Have you ever had a cop in your face? (Part III) Revised

Excerpts from deposition and trial about evidence during the case.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ryan
• Ferguson
• wrongful
• convicted
• murder
• Missouri
• Erickson

[thatjessichick]

@aabill wow i had no idea. im Australian born and bred.

I still think about this case, and it still upsets me. Its disgusting.

my wishes and thoughts to Ryan and his family.

[Magcomplex]

@kenfo0

I call Bullshit...

[Magcomplex]

Look when is everyone going to figure out the Boone County Does whatever the heck it wants. I called the State Attorney General's office and they told me "That they leave all decisions to the Local DA". It short it is TOTALLY Boone Count that does crap like this.

And as often is the case in "Regimes" like this it is who you know and how you are connected. That is why certain lawyers can get away with stuff in Boone county when others can't.....get the picture...someone needs to call the FEDS

[Stink808]

Being from Columbia I am sick to my stomach at what the police did and what Kevin Crane did to this innocent kid, Ryan. Chuck, who I believe had nothing to do with the crime either, is a head case and stuck himself but there is nothing on Ryan whatsoever and they still threw him in prison for 40 years. That city's cops and courts are so corrupt is frightening. If you have a police encounter there, you have no idea what kind of danger you could truly be in.

[kenfo0]

wrong. re-read my entirely correct post. if the police/prosecutors determine the hair is not related to the crime, there is no reason or responsibility to determine to whom it belongs. also, it is "joking" not "jokeing", and "Database", not "Data Base".

[Gunney3042]

@kenfo0

Your are Jokeing right? Of course you want to know where the hair came from and IT IS THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO FIND ALL THE FACTS. The hair must be collected and DNA tests done.....Once found not to be Ryan's or Chucks...put in it the National Data Base to try and find out who's hair it is

[aabill]

No one is suggesting the hair was not ex culpatory.

The issue is Prosecutor Crane lied in his closing when he said during the trial that there was no hair in the victim's hand. While under oath July 19, 2008 on Page 770-771 he admitted there was a hair in the vicim's hand. The difference is while a prosecutor during the trial he has immunity but once he is out side the court room he must tell the truth like everone else. Why do you think he changed his statement?

[kenfo0]

Unlike on TV, where you appear to be getting your info on law, it is not the job of the police to find out where hair came from. They are to determine if it is relevant to the case. If it is, and it will be used as evidence, they must tie it to the crime. If they find the blood AND hair are not the victim's, they must provide that info to the defense. If the hair is not the victim's/killers', but the blood is, then the hair is not part of the evidence and is not exculpatory.

[aabill]

The aboriginal music is used because Ryan was born in the Northern Territory of Australia. This is the home of the Aboriginal people. Ryan enjoys their music

[aabill]

This video shows that Prosecutor Crane lied to the jury during his closing. Here we see the hair, the FBI Reports, the MSHP reports and still Crane tells the jury there is no hair in the victim's hand and the hand is not bloody.

Detective Nichols testified during Ryan's trial that he saw the hair in the hand of the victim. Detective Nicoles took several photos of the hair. Still Prosecutor Crane tells the jury there was no hair.

Wow!