Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

If The Jury Had Known (Part IV) REVISED

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
3,741
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Apr 6, 2009

This video shows differences between Chuck Erickson's interrogation and his testimony during trial.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 1 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • You sound like the idiots on the jury who know nothing about teenage boys. The kid had a poor attorney and was railroaded. This should be overturned on appeal based upon the facts of this case being garbage

  • @Lyn7721 I once heard a Veteran interrogator say...."You can only push innocent people so far in during an interrogation before they snap on you and become very hostile"... Guilty people will sit forever and take your abuse and not become argumentivie with you...they will just sit and keep denying it....but Innocent people will tell you to go F yourself after a certain point"....

see all

All Comments (27)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @YZach I agree! Just ask anyone living in Florida now!! Too bad the 12 jurors on Casey Anthonys case couldn't have been the jury on Ryans case. Ryan needs to be free!!!

  • When you have ignorant citizens, you get ignorant jurors. FREE RYAN.

  • It is inconceivable for me to believe that these two men did this and did not get not one spot of blood on either of them.I mean,the blood shoe print leading away from the scene does not even match any of their shoes.Now this disturbed Erickson guy is recanting his story ONCE AGAIN--smh.I just feel bad that it’s strongly possible that an innocent kid is sitting in jail among harden criminals for something he did not do.

    My prayers go out to families involved in this and may the TRUTH prevail!

  • Furthermore, if I were on that jury, I would have never found either of them guilty on the grounds of this guy Erickson's wayward "confession" and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE linking the two to the crime. I mean, at trial, Erickson testified that Ferguson strangled the victim with his own belt by putting his foot on his back and pulling upwards on the belt. If this is true, then why was there NO BLOOD found on his shoes? No blood on either of them, but the crime scene had massive amts of blood?

  • I have just gotten finish watching this case at the 48 Hrs Mystery website and I was APPALLED at the trite malpractice of the police and prosecution. I am not even in law enforcement and I knew that it was not procedural for a police officer to be feeding sensitive, forensic information to a potential suspect during an interrogation. I think that it was trite, lackadaisical behavior and the police department just did not wanna do their job. BTW, what was the jurors thinking with that verdict?

  • At the trial he said Ryan foot was on the guys back... which means the guy would have been faced down....in the interrogation he agreed when the cop said "and the guy who was being attacked was on his back?" he said yes .... which means the guy would have been faced up......jeez

  • Ryan sunk himself when he took the stand. plain and simple.

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more