Time to stop FBI?
Part 3 in a series from NPR, which reports that that FBI does indeed have a longstanding policy of protecting drug informants as well as letting crime go unpunished.
Yes, remember the original story. Katie was abducted because she saw drug activity. And then the story abruptly changed. Remember the presence of the FBI in Crothersville during that time?
Wake up, residents of Jackson County.
Legislator Aims To Regulate FBI Behavior
by Dina Temple-Raston
Listen Now [6 min 10 sec] add to playlist
Last in a three-part series.
Chip Somodevilla
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) plans to introduce a bill that would essentially hold FBI agents criminally responsible if they fail to share criminal activity of a confidential informant with other law enforcement agencies. Getty Images
More In This Series
Sep. 2, 2008Some FBI Agents Pay High Price For Using Snitches
Sep. 1, 2008Bulger Case Changed FBI's Role With Informants
Morning Edition, September 3, 2008 · The FBI has been repeatedly accused of standing by while its confidential informants commit crimes. One legislator is considering introducing a bill that aims to fix that.
The bill — as envisioned by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) — would subject FBI agents to criminal prosecution if they don't alert local law enforcement when one of their informants has committed a crime.
Agents say that if the bill becomes law, the informant program as we know it will end.
An Uncooperative Institution
The FBI's detractors have long seen the bureau as an institution with its own agenda. They worry that the bureau is more concerned about building a successful case than upholding the law. Delahunt is one of those people.
"I have had a long-term concern about the sharing of information by, specifically, the FBI with local and state law enforcement," he says.
Delahunt says the FBI has developed into a model of arrogant uncooperativeness when it comes to helping local police fight crime. Nowhere is this problem as evident, in his view, than in the FBI's confidential informant program.
Time and again, he says, FBI agents neglect to tell local police when they know their informants have broken the law because agents arbitrarily decide that their cases are more important than local ones.
"What is totally unacceptable is having violent criminals out on the street, preying on American citizens everywhere, while there is information that isn't being disclosed to local and state law enforcement authorities that have the primary responsibility in this country to protect us from violent crime," Delahunt says.
A New Bill
Delahunt's solution is to introduce a bill that would essentially hold agents criminally responsible if they keep quiet.
"If an average citizen should lie to an FBI agent, there is a criminal penalty involved," Delahunt says. "Compare that to a situation where an FBI agent has information and fails to disclose it to appropriate local and state law enforcement officials. Should there be a penalty?"
Delahunt says there should and points to the Whitey Bulger case in Boston as an example. "There have been cases, here in the greater Boston area, where the high standards of the FBI have not been honored," he says.
FBI's Unholy Alliance
Whitey Bulger was the godfather of the Irish mob and a confidential informant for the FBI. He gave an agent named John Connolly information that helped the FBI wipe out the Italian mob in Boston. During that time, it seemed that no matter what state and local law enforcement did to gather evidence against Bulger, he remained one step ahead of them. It was revealed later that Connolly was tipping him off. Delahunt was district attorney in neighboring Norfolk County at the time, and the case still rankles.
"Serious crimes went unsolved, while at the same time the FBI had significant information that, in my judgment, could very well have led to a successful prosecution," Delahunt says.
Delahunt is certainly not the only person to cry foul about the FBI's informant program. The Justice Department's inspector general is concerned, too. He came out with a 301-page report saying that in nearly nine out of every 10 cases he reviewed, agents mishandled informants. They allowed informants to engage in criminal activities without approval, they failed to report it when informants broke the law, or they approved illegal activity after the crime had already been committed.
Interfering With Agents' Jobs?
Jack Weinstein has been a sitting judge for 40 years. He is a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York and has probably heard more mob cases — using confidential informants — than any other judge in the country. He's worried about Delahunt's bill.
"I do think that to tie the hands of the FBI unduly is something that ought to be seriously considered before it is done," Weinstein says, adding, "My experience with the FBI over the past 40 years has been very good."
Valerie Caproni, the general counsel for the FBI, is also worried. "I don't think if it was passed we could get agents to run informants."
She said that the way the bill is drafted, an agent would have to inform local law enforcement if they obtain information that a confidential informant has committed a crime. What happens, she asks, if they aren't sure the information they obtain is reliable?
"You would put the agent in a situation in which they would have to choose between criminal liability on their own part and disclosing information they may believe in their heart of hearts — and everyone objectively believes — isn't reliable," Caproni says. "But they risk criminal exposure if they don't disclose that to local law enforcement."
Caproni says that if that was the law of the land, the FBI couldn't put their agents in that kind of position. It would effectively end the informant program.
"I think that's baloney," says Delahunt. He says he simply is requiring FBI agents to comply with guidelines that already exist.
"My role is one of oversight, monitoring and ensuring that the FBI achieves the high standards that we all believe the FBI aspires to," he says.
The attorney general is expected to release revised guidelines for FBI investigative procedures in the next couple of weeks. Delahunt says he'd like to see those provisions before he moves ahead with his bill. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) has been working with Delahunt on the bill.
Yes, remember the original story. Katie was abducted because she saw drug activity. And then the story abruptly changed. Remember the presence of the FBI in Crothersville during that time?
Wake up, residents of Jackson County.
Legislator Aims To Regulate FBI Behavior
by Dina Temple-Raston
Listen Now [6 min 10 sec] add to playlist
Last in a three-part series.
Chip Somodevilla
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) plans to introduce a bill that would essentially hold FBI agents criminally responsible if they fail to share criminal activity of a confidential informant with other law enforcement agencies. Getty Images
More In This Series
Sep. 2, 2008Some FBI Agents Pay High Price For Using Snitches
Sep. 1, 2008Bulger Case Changed FBI's Role With Informants
Morning Edition, September 3, 2008 · The FBI has been repeatedly accused of standing by while its confidential informants commit crimes. One legislator is considering introducing a bill that aims to fix that.
The bill — as envisioned by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) — would subject FBI agents to criminal prosecution if they don't alert local law enforcement when one of their informants has committed a crime.
Agents say that if the bill becomes law, the informant program as we know it will end.
An Uncooperative Institution
The FBI's detractors have long seen the bureau as an institution with its own agenda. They worry that the bureau is more concerned about building a successful case than upholding the law. Delahunt is one of those people.
"I have had a long-term concern about the sharing of information by, specifically, the FBI with local and state law enforcement," he says.
Delahunt says the FBI has developed into a model of arrogant uncooperativeness when it comes to helping local police fight crime. Nowhere is this problem as evident, in his view, than in the FBI's confidential informant program.
Time and again, he says, FBI agents neglect to tell local police when they know their informants have broken the law because agents arbitrarily decide that their cases are more important than local ones.
"What is totally unacceptable is having violent criminals out on the street, preying on American citizens everywhere, while there is information that isn't being disclosed to local and state law enforcement authorities that have the primary responsibility in this country to protect us from violent crime," Delahunt says.
A New Bill
Delahunt's solution is to introduce a bill that would essentially hold agents criminally responsible if they keep quiet.
"If an average citizen should lie to an FBI agent, there is a criminal penalty involved," Delahunt says. "Compare that to a situation where an FBI agent has information and fails to disclose it to appropriate local and state law enforcement officials. Should there be a penalty?"
Delahunt says there should and points to the Whitey Bulger case in Boston as an example. "There have been cases, here in the greater Boston area, where the high standards of the FBI have not been honored," he says.
FBI's Unholy Alliance
Whitey Bulger was the godfather of the Irish mob and a confidential informant for the FBI. He gave an agent named John Connolly information that helped the FBI wipe out the Italian mob in Boston. During that time, it seemed that no matter what state and local law enforcement did to gather evidence against Bulger, he remained one step ahead of them. It was revealed later that Connolly was tipping him off. Delahunt was district attorney in neighboring Norfolk County at the time, and the case still rankles.
"Serious crimes went unsolved, while at the same time the FBI had significant information that, in my judgment, could very well have led to a successful prosecution," Delahunt says.
Delahunt is certainly not the only person to cry foul about the FBI's informant program. The Justice Department's inspector general is concerned, too. He came out with a 301-page report saying that in nearly nine out of every 10 cases he reviewed, agents mishandled informants. They allowed informants to engage in criminal activities without approval, they failed to report it when informants broke the law, or they approved illegal activity after the crime had already been committed.
Interfering With Agents' Jobs?
Jack Weinstein has been a sitting judge for 40 years. He is a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York and has probably heard more mob cases — using confidential informants — than any other judge in the country. He's worried about Delahunt's bill.
"I do think that to tie the hands of the FBI unduly is something that ought to be seriously considered before it is done," Weinstein says, adding, "My experience with the FBI over the past 40 years has been very good."
Valerie Caproni, the general counsel for the FBI, is also worried. "I don't think if it was passed we could get agents to run informants."
She said that the way the bill is drafted, an agent would have to inform local law enforcement if they obtain information that a confidential informant has committed a crime. What happens, she asks, if they aren't sure the information they obtain is reliable?
"You would put the agent in a situation in which they would have to choose between criminal liability on their own part and disclosing information they may believe in their heart of hearts — and everyone objectively believes — isn't reliable," Caproni says. "But they risk criminal exposure if they don't disclose that to local law enforcement."
Caproni says that if that was the law of the land, the FBI couldn't put their agents in that kind of position. It would effectively end the informant program.
"I think that's baloney," says Delahunt. He says he simply is requiring FBI agents to comply with guidelines that already exist.
"My role is one of oversight, monitoring and ensuring that the FBI achieves the high standards that we all believe the FBI aspires to," he says.
The attorney general is expected to release revised guidelines for FBI investigative procedures in the next couple of weeks. Delahunt says he'd like to see those provisions before he moves ahead with his bill. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) has been working with Delahunt on the bill.
False matches of DNA and plea bargaining
If you are still not convinced that DNA is not accurate all of the time, please read the article below taken from the Innocent Project's Innocence Blog. Now there have been other posts on this blog showing how the alleged dna evidence against Stockelman could have been tainted.
Read the words in bold very very carefully, looks like whoever wrote this article hit the nail on the head as far as Tony's case goes.
Innocence BlogToday's Innocence Blog From gold standard to fool's gold? Posted: 09 Sep 2008 01:55 PM CDTAs DNA is used in more criminal cases and crime lab budgets are stretched thin, will DNA testing become a less-reliable form of evidence? A defense attorney told the Washington Post this week that he's worried false matches and plea bargains will increase in the next era of DNA testing, raising the possibility of wrongful conviction.Laura Chase, a deputy state's attorney (in Maryland), said defense lawyers have feared challenging DNA evidence before a jury. As DNA evidence moves to less-violent crimes, she said, "I think it will encourage pleas. It always has encouraged pleas, and that will make the system more efficient."Defense lawyers, the article says, fear that innocent defendants will be persuaded to plead guilty when confronted with DNA evidence - even if that evidence doesn't necessarily connect the defendant to the crime scene. And as law enforcement agencies call for DNA testing in more minor cases - like burglaries and robberies - crime lab budgets could be stretched too far, increasing the possibility of mistakes."It runs the risk of turning the gold standard of evidence into fool's gold," said Stephen Mercer, a Montgomery lawyer.Read the full article here. (Washington Post, 09/08/08)The Innocence Project supports the establishment of state forensic oversight commissions and advisory boards to ensure that crime labs are properly managed and funded. When analysts are overburdened, underpaid or poorly trained, the risk of forensic error - and wrongful conviction - are increased.
Read the words in bold very very carefully, looks like whoever wrote this article hit the nail on the head as far as Tony's case goes.
Innocence BlogToday's Innocence Blog From gold standard to fool's gold? Posted: 09 Sep 2008 01:55 PM CDTAs DNA is used in more criminal cases and crime lab budgets are stretched thin, will DNA testing become a less-reliable form of evidence? A defense attorney told the Washington Post this week that he's worried false matches and plea bargains will increase in the next era of DNA testing, raising the possibility of wrongful conviction.Laura Chase, a deputy state's attorney (in Maryland), said defense lawyers have feared challenging DNA evidence before a jury. As DNA evidence moves to less-violent crimes, she said, "I think it will encourage pleas. It always has encouraged pleas, and that will make the system more efficient."Defense lawyers, the article says, fear that innocent defendants will be persuaded to plead guilty when confronted with DNA evidence - even if that evidence doesn't necessarily connect the defendant to the crime scene. And as law enforcement agencies call for DNA testing in more minor cases - like burglaries and robberies - crime lab budgets could be stretched too far, increasing the possibility of mistakes."It runs the risk of turning the gold standard of evidence into fool's gold," said Stephen Mercer, a Montgomery lawyer.Read the full article here. (Washington Post, 09/08/08)The Innocence Project supports the establishment of state forensic oversight commissions and advisory boards to ensure that crime labs are properly managed and funded. When analysts are overburdened, underpaid or poorly trained, the risk of forensic error - and wrongful conviction - are increased.
Amendment V
In recently reading the first ten amendments of the US Constitution, one amendment in particular stood out. It was the fifth amendment. We commonly think of it as the right not to testify against oneself in court, however it is more detailed than that. The fifth amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except, in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against h imself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without dur process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
So we read within this amendment provisions against double jeopardy and due process of law. But the thing that I found most interesting was the beginning statement " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The exceptions to this rule are reserved for the military.
You may remember that originally this case was a death penalty case. But it was never presented to a Grand Jury. Then-prosecutor Stephen Pierson stated that Grand Jury consideration in this case would not be necessary. So not only did this case not be tried before a Grand Jury, it was never tried before a jury either. Was this a violation of Mr. Stockelman's constitutional rights? I am not an attorney and do not know the answer, but would appreciate it if an attorney could post more insight into this. Unless you are James "Ricky" Kilburn. Kilburn was the defense "attorney" Stockelman chose to defend him in this matter because he was a deacon of the church he attended. Kilburn should never be allowed to practice any type of law, much less a death penalty case. More on that to follow.
So we read within this amendment provisions against double jeopardy and due process of law. But the thing that I found most interesting was the beginning statement " No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." The exceptions to this rule are reserved for the military.
You may remember that originally this case was a death penalty case. But it was never presented to a Grand Jury. Then-prosecutor Stephen Pierson stated that Grand Jury consideration in this case would not be necessary. So not only did this case not be tried before a Grand Jury, it was never tried before a jury either. Was this a violation of Mr. Stockelman's constitutional rights? I am not an attorney and do not know the answer, but would appreciate it if an attorney could post more insight into this. Unless you are James "Ricky" Kilburn. Kilburn was the defense "attorney" Stockelman chose to defend him in this matter because he was a deacon of the church he attended. Kilburn should never be allowed to practice any type of law, much less a death penalty case. More on that to follow.
Are Crime Labs really unbiased?
This article from the whyfiles shows more evidence that crime laboratories feel pressure to "find" the guilty party. Can we really trust DNA evidence to be accurate when there is pressure to have the forensic evidence match?
http://whyfiles.org/133crime_lab/5.html
Don't give that girl a gunBehind the debate over the proper role of crime labs is this question: Are labs tools of the prosecution, or of justice? Certainly, crime labs are touted as impartial, scientific means of finding the truth. But the truth is that most exist in a prosecutorial milieu -- as branches of the department of justice or the state police.
Geurts, of the Wisconsin lab, acknowledges that he works for the Department of Justice, but says, "Once you become an advocate, you lose your status as a scientist. We try to avoid that, but in general we work for the prosecution, and there's a small chance an individual analyst could become more prosecution oriented. In general, we get equal satisfaction from eliminating someone from suspicion, even though police usually respond, 'How can that be? We know this is the guy.'"
Evidence expert Jennifer Mnookin sees merit in the proposal -- raised in Oklahoma among other places -- to make labs independent of the prosecution. Although it would not solve everything, she adds, "Closely tying the forensic scientist to the prosecutorial apparatus may increase the likelihood of some of these problems. People may feel that to get promoted, they need to provide the evidence that makes a conviction; they may turn into cops in lab coats."
Mnookin describes the challenge thusly: "How do you create an incentive structure that does not encourage scientists and technicians to err on the side of the prosecution?"
Somebody bad stole de wedding bell We've heard other suggestions for improving labs:
Faigman suggests creating a "firewall" to reduce contact with police." Examinations should be as blind as possible, he says, "so the officer does not walk in and say, 'We found the guy who has these prints with the stereo equipment, and we want you to match them.'" The expectation of guilt, he says, "will intrude on the analysis."
Confirm the theory with basic scientific techniques -- and confirm the examiner's practice with blind tests. The Wisconsin State Crime Lab, says Geurts, tests employee proficiency at least annually. When drug examiners test proficiency samples, he says, they think they are working on actual cases.
Use peer review. Geurts says that having more than one examiner handle subjective analyses, such as handwriting, can reduce errors.
Subterranean homesick blues A final means to make sure that crime labs do their work honestly and intelligently is accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. To date, 196 U.S. crime labs have attained certification, that's about half of the full-function scientific crime labs in the United States. That's the estimate of Robert Conley, director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Accreditation Board -- a separate group established by the Society. Accreditation, he says, requires "100 percent compliance" to a long list of standards affecting the "quality of the work product."
Covered areas include:
Minimum education for various disciplines -- typically at least a bachelor's degree -- with a concentration in science.
Annual proficiency testing for all employees.
Written procedures covering, according to Conley, "literally everything the lab does." Procedures must be validated in the lab, so "the method works in their lab, with their equipment and their personnel."
The standards are tough enough, he says, that almost all labs fail the first inspection. They then have a year to get up to snuff.
Could certification have helped at the Oklahoma City police lab, whose misconduct apparently doomed Jeffrey Pierce to spend 15 years in prison for another person's crime? Perhaps, Conley says, noting that the lab was not accredited.
"Without being specific or concluding about what happened in Oklahoma, because I only read about it in the papers, our process requires external review of all procedures used in the lab. If we were looking at microscopic analysis of hair, certainly the kind of results we have been hearing about would not be acceptable scientific practice."
However, accreditation does not address the issue of independence of the prosecution, or the overall question raised by the Supreme Court -- whether the forensic sciences are actually science.
While DNA profiling has been proven to be science after years of hard work and intense argument, that remains the exception. As Professor Faigman says, "Courts are wondering, scratching their heads, about why the other forensic sciences don't look like DNA profiling."
http://whyfiles.org/133crime_lab/5.html
Don't give that girl a gunBehind the debate over the proper role of crime labs is this question: Are labs tools of the prosecution, or of justice? Certainly, crime labs are touted as impartial, scientific means of finding the truth. But the truth is that most exist in a prosecutorial milieu -- as branches of the department of justice or the state police.
Geurts, of the Wisconsin lab, acknowledges that he works for the Department of Justice, but says, "Once you become an advocate, you lose your status as a scientist. We try to avoid that, but in general we work for the prosecution, and there's a small chance an individual analyst could become more prosecution oriented. In general, we get equal satisfaction from eliminating someone from suspicion, even though police usually respond, 'How can that be? We know this is the guy.'"
Evidence expert Jennifer Mnookin sees merit in the proposal -- raised in Oklahoma among other places -- to make labs independent of the prosecution. Although it would not solve everything, she adds, "Closely tying the forensic scientist to the prosecutorial apparatus may increase the likelihood of some of these problems. People may feel that to get promoted, they need to provide the evidence that makes a conviction; they may turn into cops in lab coats."
Mnookin describes the challenge thusly: "How do you create an incentive structure that does not encourage scientists and technicians to err on the side of the prosecution?"
Somebody bad stole de wedding bell We've heard other suggestions for improving labs:
Faigman suggests creating a "firewall" to reduce contact with police." Examinations should be as blind as possible, he says, "so the officer does not walk in and say, 'We found the guy who has these prints with the stereo equipment, and we want you to match them.'" The expectation of guilt, he says, "will intrude on the analysis."
Confirm the theory with basic scientific techniques -- and confirm the examiner's practice with blind tests. The Wisconsin State Crime Lab, says Geurts, tests employee proficiency at least annually. When drug examiners test proficiency samples, he says, they think they are working on actual cases.
Use peer review. Geurts says that having more than one examiner handle subjective analyses, such as handwriting, can reduce errors.
Subterranean homesick blues A final means to make sure that crime labs do their work honestly and intelligently is accreditation from the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. To date, 196 U.S. crime labs have attained certification, that's about half of the full-function scientific crime labs in the United States. That's the estimate of Robert Conley, director of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors Accreditation Board -- a separate group established by the Society. Accreditation, he says, requires "100 percent compliance" to a long list of standards affecting the "quality of the work product."
Covered areas include:
Minimum education for various disciplines -- typically at least a bachelor's degree -- with a concentration in science.
Annual proficiency testing for all employees.
Written procedures covering, according to Conley, "literally everything the lab does." Procedures must be validated in the lab, so "the method works in their lab, with their equipment and their personnel."
The standards are tough enough, he says, that almost all labs fail the first inspection. They then have a year to get up to snuff.
Could certification have helped at the Oklahoma City police lab, whose misconduct apparently doomed Jeffrey Pierce to spend 15 years in prison for another person's crime? Perhaps, Conley says, noting that the lab was not accredited.
"Without being specific or concluding about what happened in Oklahoma, because I only read about it in the papers, our process requires external review of all procedures used in the lab. If we were looking at microscopic analysis of hair, certainly the kind of results we have been hearing about would not be acceptable scientific practice."
However, accreditation does not address the issue of independence of the prosecution, or the overall question raised by the Supreme Court -- whether the forensic sciences are actually science.
While DNA profiling has been proven to be science after years of hard work and intense argument, that remains the exception. As Professor Faigman says, "Courts are wondering, scratching their heads, about why the other forensic sciences don't look like DNA profiling."
Faulty Forensic Evidence
It would seem that what has convinced the public most of Anthony Stockelman's guilt is the fact that the prosecution claims to have DNA evidence. Shows like CSI and Cold Case Files have promoted the idea that forensic evidence is infallible and cannot be disputed. However, this article from the Innocence Project reveals that often DNA is mishandled and DNA experts have been known to fabricate evidence, or as this article also reveals plant evidence.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
Al Roker of Court TV produced a documentary on the Collman murder titled "Meth, Murder and Madness." A few weeks later another documentary aired by Roker titled "Faulty Forensics". It detailed how crime labs often placed a rubber stamp so to speak on the forensic evidence turned over to them by prosecutors and police.
Here is the full article from the Innocence Project. More can be found on their website at www.innocenceproject.com
Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight
Forensic Science Misconduct
Because forensic science results can mean the difference between life and death in many cases, fraud and other types of misconduct in the field are particularly troubling. False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states.Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel are too closely tied to police and prosecutors, and therefore not impartial. Other times, a criminalist lacking the requisite knowledge embellishes findings, confident that he will not be caught since the lawyer, judge and jury have no background in the relevant science.
In some cases, critical evidence is consumed or destroyed, so that re-testing to uncover the misconduct is impossible. Evidence in these cases can never be tested again. Those wrongful convictions will never be overturned.
One weak linkThe identification, collection, testing, storage, handling and reporting of any piece of forensic evidence involves a number of people. Evidence can be deliberately or accidentally mishandled at any stage of this process.The risk of misconduct starts at the crime scene, where evidence can be planted, destroyed or mishandled. Then the evidence is sent by police to a state forensic lab or independent contractor, where it can be contaminated, poorly tested, consumed unnecessarily or mislabeled. The next step is a report, in which technicians and their superiors sometimes misrepresent results. DNA exonerations have revealed numerous instances of “drylabbing” evidence – reporting results when no test was actually performed. It's cheaper and faster – but fraudulent.
All over the mapThe Innocence Project has seen forensic misconduct by scientists, experts and prosecutors lead to wrongful conviction in many states. The following are among the more notorious:
A former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, Fred Zain, testified for the prosecution in 12 states over his career, including dozens of cases in West Virginia and Texas. DNA exonerations and new evidence in other cases have shown that Zain fabricated results, lied on the stand about results and willfully omitted evidence from this reports.
Pamela Fish, a Chicago lab technician, testified for the prosecution about false matches and suspicious results in the trials of at least eight defendants who were convicted, then proven innocent years later by DNA testing.
A two-year investigation of the Houston crime lab, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in that lab was mishandled and results were misreported.
Ending forensic fraudThe Innocence Project has uncovered these abuses since 1992 and has developed recommendations for crime labs, law enforcement agencies and courts to ensure that forensic science misconduct is prevented whenever possible. The Innocence Project calls for state to impose standards on the preservation and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or oversight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions.
Visit our Fix The System: Crime Lab Oversight page for more information.
Featured Case: George Rodriguez
George Rodriguez was exonerated in 2005 after serving 17 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit. Rodriguez's case helped to reveal a pattern of error and fraud in the Houston Police Department Crime Lab that is still being investigated and corrected today. In Rodriguez's case, lab director Jim Bolding testified that a hair found in the victim's underwear could have belonged to Rodriguez. He also testified that blood type evidence showed that Rodriguez – and not a co-defendant – could have deposited biological fluids. This was false – later tests showed that the co-defendant could have been a contributor. DNA testing also showed that the hair used against Rodriguez could not have been his. Audits of the Houston lab since Rodriguez's exoneration have revealed a wide range of misconduct.
This author said what?
Here is a link to a story written about Crothersville. It talks about the murders in the town.
Note that this is a fairly recent article, yet the author still talks about this crime as being drug-related.
http://www.authspot.com/Journals/Small-Town.95369
This author claims that even though the public was told that drugs did not play a part in this young girl's death, she does not necessarily believe it to be true.
http://www.topix.net/city/crothersville-in/2008/04/small-town
Note that this is a fairly recent article, yet the author still talks about this crime as being drug-related.
http://www.authspot.com/Journals/Small-Town.95369
This author claims that even though the public was told that drugs did not play a part in this young girl's death, she does not necessarily believe it to be true.
http://www.topix.net/city/crothersville-in/2008/04/small-town
Back to those carpet fibers
Now of all of the forensic evidence that officials claim to have, the carpet fibers stick out in my mind as being the most illogical. Here is yet more proof that the claim that this forensic evidence just does not make sense.
Two days after Katie disappeared, an eyewitness saw her across town near the school riding in a white Ford F150 pick up truck. According to the witness, the child did not seem frightened, but rather appeared as though she were a normal passenger in the truck.
That's right. The eyewitness claimed that she appeared as though she were a normal passenger and that she was not afraid.
Now this causes the average person to stop and ponder the situation a little closer than what it appears on the surface. If Collman were to have been molested at the house on Koevener street prior to being abducted, she would have been bound at the house as well. This would have taken place prior to her being placed in the truck.
Now if the child had just been molested and abducted by a complete stranger, and her hands were bound behind her back why would she look as though she was not afraid?
Unfortunately, we may never have the answer to that question. Remember the eyewitness who spotted her? She was "unavailable" to testify in court.
Two days after Katie disappeared, an eyewitness saw her across town near the school riding in a white Ford F150 pick up truck. According to the witness, the child did not seem frightened, but rather appeared as though she were a normal passenger in the truck.
That's right. The eyewitness claimed that she appeared as though she were a normal passenger and that she was not afraid.
Now this causes the average person to stop and ponder the situation a little closer than what it appears on the surface. If Collman were to have been molested at the house on Koevener street prior to being abducted, she would have been bound at the house as well. This would have taken place prior to her being placed in the truck.
Now if the child had just been molested and abducted by a complete stranger, and her hands were bound behind her back why would she look as though she was not afraid?
Unfortunately, we may never have the answer to that question. Remember the eyewitness who spotted her? She was "unavailable" to testify in court.
Why forensic evidence can't be accurate
Police claim that a key piece of evidence against me were carpet fibers taken from the binding materials which matched carpet samples taken from my mother's home. This cannot be possible.
An article dated 2/2/2005 in the Seymour Daily Tribune refers to a scent dog named Emma who was deployed in the search for Katie soon after she became missing says:"Emma, a bloodhound, provided investigators with the general direction from the apartments Collman had visited to the Dollar Store, and from there is was evident that the walking trail became a car trail."This would indicate that Katie was abducted from the Dollar Store and not from my mother's home.
Another article printed in the Tribune on 1/27/2005 supports this. It states "Investigators, however have determined that Collman first visited a friend in an apartment west of the store, Ford said. Collman then went to the store and back to the apartment.
She was last seen walking North from the apartments, Ford said."
North from the Penn Villa apartment complex would have been in the general direction of the Dollar General Store.
My mother's house was Southwest of the apartment complex.
Now I ask, could it be possible for 16 carpet fibers to have remained on the girl's body after floating in a lake for over 5 days? Not at all likely. I beleive this evidence was taken by authorities from my mother's house.
An article dated 2/2/2005 in the Seymour Daily Tribune refers to a scent dog named Emma who was deployed in the search for Katie soon after she became missing says:"Emma, a bloodhound, provided investigators with the general direction from the apartments Collman had visited to the Dollar Store, and from there is was evident that the walking trail became a car trail."This would indicate that Katie was abducted from the Dollar Store and not from my mother's home.
Another article printed in the Tribune on 1/27/2005 supports this. It states "Investigators, however have determined that Collman first visited a friend in an apartment west of the store, Ford said. Collman then went to the store and back to the apartment.
She was last seen walking North from the apartments, Ford said."
North from the Penn Villa apartment complex would have been in the general direction of the Dollar General Store.
My mother's house was Southwest of the apartment complex.
Now I ask, could it be possible for 16 carpet fibers to have remained on the girl's body after floating in a lake for over 5 days? Not at all likely. I beleive this evidence was taken by authorities from my mother's house.
Reporters Unbiased Analysis of Crothersville, Indiana
The murder of Aaron "Shorty" Hall in April 2007 again brought focus to the tiny town of only 1500 residents. Garrett Gray and Coleman King claim that they beat Aaron Hall to death because he made an unwanted sexual advance towards King. They left him naked and alone, dying in cold temperatures, suffering multiple beating wounds.
Garrett Gray and Coleman King both plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter and were sentenced to 30 years each. They could be free in as few as 15 years for a cold-blooded killing.
This crime is an interesting twist of events, in that Garrett Gray is the son of former deputy coroner Terry Gray. Terry Gray was the spokesperson for the family of Katie Collman and owned the garage in which Hall's body would be located 10 days later. Terry Gray is a former deputy coroner and reserve deputy in Jackson County, Indiana.
8 days after Hall's body was placed in the Gray garage, a local officer named Darryl Hickman went to the Gray residence to make a search. He told Hall's mother, Maria Gumm that he could find no evidence of Hall being at the Gray residence. Later, 13 red stains would be lifted from the premises, including the kitchen, deck and Gray's vehicle. Apparantly Hickman could not smell a rotting corpse as well.
Officer Darryl Hickman is an uncle to Charles "Chuckie" Hickman, the man who previously confessed to killing Katie Collman.
In addition, Hickman originally claimed that Katie witnessed drug activity in a local apartment complex. Prior to that occassion, Terry Gray, acting in capacity as reserve officer went to that same apartment to investigate allegations of meth production. He also could not smell anything and made no arrests.
Denise Travers of the Bloomington Alternative began covering the Aaron Hall case in June 2007 after several media outlets refused to cover the story. Here's how she surmised the town of Crothersville, Indiana:
As ever, the truth – if we can ever know it completely – likely lies somewhere in between the extremes. Sources in Crothersville indicate that the circumstances of Aaron's murder are significantly different than what has been reported in local media. They knowingly imply just how much can be concocted in 10 days – the length of time between Aaron's death and the official discovery of his body in the garage of Terry Gray, deputy Jackson County coroner and father of Garret Gray, one of the defendants. They indicate that a sexual advance was involved -- not toward King, but toward his girlfriend. They state that – contrary to sworn affidavits – there were other witnesses of Aaron's murder: indeed, some have indicated that the Gray household was something of a teen drug haven, and that at the time of the first punch to Aaron's body, some number of other teenagers were present.
What lies in the conscience of these teenagers? Each of the Jackson County residents to which I've spoken has commented, independently and forlornly, about the wretched absence of anything constructive or fun for the youth to engage. A dearth of such luxuries as volunteer opportunities or civic engagement, a surprising lack of church-related youth activity, rampant poverty and drugs and a Footloose-like youth despair combine to make an environment which breeds antipathy and distance. What can be expected of youth whose futures are so bleak? If it is true that other teens and young adults witnessed the attack, how dead must their hearts be to be able to endure their silence?
The influence of power cannot be ignored, either. Hushed tones accompany the mention of certain names, and the ever-present buzz of fear has residents considering using false names or refusing, outright, to speak on record. In a town where so many cling to their personal salvation through Jesus Christ, the landscape of Crothersville, Indiana is ironically godforsaken. Most are afraid to go on the record, for fear that local law enforcement will remember the indignity and further abuse their power through false arrests, trumped-up charges, botched investigations and abject corruption. Each and every Crothersville resident willing to comment about Aaron's murder has his or her own horror story about Jackson County. Many have had personal run-ins with the law. The stories of prejudice, intolerance and narrow-mindedness are legion. In a town the size of Crothersville, social capital is a powerful weapon. Everyone knows who wields the power. Everyone knows who the important families are. Everyone knows who to call to get meth. Everyone knows everyone's family, history, darkest hours. You don't cross those who are in power. Period.
Garrett Gray and Coleman King both plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter and were sentenced to 30 years each. They could be free in as few as 15 years for a cold-blooded killing.
This crime is an interesting twist of events, in that Garrett Gray is the son of former deputy coroner Terry Gray. Terry Gray was the spokesperson for the family of Katie Collman and owned the garage in which Hall's body would be located 10 days later. Terry Gray is a former deputy coroner and reserve deputy in Jackson County, Indiana.
8 days after Hall's body was placed in the Gray garage, a local officer named Darryl Hickman went to the Gray residence to make a search. He told Hall's mother, Maria Gumm that he could find no evidence of Hall being at the Gray residence. Later, 13 red stains would be lifted from the premises, including the kitchen, deck and Gray's vehicle. Apparantly Hickman could not smell a rotting corpse as well.
Officer Darryl Hickman is an uncle to Charles "Chuckie" Hickman, the man who previously confessed to killing Katie Collman.
In addition, Hickman originally claimed that Katie witnessed drug activity in a local apartment complex. Prior to that occassion, Terry Gray, acting in capacity as reserve officer went to that same apartment to investigate allegations of meth production. He also could not smell anything and made no arrests.
Denise Travers of the Bloomington Alternative began covering the Aaron Hall case in June 2007 after several media outlets refused to cover the story. Here's how she surmised the town of Crothersville, Indiana:
As ever, the truth – if we can ever know it completely – likely lies somewhere in between the extremes. Sources in Crothersville indicate that the circumstances of Aaron's murder are significantly different than what has been reported in local media. They knowingly imply just how much can be concocted in 10 days – the length of time between Aaron's death and the official discovery of his body in the garage of Terry Gray, deputy Jackson County coroner and father of Garret Gray, one of the defendants. They indicate that a sexual advance was involved -- not toward King, but toward his girlfriend. They state that – contrary to sworn affidavits – there were other witnesses of Aaron's murder: indeed, some have indicated that the Gray household was something of a teen drug haven, and that at the time of the first punch to Aaron's body, some number of other teenagers were present.
What lies in the conscience of these teenagers? Each of the Jackson County residents to which I've spoken has commented, independently and forlornly, about the wretched absence of anything constructive or fun for the youth to engage. A dearth of such luxuries as volunteer opportunities or civic engagement, a surprising lack of church-related youth activity, rampant poverty and drugs and a Footloose-like youth despair combine to make an environment which breeds antipathy and distance. What can be expected of youth whose futures are so bleak? If it is true that other teens and young adults witnessed the attack, how dead must their hearts be to be able to endure their silence?
The influence of power cannot be ignored, either. Hushed tones accompany the mention of certain names, and the ever-present buzz of fear has residents considering using false names or refusing, outright, to speak on record. In a town where so many cling to their personal salvation through Jesus Christ, the landscape of Crothersville, Indiana is ironically godforsaken. Most are afraid to go on the record, for fear that local law enforcement will remember the indignity and further abuse their power through false arrests, trumped-up charges, botched investigations and abject corruption. Each and every Crothersville resident willing to comment about Aaron's murder has his or her own horror story about Jackson County. Many have had personal run-ins with the law. The stories of prejudice, intolerance and narrow-mindedness are legion. In a town the size of Crothersville, social capital is a powerful weapon. Everyone knows who wields the power. Everyone knows who the important families are. Everyone knows who to call to get meth. Everyone knows everyone's family, history, darkest hours. You don't cross those who are in power. Period.
Innocent to protect drug informants
Framing innocent men in order to protect drug informants has been a longstanding policy within the FBI. In July, 2007 a Federal Judge ordered taxpayers to shell out over 100 million dollars to the families of four men who spent decades in prison for a murder they did not commit.
Here is the story from Fox News:
BOSTON — In a stinging rebuke of the FBI, a federal judge on Thursday ordered the government to pay a record judgment of nearly $102 million because agents withheld evidence that would have kept four men from spending decades in prison for a mob murder they did not commit.
Judge Nancy Gertner told a packed courtroom that agents were trying to protect informants when they encouraged a witness to lie, then withheld evidence they knew could prove the four men were not involved in the 1965 murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan, a small-time thug shot in an alley.
Gertner said Boston FBI agents knew mob hitman Joseph "The Animal" Barboza lied when he named Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco as Deegan's killers. She said the FBI considered the four "collateral damage" in its war against the Mafia, the bureau's top priority in the 1960s.
Tameleo and Greco died behind bars, and Salvati and Limone spent three decades in prison before they were exonerated in 2001. Salvati, Limone and the families of the other men sued the federal government for malicious prosecution.
"Do I want the money? Yes, I want my children, my grandchildren to have things I didn't have, but nothing can compensate for what they've done," said Salvati, 75.
"It's been a long time coming," said Limone, 73. "What I've been through — I hope it never happens to anyone else."
The case is only the latest to highlight the cozy relationship Boston mobsters enjoyed with FBI agents for decades. Former Boston agent John Connolly was sentenced in 2002 to 10 years in prison for his role in protecting two organized crime kingpins, including one who remains a fugitive.
Gertner said FBI agents Dennis Condon and H. Paul Rico not only withheld evidence of Barboza's lie, but told state prosecutors who were handling the Deegan murder investigation that they had checked out Barboza's story and it was true.
"The FBI's misconduct was clearly the sole cause of this conviction," the judge said.
The government had argued federal authorities had no duty to share information with state officials who prosecuted the men. Federal authorities cannot be held responsible for the results of a state prosecution, a Justice Department lawyer said.
Gertner rejected that argument.
"The government's position is, in a word, absurd," she said.
A Boston FBI spokeswoman referred calls to the Department of Justice. Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said officials would have no immediate comment.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal advocacy group that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions, said the $101.75 million award is the largest ever in a wrongful-conviction case.
Gertner awarded $26 million to Limone, $29 million to Salvati, $13 million to Tameleo's estate and $28 million to Greco's estate. The wives of Limone and Salvati and the estate of Tameleo's deceased wife each received slightly more than $1 million. The men's 10 children were each awarded $250,000.
Limone and Salvati stared straight ahead as the judge announced her ruling, but a gasp was heard from the area where their friends and family were sitting when Gertner said how much the government would be forced to pay.
At the time of Deegan's slaying, Tameleo and Limone were reputed leaders of the New England mob, while Greco and Salvati had minor criminal records.
Deegan's murder had gone unsolved until the FBI recruited Barboza to testify against several organized crime figures. Barboza wanted to protect a fellow FBI informant, Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi, who was involved in the Deegan slaying, and agreed to testify for state prosecutors in the case, plaintiff's lawyers said.
Tameleo died in prison in 1985 after serving 18 years. Greco died in prison in 1995 after serving 28 years.
Salvati was sentenced to life in prison as an accessory to murder. He was released from prison when his sentence was commuted in 1997, after serving a little more than 29 years. Limone served 33 years in prison before being freed in 2001.
Salvati and Limone were exonerated in 2001 after FBI memos dating back to the Deegan case surfaced during probes into the Boston FBI's relationship with gangsters and FBI informants Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, Vincent's brother, and James "Whitey" Bulger, who has been on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list for years.
Republican Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who chaired the House Government Reform Committee when it conducted an investigation of the FBI and its use of criminal informants, said he was gratified by the judge's ruling.
"This was one of the biggest injustices that I have ever seen," Burton said.
One of the agents blamed in the case, Rico, was arrested in 2003 on murder and conspiracy charges in the 1981 killing of a Tulsa, Okla., businessman. Rico died in state custody in 2004 while awaiting trial.
Attorneys for Condon did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment Thursday.
During testimony before Burton's committee in 2001, Rico denied he and his partner helped frame an innocent man for Deegan's death, but acknowledged that Salvati wrongly spent 30 years in prison for the crime.
Rico was unrepentant when asked how he felt about Salvati's wrongful imprisonment.
"What do you want, tears?" he said.
Here is the story from Fox News:
BOSTON — In a stinging rebuke of the FBI, a federal judge on Thursday ordered the government to pay a record judgment of nearly $102 million because agents withheld evidence that would have kept four men from spending decades in prison for a mob murder they did not commit.
Judge Nancy Gertner told a packed courtroom that agents were trying to protect informants when they encouraged a witness to lie, then withheld evidence they knew could prove the four men were not involved in the 1965 murder of Edward "Teddy" Deegan, a small-time thug shot in an alley.
Gertner said Boston FBI agents knew mob hitman Joseph "The Animal" Barboza lied when he named Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone, Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco as Deegan's killers. She said the FBI considered the four "collateral damage" in its war against the Mafia, the bureau's top priority in the 1960s.
Tameleo and Greco died behind bars, and Salvati and Limone spent three decades in prison before they were exonerated in 2001. Salvati, Limone and the families of the other men sued the federal government for malicious prosecution.
"Do I want the money? Yes, I want my children, my grandchildren to have things I didn't have, but nothing can compensate for what they've done," said Salvati, 75.
"It's been a long time coming," said Limone, 73. "What I've been through — I hope it never happens to anyone else."
The case is only the latest to highlight the cozy relationship Boston mobsters enjoyed with FBI agents for decades. Former Boston agent John Connolly was sentenced in 2002 to 10 years in prison for his role in protecting two organized crime kingpins, including one who remains a fugitive.
Gertner said FBI agents Dennis Condon and H. Paul Rico not only withheld evidence of Barboza's lie, but told state prosecutors who were handling the Deegan murder investigation that they had checked out Barboza's story and it was true.
"The FBI's misconduct was clearly the sole cause of this conviction," the judge said.
The government had argued federal authorities had no duty to share information with state officials who prosecuted the men. Federal authorities cannot be held responsible for the results of a state prosecution, a Justice Department lawyer said.
Gertner rejected that argument.
"The government's position is, in a word, absurd," she said.
A Boston FBI spokeswoman referred calls to the Department of Justice. Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said officials would have no immediate comment.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal advocacy group that specializes in overturning wrongful convictions, said the $101.75 million award is the largest ever in a wrongful-conviction case.
Gertner awarded $26 million to Limone, $29 million to Salvati, $13 million to Tameleo's estate and $28 million to Greco's estate. The wives of Limone and Salvati and the estate of Tameleo's deceased wife each received slightly more than $1 million. The men's 10 children were each awarded $250,000.
Limone and Salvati stared straight ahead as the judge announced her ruling, but a gasp was heard from the area where their friends and family were sitting when Gertner said how much the government would be forced to pay.
At the time of Deegan's slaying, Tameleo and Limone were reputed leaders of the New England mob, while Greco and Salvati had minor criminal records.
Deegan's murder had gone unsolved until the FBI recruited Barboza to testify against several organized crime figures. Barboza wanted to protect a fellow FBI informant, Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi, who was involved in the Deegan slaying, and agreed to testify for state prosecutors in the case, plaintiff's lawyers said.
Tameleo died in prison in 1985 after serving 18 years. Greco died in prison in 1995 after serving 28 years.
Salvati was sentenced to life in prison as an accessory to murder. He was released from prison when his sentence was commuted in 1997, after serving a little more than 29 years. Limone served 33 years in prison before being freed in 2001.
Salvati and Limone were exonerated in 2001 after FBI memos dating back to the Deegan case surfaced during probes into the Boston FBI's relationship with gangsters and FBI informants Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, Vincent's brother, and James "Whitey" Bulger, who has been on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted" list for years.
Republican Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who chaired the House Government Reform Committee when it conducted an investigation of the FBI and its use of criminal informants, said he was gratified by the judge's ruling.
"This was one of the biggest injustices that I have ever seen," Burton said.
One of the agents blamed in the case, Rico, was arrested in 2003 on murder and conspiracy charges in the 1981 killing of a Tulsa, Okla., businessman. Rico died in state custody in 2004 while awaiting trial.
Attorneys for Condon did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment Thursday.
During testimony before Burton's committee in 2001, Rico denied he and his partner helped frame an innocent man for Deegan's death, but acknowledged that Salvati wrongly spent 30 years in prison for the crime.
Rico was unrepentant when asked how he felt about Salvati's wrongful imprisonment.
"What do you want, tears?" he said.
Unanswered questions
Here are a few unanswered questions concerning this case. I'm sure there are many many more:
Unanswered questions about the Katie Collman case:
1. Why were police not doing anything about the drug problem in the community prior to Katie’s disappearance?
2. Why did the eyewitness who saw Katie in the truck wait 2 days to come forward?
3. Why did police claim Katie was riding with a stranger while at the same time claiming she looked as though she was a normal passenger?
4. Why was the composite sketch not shown again after Hickman’s arrest?
5. Who did Katie visit at the Penn Villa apartment complex?
6. What false information did the 17 year old give to police?
7. Why did Hickman name Jeff Tatlock?
8. Why were over 70 people DNA tested, including one person after Anthony Stockelman was charged with her murder?
9. Why did Prosecutor Stephen Pierson thank the State Police Crime Lab for their efforts in testing the evidence quickly, yet 7 months after Stockelman’s arrest claim he did not have the evidence back from the lab?
10. Why did Pierson claim only one week prior to Stockelman’s arrest that Katie had not been molested?
11. Why was Pierson hesitant to seek the death penalty against Hickman, yet quickly added a death penalty affadavit to the case when he charged Stockelman?
12. How could one lone cigarette butt at Cypress Lake be identified as having been left there by the killer?
13. How many cigarette butts were found at Cypress Lake? How many were tested?
14. Why did the semen evidence change from being found on Katie’s body to being found inside her body?
15. Why did police not ask for a DNA sample from Anthony Stockelman earlier?
16. Why had Stockelman been dismissed as a suspect if Chuckie Hickman’s story was so outrageous?
17. Where did Hickman take police claiming that Katie would be found alive?
18. Did someone threaten Hickman into making a false confession?
19. Why was this case never heard before a Grand Jury?
20. Why did Tabitha Stockelman stand behind her husband after police charged him with the murder after stating his DNA was found on binding materials, yet later state that the DNA evidence was what had changed her opinion?
21. Why had police previously checked the lake, but not found Katie’s body?
22. Why were Dennis and Edward Carmen questioned concerning the Collman case?
23. Why was the eyewitness who saw Katie in the truck not present to testify in court?
24. Why were none of the other eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Katie in the truck on the day of her disappearance also not present in court?
25. Why wasn’t Chuckie Hickman deposed or subpoenaed to testify in court?
26. Who were the other people Hickman named?
27. Why did Pierson claim it was not possible for Hickman to have abducted Katie because he was at a party at the time of her disappearance, yet in the probable cause affadavit against Hickman claim that an eyewitness saw him in the area of the Dollar Store at around the same time Katie was last seen?
28. Were false informing charges brought against the eyewitness who claimed to have seen Hickman near the Dollar Store?
29. Why did Hickman’s mother claim that others had threatened her son into making a false confession? Who were they?
30. Why did police concentrate on finding a person smoking Roger cigarettes rather than seeing if the DNA matched that of the man who had confessed?
31. Why was the cigarette butt not tested at the same time as the binding materials?
32. How could 16 carpet fibers remain on the child’s body after being submersed in the lake for 5 days, yet none be found in Stockelman’s truck?
33. How can semen be positively tested after being in water for such a long period of time?
34. Were tire tracks taken at the Lake? If so, what were the results?
35. Why did police go to a home on 800 South the night of Katie’s disappearance looking for her?
36. Why did police not make any arrests when they found a meth lab in operation that same evening?
37. Why had police not made any previous arrests when called to the Penn Villa apartment complex prior to Katie’s disappearance?
38. Why will no one name the residents of the apartment Katie visited?
39. Why were all of Stockelman’s pre-trial conferences public, yet the same has not applied to all other cases in Jackson County including that of Zachariah Blanton which has also gained national publicity?
41. Why would Katie look as though she were a normal passenger in the truck unless she was with someone she was familiar with?
42. What are the names of the 69 other persons who were DNA tested?
43. Who was asked to submit a DNA sample one month after Stockelman was charged with Katie’s murder? Why were they asked for a sample?
44. Were the other samples returned from the laboratory in a timely manner?
Specific questions for James “Ricky” Kilburn
1. Why didn’t you ask for a change of venue?
2. Why were several key witnesses never questioned, including the person who last saw Katie?
3. Why did you allow Pierson to go in excess of 8 months without turning over the evidence against your client?
4. You claimed you could not defend Anthony if you felt he was guilty. Yet not only did you defend him, you asked for his release from jail under a new interpretation of Criminal Rule 4. Later you claimed you felt he was guilty. Why were you not only able to defend him believing he was guilty, but also ask for his release under Criminal Rule 4?
5. Why did you ask for his release under Criminal Rule 4 knowing that you yourself had asked for the case to be moved forward?
6. Why did you allow your client to waive rights to a trial by jury as well as any rights to appeal?
7. Why did you visit Stockelman so infrequently at the Jackson County Jail?
8. Why did you not ask for the DNA evidence to be re-tested?
9. Why did you not raise any objections or cross examine any witnesses during the plea agreement?
10. Why did you wait until the Friday before the plea hearing to contact any possible witnesses to testify as to Stockelman’s character?
11. Why did you not include another witness who was willing to testify on Stockelman’s behalf without a subpeona?
12. Why did you not attempt to contact any of Stockelman’s co-workers to testify on his behalf after the initial sentencing hearing was postponed?
13. A specific event was told to you during a meeting with one of the witnesses. This event would have been significant if mentioned in court, yet you never brought it up and never allowed the witness to talk about it either. Why?
14. Why were no expert witnesses called to testify?
15. Have you seen the DNA evidence?
16. Why did you never follow up with a witness who saw vehicles at Cypress Lake prior to her being found?
17. Why did you allow the prosecution to proceed with a plea hearing in which Mr. Pierson openly stated he would not obey the requirements of Indiana Law by having Mr. Stockelman state how the crime was committed?
18. Had you previously been fired by Mr. Stockelman?
19. Mr. Stockelman was entitled to two death penalty certified attorneys. Why did you never ask for these attorneys to be appointed to him?
20. How many drug dealers in the Crothersville/Austin area did you represent? Were any of these people named by Hickman?
21. What did you do with money given to you by members of Stockelman’s family to have the DNA retested?
22. Why did you tell Stockelman’s family not to speak out to the media on his behalf?
23. Are you troubled by your involvement in obtaining Stockelman’s false confession, thus allowing those truly responsible for Katie’s death to remain free?
24. Will you stand before the Lord with a clear conscience on your day of judgement?
Unanswered questions about the Katie Collman case:
1. Why were police not doing anything about the drug problem in the community prior to Katie’s disappearance?
2. Why did the eyewitness who saw Katie in the truck wait 2 days to come forward?
3. Why did police claim Katie was riding with a stranger while at the same time claiming she looked as though she was a normal passenger?
4. Why was the composite sketch not shown again after Hickman’s arrest?
5. Who did Katie visit at the Penn Villa apartment complex?
6. What false information did the 17 year old give to police?
7. Why did Hickman name Jeff Tatlock?
8. Why were over 70 people DNA tested, including one person after Anthony Stockelman was charged with her murder?
9. Why did Prosecutor Stephen Pierson thank the State Police Crime Lab for their efforts in testing the evidence quickly, yet 7 months after Stockelman’s arrest claim he did not have the evidence back from the lab?
10. Why did Pierson claim only one week prior to Stockelman’s arrest that Katie had not been molested?
11. Why was Pierson hesitant to seek the death penalty against Hickman, yet quickly added a death penalty affadavit to the case when he charged Stockelman?
12. How could one lone cigarette butt at Cypress Lake be identified as having been left there by the killer?
13. How many cigarette butts were found at Cypress Lake? How many were tested?
14. Why did the semen evidence change from being found on Katie’s body to being found inside her body?
15. Why did police not ask for a DNA sample from Anthony Stockelman earlier?
16. Why had Stockelman been dismissed as a suspect if Chuckie Hickman’s story was so outrageous?
17. Where did Hickman take police claiming that Katie would be found alive?
18. Did someone threaten Hickman into making a false confession?
19. Why was this case never heard before a Grand Jury?
20. Why did Tabitha Stockelman stand behind her husband after police charged him with the murder after stating his DNA was found on binding materials, yet later state that the DNA evidence was what had changed her opinion?
21. Why had police previously checked the lake, but not found Katie’s body?
22. Why were Dennis and Edward Carmen questioned concerning the Collman case?
23. Why was the eyewitness who saw Katie in the truck not present to testify in court?
24. Why were none of the other eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen Katie in the truck on the day of her disappearance also not present in court?
25. Why wasn’t Chuckie Hickman deposed or subpoenaed to testify in court?
26. Who were the other people Hickman named?
27. Why did Pierson claim it was not possible for Hickman to have abducted Katie because he was at a party at the time of her disappearance, yet in the probable cause affadavit against Hickman claim that an eyewitness saw him in the area of the Dollar Store at around the same time Katie was last seen?
28. Were false informing charges brought against the eyewitness who claimed to have seen Hickman near the Dollar Store?
29. Why did Hickman’s mother claim that others had threatened her son into making a false confession? Who were they?
30. Why did police concentrate on finding a person smoking Roger cigarettes rather than seeing if the DNA matched that of the man who had confessed?
31. Why was the cigarette butt not tested at the same time as the binding materials?
32. How could 16 carpet fibers remain on the child’s body after being submersed in the lake for 5 days, yet none be found in Stockelman’s truck?
33. How can semen be positively tested after being in water for such a long period of time?
34. Were tire tracks taken at the Lake? If so, what were the results?
35. Why did police go to a home on 800 South the night of Katie’s disappearance looking for her?
36. Why did police not make any arrests when they found a meth lab in operation that same evening?
37. Why had police not made any previous arrests when called to the Penn Villa apartment complex prior to Katie’s disappearance?
38. Why will no one name the residents of the apartment Katie visited?
39. Why were all of Stockelman’s pre-trial conferences public, yet the same has not applied to all other cases in Jackson County including that of Zachariah Blanton which has also gained national publicity?
41. Why would Katie look as though she were a normal passenger in the truck unless she was with someone she was familiar with?
42. What are the names of the 69 other persons who were DNA tested?
43. Who was asked to submit a DNA sample one month after Stockelman was charged with Katie’s murder? Why were they asked for a sample?
44. Were the other samples returned from the laboratory in a timely manner?
Specific questions for James “Ricky” Kilburn
1. Why didn’t you ask for a change of venue?
2. Why were several key witnesses never questioned, including the person who last saw Katie?
3. Why did you allow Pierson to go in excess of 8 months without turning over the evidence against your client?
4. You claimed you could not defend Anthony if you felt he was guilty. Yet not only did you defend him, you asked for his release from jail under a new interpretation of Criminal Rule 4. Later you claimed you felt he was guilty. Why were you not only able to defend him believing he was guilty, but also ask for his release under Criminal Rule 4?
5. Why did you ask for his release under Criminal Rule 4 knowing that you yourself had asked for the case to be moved forward?
6. Why did you allow your client to waive rights to a trial by jury as well as any rights to appeal?
7. Why did you visit Stockelman so infrequently at the Jackson County Jail?
8. Why did you not ask for the DNA evidence to be re-tested?
9. Why did you not raise any objections or cross examine any witnesses during the plea agreement?
10. Why did you wait until the Friday before the plea hearing to contact any possible witnesses to testify as to Stockelman’s character?
11. Why did you not include another witness who was willing to testify on Stockelman’s behalf without a subpeona?
12. Why did you not attempt to contact any of Stockelman’s co-workers to testify on his behalf after the initial sentencing hearing was postponed?
13. A specific event was told to you during a meeting with one of the witnesses. This event would have been significant if mentioned in court, yet you never brought it up and never allowed the witness to talk about it either. Why?
14. Why were no expert witnesses called to testify?
15. Have you seen the DNA evidence?
16. Why did you never follow up with a witness who saw vehicles at Cypress Lake prior to her being found?
17. Why did you allow the prosecution to proceed with a plea hearing in which Mr. Pierson openly stated he would not obey the requirements of Indiana Law by having Mr. Stockelman state how the crime was committed?
18. Had you previously been fired by Mr. Stockelman?
19. Mr. Stockelman was entitled to two death penalty certified attorneys. Why did you never ask for these attorneys to be appointed to him?
20. How many drug dealers in the Crothersville/Austin area did you represent? Were any of these people named by Hickman?
21. What did you do with money given to you by members of Stockelman’s family to have the DNA retested?
22. Why did you tell Stockelman’s family not to speak out to the media on his behalf?
23. Are you troubled by your involvement in obtaining Stockelman’s false confession, thus allowing those truly responsible for Katie’s death to remain free?
24. Will you stand before the Lord with a clear conscience on your day of judgement?
My attorney
A friend sent this message to me while I was in the Jackson County Jail. It does help to put things into perspective. Hope you enjoy it.
My Attorney
After living what I felt was a decent life, my time on earth came to an end.
The first thing I remember is sitting on a bench in the waiting room of what I thought to be a courthouse.
The doors opened, and I was instructed to come in and have a seat at the defense table.
As I looked around, I saw the “prosecutor.”
He was a villainous looking gent who snarled as he stared at me.
He definitely was the most evil person I have ever seen.
I sat down and looked to my left and there sat My Attorney, a kind and gentle looking man whose appearance seemed so familiar, I felt I knew Him.
The corner door flew open and there appeared the Judge in full flowing robes.
He commanded an awesome presence as He moved across the room. I couldn’t take my eyes off of Him.
As He took His seat behind the bend He said “Let us begin.”
The prosecutor rose and said: “My name is Satan and I am here to show you why this man belongs in Hell.”
He proceeded to tell of lies that I told, things that I stole, and in the past when I cheated others. Satan told of other horrible perversions that were once in my life and the more he spoke, the further down in my seat I sank.
I was so embarrassed that I couldn’t look at anyone, even my own Attorney, as the devil told of sins that even I had completely forgotten about.
As upset as I was at Satan for telling all those things about me, I was equally upset at My Attorney, who sat there silently not offering any form of defense at all. I knew I had been guilty of those things, but I had done some good in my life-couldn’t that at least equal out part of the harm I’d done?
Satan finished with a fury and said “This man belongs in hell, he is guilty of all that I have charged and there is not a person who can prove otherwise.”
When it was His turn, My Attorney first asked if He might approach the bench.
The Judge allowed this over the strong objection of Satan, and beckoned Him to come forward. As He got up and started walking, I was able to Him in His full splendor and majesty. I realized why He seemed so familiar; this was Jesus representing me, my Lord and Savior.
He stopped at the bench and softly said to the Judge “Hi, Dad”, and then He turned to address the court.
“Satan was correct in saying that this man had sinned, I won’t deny any of these allegations. And yes, the wages of sin is death, and this man deserves to be punished.”
Jesus took a deep breath and turned to His Father with outstretched arms and proclaimed: “However, I died on the cross so that this person might have eternal life and he has accepted Me as his Savior, so he is Mine.”
My Lord continued with, “His name is written in the book of life and no one can snatch him from Me.”
Satan still does not understand yet.
“This man is not to be given justice, but rather mercy.”
As Jesus sat down He quietly paused, looked at His Father and said “There is nothing else that needs to be done. I’ve done it all.”
The Judge lifted His mighty hand and slammed the gavel down. The following words bellowed from His lips:
“This man is free. The penalty for him has already been paid in full. Case dismissed.”
As my Lord led me away, I could hear Satan ranting and raving “I won’t give up. I will win the next one.”
I asked Jesus as He gave me instructions where to go next “Have you ever lost a case?”
Christ lovingly smiled and said “Everyone that has come to Me and asked Me to represent them has received the same verdict as you-Paid in Full.”
My Attorney
After living what I felt was a decent life, my time on earth came to an end.
The first thing I remember is sitting on a bench in the waiting room of what I thought to be a courthouse.
The doors opened, and I was instructed to come in and have a seat at the defense table.
As I looked around, I saw the “prosecutor.”
He was a villainous looking gent who snarled as he stared at me.
He definitely was the most evil person I have ever seen.
I sat down and looked to my left and there sat My Attorney, a kind and gentle looking man whose appearance seemed so familiar, I felt I knew Him.
The corner door flew open and there appeared the Judge in full flowing robes.
He commanded an awesome presence as He moved across the room. I couldn’t take my eyes off of Him.
As He took His seat behind the bend He said “Let us begin.”
The prosecutor rose and said: “My name is Satan and I am here to show you why this man belongs in Hell.”
He proceeded to tell of lies that I told, things that I stole, and in the past when I cheated others. Satan told of other horrible perversions that were once in my life and the more he spoke, the further down in my seat I sank.
I was so embarrassed that I couldn’t look at anyone, even my own Attorney, as the devil told of sins that even I had completely forgotten about.
As upset as I was at Satan for telling all those things about me, I was equally upset at My Attorney, who sat there silently not offering any form of defense at all. I knew I had been guilty of those things, but I had done some good in my life-couldn’t that at least equal out part of the harm I’d done?
Satan finished with a fury and said “This man belongs in hell, he is guilty of all that I have charged and there is not a person who can prove otherwise.”
When it was His turn, My Attorney first asked if He might approach the bench.
The Judge allowed this over the strong objection of Satan, and beckoned Him to come forward. As He got up and started walking, I was able to Him in His full splendor and majesty. I realized why He seemed so familiar; this was Jesus representing me, my Lord and Savior.
He stopped at the bench and softly said to the Judge “Hi, Dad”, and then He turned to address the court.
“Satan was correct in saying that this man had sinned, I won’t deny any of these allegations. And yes, the wages of sin is death, and this man deserves to be punished.”
Jesus took a deep breath and turned to His Father with outstretched arms and proclaimed: “However, I died on the cross so that this person might have eternal life and he has accepted Me as his Savior, so he is Mine.”
My Lord continued with, “His name is written in the book of life and no one can snatch him from Me.”
Satan still does not understand yet.
“This man is not to be given justice, but rather mercy.”
As Jesus sat down He quietly paused, looked at His Father and said “There is nothing else that needs to be done. I’ve done it all.”
The Judge lifted His mighty hand and slammed the gavel down. The following words bellowed from His lips:
“This man is free. The penalty for him has already been paid in full. Case dismissed.”
As my Lord led me away, I could hear Satan ranting and raving “I won’t give up. I will win the next one.”
I asked Jesus as He gave me instructions where to go next “Have you ever lost a case?”
Christ lovingly smiled and said “Everyone that has come to Me and asked Me to represent them has received the same verdict as you-Paid in Full.”
Meth and Murder?
On January 25, 2005, a young girl named Katie Collman left her home in Crothersville, Indiana to buy some toilet paper for her mother. It was a walk she had taken literally hundreds of times before according to her father, John Neace. However, this time would be different. Katie did not return, and was found 5 days later floating in a creek leading from Cypress Lake some 17 miles north of where she was last seen.
The local community rallied in support of Katie and her family. They distributed flyers, printed t-shirts with her picture, and lended their time to searching for her on foot or with ATV's. They held a candlelight vigil, praying for her safe return. And when a local man confessed to killing Collman because she had witnessed drug activity, citizens vowed to rid their town of the meth production.
After Chuckie Hickman's confession, the public finally spoke out about the drug activity that had been going on in the town of 1500 residents. A march against drug activity was held, and there was talk of tearing down the Penn Villa apartment complex where she was last seen in order to build a playground in her honor. Police finally began to arrest residents who earlier had been producing meth, including one man who blew up his home while manufacturing meth only one month prior to Katie's death.
Katie's uncle, Jerry Neace called local authorities in late December 2004 about suspicious activity at the Penn Villa. At that time, Neace claimed the smell was so bad that it made his throat burn. However, when authorities arrived, they made no arrests.
On the evening of Katie's disappearance, police went to a home on County Road 800 South, in what is known as the Bethany neighborhood. This is some distance from town, outside of the city limits of Crothersville. The police claim that they went to this residence in the course of their search for Katie. Why Katie might have been at that particular residence that evening is unclear. It would have been unlikely that she wandered there on her own. While conducting a search for the missing girl, police found an operable meth lab, but did not make any arrests. After Hickman's confession, these men turned themselves in to police authority.
In September 2005, 15 felons were released in Jackson County. Among them were many who were arrested on drug charges, namely meth, after Katie's death and disappearance. What the disposition of these cases has been is uncertain at this time.
It seems that Hickman gave a credible statement to police which caused the public to insist that these drug dealers be arrested and their activities halted. Perhaps this caused a conflict of interest for someone in a position of authority, who realized that their boys were going to be put out of business. It then became necessary to change the story, claiming that a random man happened upon Collman, molested her, then killed her to keep her quiet. Perhaps in order to make that story convincable, they needed to allege they had DNA evidence.
Residents of Crothersville still complain about the meth houses in their town. Police still have excuses as to why these things are still occuring.
The local community rallied in support of Katie and her family. They distributed flyers, printed t-shirts with her picture, and lended their time to searching for her on foot or with ATV's. They held a candlelight vigil, praying for her safe return. And when a local man confessed to killing Collman because she had witnessed drug activity, citizens vowed to rid their town of the meth production.
After Chuckie Hickman's confession, the public finally spoke out about the drug activity that had been going on in the town of 1500 residents. A march against drug activity was held, and there was talk of tearing down the Penn Villa apartment complex where she was last seen in order to build a playground in her honor. Police finally began to arrest residents who earlier had been producing meth, including one man who blew up his home while manufacturing meth only one month prior to Katie's death.
Katie's uncle, Jerry Neace called local authorities in late December 2004 about suspicious activity at the Penn Villa. At that time, Neace claimed the smell was so bad that it made his throat burn. However, when authorities arrived, they made no arrests.
On the evening of Katie's disappearance, police went to a home on County Road 800 South, in what is known as the Bethany neighborhood. This is some distance from town, outside of the city limits of Crothersville. The police claim that they went to this residence in the course of their search for Katie. Why Katie might have been at that particular residence that evening is unclear. It would have been unlikely that she wandered there on her own. While conducting a search for the missing girl, police found an operable meth lab, but did not make any arrests. After Hickman's confession, these men turned themselves in to police authority.
In September 2005, 15 felons were released in Jackson County. Among them were many who were arrested on drug charges, namely meth, after Katie's death and disappearance. What the disposition of these cases has been is uncertain at this time.
It seems that Hickman gave a credible statement to police which caused the public to insist that these drug dealers be arrested and their activities halted. Perhaps this caused a conflict of interest for someone in a position of authority, who realized that their boys were going to be put out of business. It then became necessary to change the story, claiming that a random man happened upon Collman, molested her, then killed her to keep her quiet. Perhaps in order to make that story convincable, they needed to allege they had DNA evidence.
Residents of Crothersville still complain about the meth houses in their town. Police still have excuses as to why these things are still occuring.
My story
Thank you for visiting my site. My name is Tony Stockelman. I am currently serving a life sentence for a crime I did not commit. I hope you will allow me to tell you my story.
On January 25, 2005, I was at my mother's house on Kovener Street in Crothersville, Indiana moving some furniture for her to a new residence. That afternoon, a few blocks from where my mother lived a young girl named Katlyn Collman left her home to run an errand for her mother.
She never returned, and was found 5 days later in a creek near Seymour, Indiana.
Local residents became concerned about Katie and began searching all over Jackson County for the young girl. Meanwhile I loaded my pickup truck full of my mother's belongings and went home to my rural Jackson County home to unload this truck and get a little bit of sleep before reporting for my third shift job at Valeo Sylvania.
Two days after Katie's disappearance, an eye-witness came forward who claimed they saw Katie riding in a white Ford F150 on the day she was reported missing. The eye-witness described the man as a tall, very skinny white male, 18-20 years old, dark hair and fair complexion.
The media issued this composite sketch of this man:
On January 25, 2005, I was at my mother's house on Kovener Street in Crothersville, Indiana moving some furniture for her to a new residence. That afternoon, a few blocks from where my mother lived a young girl named Katlyn Collman left her home to run an errand for her mother.
She never returned, and was found 5 days later in a creek near Seymour, Indiana.
Local residents became concerned about Katie and began searching all over Jackson County for the young girl. Meanwhile I loaded my pickup truck full of my mother's belongings and went home to my rural Jackson County home to unload this truck and get a little bit of sleep before reporting for my third shift job at Valeo Sylvania.
Two days after Katie's disappearance, an eye-witness came forward who claimed they saw Katie riding in a white Ford F150 on the day she was reported missing. The eye-witness described the man as a tall, very skinny white male, 18-20 years old, dark hair and fair complexion.
The media issued this composite sketch of this man:
The evening that the Amber Alert was issued, Indiana State Police trooper Robert Simpson came to my residence because they had ran a DMV search for white Ford F150 trucks and I owned such a vehicle. In fact, this truck was the one I was using to help my mother move. The police questioned me about my activities the day that Collman disappeared. I was honest in answering their questions and admitted to being in the area she was last seen the evening she became missing. There were no eye-witnesses to my being there, but I gave the police the information because I had nothing to hide. They asked for permission to search my vehicle without a warrant and I obliged them. I also went to the State Police post that evening and voluntarily submitted to a polygraph exam. At the conclusion of this exam, I was told nothing further would be needed and there was no reason to hold me for further questioning. I had passed the exam.
I soon forgot about the incident until early April 2005. At that time, the Indiana State Police once again came to my residence and asked me to provide a DNA sample. Again, as I had nothing to hide, I willingly submitted to the test.
Imagine my surprise when two days later I was arrested on charges of molesting Collman near the time of her death. Prosecutors claim that my DNA matched DNA found on a cigarette butt as well as on the girl's body. At the time of my arrest, another man was in custody for Collman's murder-Charles "Chuckie" Hickman. Hickman claimed that Collman saw drug activity in a local apartment complex and abducted the girl in hopes of scaring her into silence. He claimed that he drove her to the lake in a white Ford F150, which was borrowed from his friend, Timothy O"Sullivan. Timothy O'Sullivan had been charged with false informing in the case, along with an unnamed 17 year old male. Police claim that they thoroughly investigated and could find no relationship between Hickman and myself. Also, one week prior to my arrest, the Jackson County prosecutor wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper explaining why he was reluctant to seek the death penalty against Hickman. One reason he stated was the lack of mitigating circumstances (child molesting).
Three weeks later, Hickman was being transported from the county jail to a court appearance. At that time, he was questioned by the media as to his involvement in Collman's death. This time, he stated that he was there and saw who did it, but did not commit the crime himself. When asked by reporters who in his opinion killed Katie Collman, Hickman replied "Jeff Tatlock raped that girl."
Hickman's mother had previously stated that she believed her son gave a false confession out of fear. Mrs. Hickman stated that Chuckie was afraid of a man who had blown up his house in a fire in late 2004 while cooking methamphetamine. That man was Jeffrey Tatlock.
Six weeks later, Hickman's story was abruptly discharged and I was charged with Collman's murder and confinement along with her molestation. On his way out of the jail, Hickman still maintained that he was there and saw what had happened and that police were charging the wrong man.
Indeed, Hickman gave quite credible testimony. He named a man as an accomplice who closely resembled the composite sketch given by the eyewitness. He stated that the girl saw drug activity in a local apartment complex, for which she was abducted to scare her into silence. That same apartment had been the focus of two earlier investigations into drug activity in the month prior to her disappearance. No arrests were ever made. In addition, the names of those in the complex were never released to the public.
Nearly a year passed while I awaited trial. It was suddenly decided that Grand Jury investigation would not be needed. Still, I had faith that the system would work as it was intended, and that my attorney, James Kilburn, a deacon of my church had my best interests at heart and would fight to have these charges overturned.
But Kilburn did not do this, even though he was not appointed as a public defender, but rather paid by my mother. Because prosecutors were seeking the death penalty, I should have been assigned two death penalty certified attorneys. This did not happen. Nor did Kilburn ask for a change of venue, even though this case had received national media attention.
Several months passed without any evidence being turned over to Mr. Kilburn, including the alleged DNA evidence. Meanwhile, the FBI continued to ask for DNA samples from other suspects. My family and friends donated money to Kilburn to pay for the retesting of the DNA evidence. Mr. Kilburn is unable to explain what he did with these donations.
For reasons I cannot disclose at this time, I accepted a plea agreement in March 2006. Let's just say I was "convinced" that this would be in my best interest. When the plea agreement was announced, then-Prosecutor Stephen Pierson announced that I would be changing my plea to guilty and that it would not be necessary to state how the crime occurred as Indiana Law requires.
Several witnesses were called to testify on behalf of the prosecution, most surprising my wife Tabitha. When I was arrested Tabitha was my most adamant supporter. During the press conference that was called after charges were reversed, she stated that she had had threats on her life. I believe she too was somehow "convinced" to change her testimony. Although Tabitha claims that the DNA evidence is what convinced her, that is not true. She loyally stood by me for many months even after prosecutors claimed that DNA evidence led to my arrest. After being sent to the Indiana Department of Corrections, my brother Troy filed for divorce from her on my behalf.
None of the witnesses were cross-examined by Kilburn, nor was any evidence introduced into public record. Only after receiving my life sentence did I learn that a forensic report existed that showed no evidence of Katie having been inside my vehicle. Hickman did not testify, nor did the eyewitness who saw Collman in the pickup truck.
So what happened to the DNA evidence? How can a man be sentenced to life without parole for a crime in without ever being able to see the evidence against him? At this point, I am not sure if the DNA is non-existent, has been tampered with, or if the cigarette butt may have been taken from my truck when it was searched. I am not guilty of this crime and welcome re-testing of the DNA to prove my innocence.
Thank you for allowing me to share a side of the story that has not been told by the media. I hope I have caused you to think about how easy it is for anyone to be convicted of a crime they did not commit and how often it truly occurs.
Sincerely
Tony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)