from the Innocence Blog, click on the links, above.
So, Ohio did something pretty great. My question is this: What are they going to do about those cases in which the evidence was destroyed? Reminder: According to the affidavit of the Lucas County investigator sent looking for the evidence by the court, pursuant to Michael's request for post-conviction DNA testing, the evidence was destroyed in January 1979 - under the order of the prosecutor. And, yes, this was within days of his direct appeal.
I'm glad to see these changes, but are we just going let folks languish in prison because the state didn't see fit to act reasonably in times past?
"A bill signed into law today by Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland will enact sweeping criminal justice reforms to help free the innocent from prison, prevent wrongful convictions and apprehend the real perpetrators of crime."
More From Ohio: "A Wonderful Day for Justice."
"As we reported here, Ohio yesterday enacted one of the most sweeping packages of reforms to address wrongful convictions in the nation. In the video above, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland says the plight of the wrongfully convicted was a driving force behind the legislation. 'Being in prison – year after year after year – knowing you are an innocent person, is one of the worst things I can imagine.'"
For the full article from the Innocence Blog, click on the links, above.
So, Ohio did something pretty great. My question is this: What are they going to do about those cases in which the evidence was destroyed? Reminder: According to the affidavit of the Lucas County investigator sent looking for the evidence by the court, pursuant to Michael's request for post-conviction DNA testing, the evidence was destroyed in January 1979 - under the order of the prosecutor. And, yes, this was within days of his direct appeal.
I'm glad to see these changes, but are we just going let folks languish in prison because the state didn't see fit to act reasonably in times past?
Friday, February 26, 2010
February 2010
I just received a letter from Michael. It's a bit more introspective than some. I thought I'd post a few lines here, as written..
You know, after assessing my life over a spann of about forty some odd years, I came to the conclusion that when I came to prison I was actually a mess. 18 years of age, fresh out of the Ohio Youth Commission for about the 6th time, not very eduacated, litterally grew up through an imprisoned envirnment - all of my younger life as a child and a youngster and my teenage life. Never having grew up in a stable life or in a home where there is a happy mother and father with brothers and sisters all around, I lacked everything... It literally took my coming to prison to grow up and mature! I had stopped blaming everyone for my problems and accepted the responsibility of where I failed. I began to forgive those who I had felt had abandoned me...
I just didn't want to be the person that incarceration was trying to mold me into being. Some of the people I know who have got sucked into the system are on death row right this very moment, and others have fallen over dead by the use of drugs, and others have gotten so bitter on the inside because they wouldn't change, will probably never get out of prison until they are carried out on their deathbeds! I see and hear of them everyday, and that makes me think way back into my life, and it helps me to be able to be grateful for how I turned out in life. I am able to sit back and count all my blessings and thank God for talking to me way back when he did when I was in that 6 by 8 cell.
As I see it now, there is always more room for improvement, but when it comes to further incarceration, I can only come to the conclusion that enough is enough. They are getting too carried away with it! I have been truthful every step of the way, even to the parole board, but they too will not accpt what I say is truth, they want to give me a parole if I confess to a crime I am innocent of!
I sit in my cell and I weep to an invisible God to please help me! Sometimes it seems He is gonna help, and the I have to wait. I see this, that and the other people keep getting cleared of their crimes through DNA, and I cry out to God, "When is it gonna be my turn Father?" I somehow feel encouraged to keep believing and trusting in faith the He will somehow help me! Other times the devil tell me to just hang it up and hang myself because I am never getting out! I certainly do not want to hang myself, I want to live. And why should I kill myself when I didn't do anything. Hell, I want to be free, and if I kill myself I won't be able to be free. I am afraid that if I kill myself the truth will finally come out about my innocence, but I won't be able to be free to enjoy being found not guilty. And, I have to much to live for, and that my life is more useful than being dead. I often have read about many lives who have been torn apart, never to recover fully, and some have been mended back together! I just know that my life can probably inspire somebody elses! I just don't believe that my being put on this earth was meant for me to be in prison all of my life, I know there is more to this life than being locked up...
There are times like right now when I just want to get away from everyone and yell out, smash my fists against the wall and just cry myself to sleep in order to feel some relief in my heart and my soul! The pain is so real inside, and there is an emptiness, even though I feel I have accomplished alot in my own personal life, it feels hopeless alot of times!
Can you imagine going to prison at 18 and turning 50 behind bars? That would be bad enough if you were guilty. But, what if you were innocent of the crime for which you were convicted?
You know, after assessing my life over a spann of about forty some odd years, I came to the conclusion that when I came to prison I was actually a mess. 18 years of age, fresh out of the Ohio Youth Commission for about the 6th time, not very eduacated, litterally grew up through an imprisoned envirnment - all of my younger life as a child and a youngster and my teenage life. Never having grew up in a stable life or in a home where there is a happy mother and father with brothers and sisters all around, I lacked everything... It literally took my coming to prison to grow up and mature! I had stopped blaming everyone for my problems and accepted the responsibility of where I failed. I began to forgive those who I had felt had abandoned me...
I just didn't want to be the person that incarceration was trying to mold me into being. Some of the people I know who have got sucked into the system are on death row right this very moment, and others have fallen over dead by the use of drugs, and others have gotten so bitter on the inside because they wouldn't change, will probably never get out of prison until they are carried out on their deathbeds! I see and hear of them everyday, and that makes me think way back into my life, and it helps me to be able to be grateful for how I turned out in life. I am able to sit back and count all my blessings and thank God for talking to me way back when he did when I was in that 6 by 8 cell.
As I see it now, there is always more room for improvement, but when it comes to further incarceration, I can only come to the conclusion that enough is enough. They are getting too carried away with it! I have been truthful every step of the way, even to the parole board, but they too will not accpt what I say is truth, they want to give me a parole if I confess to a crime I am innocent of!
I sit in my cell and I weep to an invisible God to please help me! Sometimes it seems He is gonna help, and the I have to wait. I see this, that and the other people keep getting cleared of their crimes through DNA, and I cry out to God, "When is it gonna be my turn Father?" I somehow feel encouraged to keep believing and trusting in faith the He will somehow help me! Other times the devil tell me to just hang it up and hang myself because I am never getting out! I certainly do not want to hang myself, I want to live. And why should I kill myself when I didn't do anything. Hell, I want to be free, and if I kill myself I won't be able to be free. I am afraid that if I kill myself the truth will finally come out about my innocence, but I won't be able to be free to enjoy being found not guilty. And, I have to much to live for, and that my life is more useful than being dead. I often have read about many lives who have been torn apart, never to recover fully, and some have been mended back together! I just know that my life can probably inspire somebody elses! I just don't believe that my being put on this earth was meant for me to be in prison all of my life, I know there is more to this life than being locked up...
There are times like right now when I just want to get away from everyone and yell out, smash my fists against the wall and just cry myself to sleep in order to feel some relief in my heart and my soul! The pain is so real inside, and there is an emptiness, even though I feel I have accomplished alot in my own personal life, it feels hopeless alot of times!
Can you imagine going to prison at 18 and turning 50 behind bars? That would be bad enough if you were guilty. But, what if you were innocent of the crime for which you were convicted?
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Paths We Take...
Turns out that one of the prosecutors in Michael's case left the practice of law over twenty years ago.
Check this out. I am not kidding.
Check this out. I am not kidding.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Trial Transcript
From the end of the trial transcript, 21 December 1977.
After the jury was excused, Judge Ayers said, “Michael Ustaszewski, do you have anything to say why sentence of the Court should not be pronounced against you, or do you have anything to offer in mitigation of punishment?” Michael replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”
Note: Having retired in 1982, Judge Charles W. Ayers died on 29 December 2006. I have a feeling that if he were alive to know how this played out he would be appalled.
After the jury was excused, Judge Ayers said, “Michael Ustaszewski, do you have anything to say why sentence of the Court should not be pronounced against you, or do you have anything to offer in mitigation of punishment?” Michael replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”
Ayers responded, “Anything that you wish to say the Court will listen to.” Michael said simply, “I’m innocent. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened, and that’s it.”
The judge said, “All right. Anything else you wish to say?” Michael responded, “I believe there is some people missing, Calvin Ellis, and several other people. I don’t understand, man.” The judge said, “Thank you.”
Judge Ayers then sentenced Michael to be committed to the Ohio State Penitentiary for the rest of his natural life and told him that he was also to pay the costs of the prosecution. He told Michael to be seated and Michael asked, “Can I say another thing?” The judge said, “Certainly you may.”
Michael said, “I ain’t never in my life killed nobody or had anything to do with it.”
The judge advised Michael of his right to appeal and asked Kuhnle to file the notice of appeal on Michael’s behalf. Ayers stated that the recognizance bond was cancelled and directed that Michael be taken into custody. Again, Michael spoke. “So that means I got to go to prison for the rest of my life for something I ain’t did?” The judge: “Michael, you will be eligible for a parole hearing at the end of fifteen years.” Michael: “Fifteen years? I’m innocent.”
Michael was eighteen years, six months, and twenty days of age.
Court was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Note: Having retired in 1982, Judge Charles W. Ayers died on 29 December 2006. I have a feeling that if he were alive to know how this played out he would be appalled.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
2010
Although the year is starting off as an incredibly busy one, I'm going to try to post relevant information, links, etc. now and again.
First, I know that I always prefer to put a face to a name, so here's a photo of Michael. Unfortunately, it's from January 1983, just a little more than five years after he was incarcerated.
You might also be interested in knowing that information for the 2010 Innocence Network Conference is now available online.
I'm planning to attend the conference in Atlanta and then drive up to Ohio to visit Michael. It's hard to plan ahead like that as there are so many things that can change, but if you don't plan, it doesn't happen.
That's about it for now. If you have happened upon this blog because of your interest in wrongful convictions, please consider sharing it with others. Thanks!
First, I know that I always prefer to put a face to a name, so here's a photo of Michael. Unfortunately, it's from January 1983, just a little more than five years after he was incarcerated.
You might also be interested in knowing that information for the 2010 Innocence Network Conference is now available online.
I'm planning to attend the conference in Atlanta and then drive up to Ohio to visit Michael. It's hard to plan ahead like that as there are so many things that can change, but if you don't plan, it doesn't happen.
That's about it for now. If you have happened upon this blog because of your interest in wrongful convictions, please consider sharing it with others. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
