Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog

Colorado Man - Robert Dewey - Exonerated By DNA, But That Does Not Mean Mesa County Sheriffs Did Anything Wrong

Avi Kamionski — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:57:07 -0600

The Daily Sentinel has reported that Robert Dewey is being released from prison after serving 16 years for the rape and murder of a Palisade, Colorado woman. Jackie Taylor, age nineteen, was slain in June 1994. Her body was found in her Palisade apartment, naked from the waist down in a half-filled bathtub. She'd been beaten, sexually assaulted and strangled with a nylon dog leash.

Dewey, who was staying nearby with the family of Taylor's roommate, immediately became a suspect in the crime due in part to blood found on one of his work shirts. DNA testing on the garment convinced some investigators that the blood was a combination of Dewey's and Taylor's, while other experts believed the fluid could have come from literally thousands of others. In the end, Dewey, whose was convicted and given life in prison.

Dewey may be innocent and, if so, should be released from prison. However, that does not automatically mean that the police officers who investigated his case did anything wrong. Nevertheless, the news reports suggest that Dewey plans on filing a civil suit against Mesa County Sheriffs.

When Dewey files his lawsuit, Mesa County must demonstrate that the sheriffs did their jobs and that there was probable cause to arrest and charge Dewey with the murder. Simply because Dewey was exonerated, does not prevent the officers from winning this case.

Our firm successfully defended several retired detectives who were accused of fabricating a case against a person who was exonerated based on DNA. Jerry Miller was convicted in 1982 of a brutal rape in Chicago. He was convicted based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified Miller as the man who attempted to drive his rape victim's car out a parking garage where they worked at the time. The parking lot attendants foiled the rapist's escape by preventing him from driving the car out of the parking garage. Miller spent 26 years in prison before being released in 2006 based on new DNA testing which showed that Miller was not the rapist. That DNA testing lead to the real culprit, Robert Weeks. Despite that, we were able to show that the detectives did nothing wrong and a Federal Court in Chicago granted summary judgment for the retired detectives.

More Police Are Being Killed Each Year

Andy Hale — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:40:23 -0600

According to FBI statistics, 72 police officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25% increase from 2010, and a 75% increase from 2008. Astonishingly, 2011 marked the first year more police officers were killed by suspects than by vehicles. Read the New York Times story about the rise in police shootings HERE.

Chicago Police Officers Sue Person Who Wrongly Accused Them Of False Arrest

Andy Hale — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:01:23 -0600

Chicago Police Officers Arthur Davis and Pablo Mariano have decided to turn the tables on Ronald Magee, who had wrongly accused the Officers of falsely arresting him. Officers Davis and Mariano have filed their own lawsuit against Magee and his girlfriend, Christina Atterberry, alleging malicious prosecution, defamation/libel/slander, and conspiracy.

This story began when Chicago police officers searched a single-family residence at 6927 S. Aberdeen Street pursuant to a search warrant based on information provided by a confidential informant who had observed Magee with firearms at that location. Christina Atterberry was present during the search. During the search, police officers recovered suspect cannabis, a defaced handgun, ammunition, as well as Magee's state identification card. Magee was subsequently arrested and charged with unlawful use of a weapon, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and possession with intent to deliver cannabis.

The charges against Magee were later dismissed and, thereafter, Magee filed a federal lawsuit against several Chicago police officers, including Davis and Mariano, alleging that they violated Magee's civil rights by arresting and charging him. At the March 2011 trial, Magee testified that he did not know Atterberry and that he had never been at the address where the officers executed the search warrant. Atterberry, likewise, tested that she did not know Magee. The federal trial resulted in a mistrial and subsequently the City of Chicago and its attorneys discovered that Magee and Atterberry had a long-standing, close personal friendship. When confronted with this evidence, Magee voluntarily dismissed his federal lawsuit against the police officers, including officers Davis and Mariano.

Yesterday, officers Davis and Mariano fought back against Magee's false accusations by filing their own malicious prosecution lawsuit against Magee and Atterberry. The officers have also sued for defamation/libel/slander. Police Officers Davis and Mariano are represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Avi Kamionski and Ann Wall from the law firm of Andrew M. Hale & Associates. The Chicago Tribune ran an article about the police officers' lawsuit - you can read the article HERE.

Two Illinois State Police Officers Rescue Driver From Burning Vehicle

Andy Hale — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:03:41 -0600

Wanted to pass along another great story about police officers risking their lives to save others. On March 4th, Illinois State Police Sergeant Henry Spight and Illinois State Trooper Jacqueline Del Villar arrived at the scene of a burning vehicle. Trooper Del Villar immediately rushed to the burning vehicle and attempted to pull the driver out. Sergeant Spight was able to douse the flames with a fire extinguisher and then both officers were able to rescue the driver before the vehicle became fully engulfed in flames. Both Sergeant Spight and Trooper Del Villar sustained burns and cuts to their hands and smoke inhalation. They were treated and released at an area hospital. The rescued driver was 34 year old Tamara Jackson of Chicago. Nice job officers! Read the full story HERE.

New Jersey Police Officer Hailed As Hero In Mall Shooting

Andy Hale — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:37:19 -0600

Woodbridge New Jersey police officer Edward Barrett, Jr. is being hailed as a hero after a shooting that took place at the Woodbridge Center Mall. Police tried to detain Andres Garcia for shoplifting. Garcia had been recently released from prison and was on parole. After running from police, Garcia pulled out a knife and grabbed a woman and held the knife to her neck as he dragged her into a Sears store. Garcia threatened to kill the woman during a standoff. After repeatedly telling Garcia to drop the knife, and after Garcia refused to do so, Officer Barrett fired a single shot that struck Garcia in the head, killing him. The woman was unharmed. Read the story HERE.

Moira Smith - 9/11 Hero Cop - Memorialized By Playground Naming In NYC

Andy Hale — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:11:31 -0600

We have to remember the and honor our police officer heroes. One of those heroes was New York police officer Moira Smith, who died in the World Trade Center's South Tower on 9/11 after saving hundreds of people in a stairwell. The then 38 year old 13th Precinct veteran was honored by having a playground in Manhattan named in her honor. Read more about he story HERE. Smith was the only woman among 23 NYPD officers killed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Andrew M. Hale & Associates Wins Police Trial - Jury Rejects Excessive Force Claim

Andy Hale — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:45:48 -0600

After a very brief deliberation, a federal jury rejected plaintiff Antoine McMillan's excessive force claim. After being convicted of robbery in 2009, McMillan sued Chicago Police Detective Kevin Stoll, one of the arresting officers, alleging that Stoll dislocated McMillan's wrist during handcuffing. McMillan relied on the testimony from several of his family members, an orthopedic surgeon, and an x-ray. The defense team, comprised of attorneys Shneur Nathan, Jonathan Boulahanis and Joan Ahn, from Andrew M. Hale & Associates, showed that it was medically impossible for McMillan's wrist (lunate) dislocation to have occurred in the manner that McMillan claimed. McMillan's medical records also revealed that he failed to disclose a preexisting wrist injury he apparently suffered in 2003.

RIP - Chicago Police Officer Clifton Lewis

Andy Hale — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:17:19 -0600

A very very sad story - and a very real reminder of the dangers that police officers face every minute of every day. Chicago police officer Clifton Lewis was gunned down while working a second job as a security officer to help pay for his upcoming wedding. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Mr. Lewis' family and fiancé. Read the story HERE.

Jury Rules In Favor Of Chicago Police - Finds Shooting Of Michael Dunbar Was Justified - Rejects Family's Claim For $4 Million

Andy Hale — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:02:19 -0600

A federal jury has ruled that a Chicago Police Officer was justified in shooting and killing Michael Dunbar when Dunbar drove his car while dragging the Officer, whose arm was trapped in the car window. Dunbar and a female passenger were in a car when approached by the Officer. Dunbar, who had a .12 blood alcohol level, drove the car onto the sidewalk hitting the Officer. The Officer ordered Dunbar to stop and reached into the car to try and take the keys but Dunbar grabbed the Officer's arm and then put the car in reverse and then forward, driving away with the Officer's arm hooked in the car window. With the car accelerating, the Officer shot Dunbar, killing him. The Officer suffered injuries, including a concussion, which required hospitalization. You can read more about the underlying incident HERE. At the civil trial, Dunbar's family claimed the Officer was not justified in shooting Dunbar and asked the jury to award the family $4,000,000. The jury rejected the plaintiff's claims and found in favor of the Chicago Police, who were represented by attorneys Josh Enquist and Jordan Marsh from the City of Chicago Corporation Counsel's office. Dunbar's family was represented by attorney Russell Ainsworth from the firm of Loevy & Loevy.

More Anti-Police Media Bias In Chicago - This Time Channel 7 News

Andy Hale — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:22:19 -0600

Another blatant example of anti-police media bias here in Chicago. This time it comes from reporters Jessica D'Onofrio and Jason Knowles at Channel 7 News.

Second City Cop has the details - read HERE

Read the Friday 11-25 post "SCUMBAG MEDIA REPORTING"

and then read the Saturday 11-26 followup post "SCUMBAG MEDIA CHANGES STORY"

Truly remarkable and undeniable

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part XI - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Syandene Rhodes-Pitts

Andy Hale — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:40:19 -0600

Today we take a look at the grand jury testimony of Northwestern Medill Journalism student Syandene Rhodes-Pitts, who was one of the students working with Professor David Protess in investigating the Anthony Porter case.

Her testimony was on February 22, 1999. Here are some points of interest:

* She and other met with Anthony Porter in jail on January 11

* Porter did not furnish them with any helpful information

* Nobody asked Porter any questions about his alibi at trial

* She denied her meeting with Porter was an "interview"

* Nobody asked Porter about his whereabouts:

Q: While you were there with him for that hour, did anybody ever ask him where he was on the early morning hours of August 15, 1982?

A: No.

* She did not ask Porter if he knew Eugene Beckwith, Michael Woodfork, Kenneth Edwards or Mark Senior

* She did not even know who these people were:

Q: Do you know who those people are?

A: No.

[HOW COULD SHE NOT KNOW THAT? THEY WERE KEY WITNESSES WHO SAID THEY SAW PORTER IN THE PARK THAT NIGHT, AND EDWARDS SAID HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER]

*This was the only time she spoke to Porter prior to his release

* She has had a few conversations with Porter since his release

* She never asked Porter about his alibi on August 15, 1982

* She never discussed with Porter his whereabouts on August 15, 1982

* She never asked Porter whether he was in the pool area of Washington Park at the time that Marilyn Green and Jerry Hillard were shot

* At the time she spoke to Porter in jail, she already believed he was innocent:

GRAND JUROR: You weren't really looking to see if he was guilty or innocent of this crime at that point as much as you were interested in seeing whether he was mentally competent at the time of his trial, to stand trial, or to understand his rights and so on?

A: I actually - I believed he was already innocent at that time, so I wasn't there to make my final decision.

GRAND JUROR: You believe he was innocent at that time?

[THE GRAND JUROR SEEMS SKEPTICAL]

A: Yes.

[BEAR IN MIND, SHE ADMITTED SHE DIDN'T KNOW EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH WERE. PERHAPS SHE THOUGHT PORTER WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE SHE WAS IGNORING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING PORTER. JUST A THOUGHT]

* Again, she admits to not knowing about the key witnesses against Porter:

Q: Did anyone direct you to interview Beckwith, Senior, Woodfork or Edwards?

A: No.

Q: Did you read the police reports?

A: I scanned them early on.

[SCANNED THEM? EARLY ON? WEREN'T THE POLICE REPORTS CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS TO LOOK AT? IF YOU WERE SEEKING THE TRUTH, WOULDN'T THE POLICE REPORTS BE A GOOD STARTING POINT?]

Q: Did those four names that I just mentioned, do they mean anything to you?

A: I really don't recall like where or who - where they might fall in or who they might be.

[REALLY? YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY MIGHT BE? HMM. . . ]

* A Grand Juror expressed concern that perhaps the students were just pawns:

GRAND JUROR: Hearing your story, hearing the Professor's story, hearing other witnesses' stories gives me the impression that it's entirely possible at times that you might be a pawn?

A: Who might be?

GRAND JUROR: You

A: Me, myself?

GRAND JUROR: You and other students possibly a pawn, and so we are trying to find out. It's not a - you know, we need to know the truth. We need to know the facts. All we can know. If there is - is there any television connection to all of this, is there a big story, a book, is there - what is motivating the move towards this direction where there is a lot of evidence that you have admitted that you have seen but passed over blindly perhaps without giving it a second look, it's not being investigated and -

A: I don't think I understand.

GRAND JUROR: I'm sure you don't, because you don't know - you've been asked and you've indicated that you don't know, and yet you should.

A: Are you saying is there a movie motivating what, like television -

GRAND JUROR: Could be anything. An innocent man being railroaded. A guilty man being let loose. It makes a great story.

[I THINK THIS GRAND JUROR MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING? WHAT DO YOU THINK?]

A: What are you saying?

GRAND JUROR: I am saying it's a lot of money

A: And your question is?

GRAND JUROR: I am saying that you are a part of it and you don't know anything about it.

A: Know anything about?

GRAND JUROR: About what's behind -

A: I know what I've been doing for the past month and that has been investigating Anthony Porter's innocence.

GRAND JUROR: Or guilt. He might be guilty?

[EXCELLENT QUESTION. DID ANY OF THE JOURNALISM STUDENTS LOOK AT THE "GUILTY" SIDE OF THE STORY??]

A: The class I am taking is investigative journalism and we were given the case because there was no evidence linking him -

[WHAT?? WHAT ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH, THE GUYS SHE DID NOT KNOW??]

GRAND JUROR: You left out

A: - - to the crime.

GRAND JUROR: What would you say is your objective of the assignment you were given?

A: I believe the objective would be to find any evidence, interview anyone you could that would lead to freeing this man.

[NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! SHE ADMITS HER MISSION WAS NOT THE TRUTH. HER MISSION WAS TO SPARE PORTER FROM THE DEATH PENALTY. SOUNDS LIKE SHE AND THE STUDENTS - AT PROFESSOR PROTESS' INSTRUCTION - WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THE "BAD FACTS" ONLY THE POTENTIALLY GOOD FACTS. THIS IS JOURNALISM???]

GRAND JUROR: Your objective is freeing him not just investigating all of the facts?

[THE GRAND JUROR READ MY MIND]

A: Right, investigating the facts, and as the facts - as we had read the facts, there was no physical crime, physical evidence linking him to the crime, therefore, we proceeded with innocence.

[BUT WHAT ABOUT EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH??? WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT PORTER'S ALIBI DID NOT JIVE? AND WHAT ABOUT THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STOPPED AND FRISKED PORTER AT THE PARK RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING??]

* She was also unaware of key testimony from witness William Taylor:

Q: Are you also aware that William Taylor told Professor Protess on the day this affidavit was signed that he believed he saw Anthony Porter in the pool that night when he passed him, are you aware of that?

A: Are you saying is that in the affidavit?

Q: No, I am not asking you if it's in the affidavit. What I am asking is are you aware that William Taylor said to Professor Protess that he believed Anthony Porter was in the pool that night and ran past him?

A: No, I am not aware of that.

[HOW IS SHE NOT AWARE OF THIS EITHER?]

Q: I think that's what you are getting at.

GRAND JUROR: I guess what I am suggesting is we have different stories about the objective of your course, whether it's about investigative journalism, whether it's about trying to get someone who has in a court of law been found guilty to be -

A: I am sure you have been provided with a syllabus which would probably outline Professor Protess verbatim, but as far as where I was coming from, that's what I gave you, you know, that was my objective.

[PRETTY INTERESTING STUFF. SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT WAS THE TRUE MISSION OF DAVID PROTESS AND HIS STUDENTS? THE TRUTH? OR THE FIND A WAY, ANY WAY, TO SPARE ANTHONY PORTER FROM THE DEATH PENALTY?]

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part X - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Shawn Armbrust

Andy Hale — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:45:06 -0600

In our continuing review of the Anthony Porter case - we now look at the grand jury testimony of Northwestern Medill Journalism student Shawn Armbrust, who testified before the grand jury on February 22, 1999. Here are some key points:

* she took David Protess' class "Media and Capital Punishment" and was assigned to the Anthony Porter case.

* She received an "A" in the class

* As to the class, she said "essentially we are supposed to advance the truth in the case whether or not it means the person is innocent or guilty"

[KEEP THIS MISSION IN MIND AS YOU READ THE REST OF THIS POST AND OUR OTHER POSTS ABOUT THIS CASE AND ASK YOURSELF IF PROTESS AND THE NORTHWESTERN STUDENTS WERE REALLY TRYING TO ADVANCE THE "TRUTH" WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOWED PORTER TO BE GUILTY?]

* she never reviewed the testimony of any of Porter's alleged alibi witnesses

* she went to reenact the crime at Washington Park with fellow students Tom McCann, Cara Rubinsky, Lori D'Angelo and a camera crew from CBS Network

[WHY WAS THE MEDIA INVOLVED IN THIS? DID PROFESSOR PROTESS SET THIS UP?]

* on December 9, she interviewed Alstory Simon at his house in Milwaukee with fellow student Cara Rubinsky while Professor Protess waited in the car

* Simon told her that the night of the murders he had gone out walking with Jerry and Marilyn and they wanted to go into the park and he told them not to because it was dangerous.

* He also said the murders were very painful because he was good friends with Jerry and Marilyn and they all had been planning their weddings together

* Simon said he had left Chicago one year after the murders for job reasons

* She was familiar with William Taylor's affidavit and knew that his affidavit did not mention the fact that he had seen Porter in pool area of Washington Park on the night of the murders

* She and others interviewed Anthony Porter in Cook County Jail on December 16th. She just asked him some basic questions like how his headaches were

* Porter told her that Simon was the guy they had to talk to because he had done the crime. He did not tell them how he knew that.

[IF PORTER REALLY THOUGHT SIMON WAS THE KILLER, WHY WASN'T SIMON'S NAME MENTIONED ONCE DURING PORTER'S CRIMINAL TRIAL??]

* Porter told them he was not in the park that night

[BUT THAT DIDN'T JIVE WITH WHAT EDWARDS, BECKWITH, SENIOR AND WOODFORK TOLD THE POLICE. WHY DIDN'T PROTESS AND THE STUDENTS TALK TO THESE MEN?]

* she never investigated Porter's alibi

* she never read the transcript of the testimony of Porter's alleged alibi witnesses from his criminal trial

* she was part of a group that interviewed Inez Jackson

* Inez Jackson was very sick and in poor health - she was suffering from HIV

* she was not familiar with the name "Edwards"

[THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM A GRAND JUROR. EDWARDS WAS THE PERSON WHO TOLD POLICE THAT HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER. HOW COULD ARMBRUST NOT HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THAT NAME?]

* they bought Inez Jackson some groceries and a gave her a space heater after she signed an affidavit saying Simon was the shooter

* here are some specific questions and answers:

JUROR: At what point did you feel that Anthony Porter was innocent and Alstory Simon was guilty, you or the professor?

A: We were convinced that there was no case against him on December 11th when William Taylor recanted his testimony, but we weren't convinced that he was innocent. I guess when we met him we were convinced that he was innocent.

ASA GAINER: What was it about that meeting that convinced you that he was innocent?

A: Well, the reason we were going to meet with him was to ask him if he had committed the crime, but the first thing he said was that he was innocent, and I've heard people say that before, but he was more convincing.

. . . . . .

JUROR: It surprises me that you and your girlfriend Cara would be up there talking to Simon, and the professor, as smart as he is, is in the car. Why didn't he have some protection for you going up to see Simon if he had any thought that he might be the killer?

A: First of all, it was our interview. Second of all, we are - we weren't confronting him that he committed the crime. We were just interviewing him and -

JUROR: Two young white girls?

A: Quite frankly, he would be pretty stupid to do anything to us. He knew our professor was in the car. He knew what we were there about. He - he would be pretty stupid to have done anything to us.

JUROR: You're naive to do something like that. If you were my daughter, I'd . . .

. . . . . . .

Q: And you were aware that there were 4 other witnesses who the police interviewed, men by the name of Eugene Beckwith, Mark Senior, Kenneth Edwards and Michael Woodfork?

A: Yes.

Q: Right?

A: Right.

Q: Did you take - did you interview any of those people?

A: No, we didn't because they said - they all said it was too dark to see anything anyway. I think. That's what I thought they said.

[NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID. WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT THEY SAW PORTER IN THE BLEACHERS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING AND EDWARDS SAID HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER]

Q: Did you take any steps to interview those people?

A: No.

Q: Well, you had the police reports, right?

A: Yes.

Q: You were aware that Eugene Beckwith identified Anthony - I am sorry - Kenneth Edwards identified Anthony Porter as the shooter that night, weren't you?

A: No, I guess I didn't see that part of the police report.

[REALLY, HOW COULD SHE NOT HAVE NOTICED SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE? COULD IT BE, PERHAPS, THAT SHE AND HER FELLOW STUDENTS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN BAD FACTS?]

. . . . .

Q; What steps did you take to locate those 4 individuals [Edwards, Beckwith, Senior and Woodfork]

A: We did not take any steps.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

STAY TUNED. MORE TO FOLLOW.

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part IX - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Cara Rubinsky

Andy Hale — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:22:41 -0600

On February 22, 1999, NU Journalism student Cara Rubinsky testified before the Grand Jury.

Here are some interesting points of her testimony:

* She interviewed Alstory Simon in Milwaukee along with student Shawn Armbrust while David Protess waited outside in the car

* Simon told her that the murders were very painful for him and that he had not been in Washington Park that night. He said that he and his wife were walking with Jerry and Marilyn towards the park when he saw a group of men on the other side of the street. He thought it looked like trouble and warned Jerry and Marilyn not to go in the park. He and his wife left and went and bought ice cream and brought it to the kids at home.

* Here's how Rubinsky described what David Protess did at the end of her Simon interview:

Q: And you were with the professor and Simon the entire time the professor talked to him?

A: I think the professor asked us to walk away at the end for a minute, but I don't think he said anything - I'm not sure if he said anything further or not.

[Why did Protess ask the students to "walk away"?]

[Was Protess going to say something to Simon that he didn't want to the students to hear?]

[Seems very odd, to say the least]

Q; Well, do you know why he asked you to walk away?

A: I think he wanted to make eye contact - tried to make eye contact with Alstory. We could hear what he was saying, and he didn't say anything else about a book or movie deal.

[She thought Protess asked her to "walk away" so he could make eye contact with Simon? That makes no sense. Why would she have to walk away for Protess to make eye contact?]

[When the ASA asks her why Protess asked her to walk away, why does she deny, at the end of her answer that Protess said anything about a book or movie deal? That wasn't the question. Seems like a very odd response]

Then there was the following discussion about book and movie deals:

Q: Do you know what was said?

A: At the very end I just think that, you know, our professor gave him his card and said please get in touch with me. I don't know the exact words, but it was something to that effect.

Q: Did you professor explain to Alstory Simon that he might be writing a book about this case?

A: I don't think so, no.

Q: Did he say anything to Alstory Simon about the fact that there might be a movie made about this case?

A: No.

Q: Did he ever use the words "book deal" or "movie rights" in your presence?

A: Not that I recall hearing, no.

Q: Did you ever hear your professor say those words to anybody in connection with this case?

A: To anybody?

Q: Anybody in the world, on the planet?

A: Yeah, I mean we talked about it.

Q: Okay. When you say we talked about it, who talked about it?

A: In our group. We had a group meeting. We have gotten calls from a few agents. We personally have. So we sat down and talked about how we would handle those things. This is after Anthony was out of prison already.

[Hmm. . . so they were talking about book or movie deals with agents]

* She was present for the interview of Inez Simon, which started at her home, then continued at a restaurant, then they went to a grocery store and bought her groceries, and then the interview continued at the home of Shawn Armbrust's parents in Brookfield, WI.

* Somebody paid for Inez Simon and her family to stay at a Holiday Inn and for her meals when she came to Chicago to be on TV.

Then there was this discussion about alibi witnesses:

Q: Did you ask Anthony Porter about his alibi witnesses at trial?

A: I did not, no.

Q: Did Shawn Armbrust in your presence?

A: No.

Q; Did Daniel Sanders talk about alibis?

A: No.

Q; Did you ask Anthony Porter whether or not he saw Alstory Simon in the pool the night Jerry Hilliard and Marilyn Green were shot?

A: No, because I think Anthony said he wasn't - he told us that he wasn't in the park that night.

[Hmm. . . . if Porter wasn't in the park, what about all the people who said they saw him in the park that night???]

Q: And you were trying to determine whether or not he had committed the crimes that he was convicted of and almost killed for?

A: We weren't - I mean, that wasn't the purpose of the interview. It was just to meet him.

[Why wasn't that the purpose of the interview?]

As to that alibi issue, again, here's more:

Q: And again, you didn't talk to him about his alibi?

A: No.

Q: Did you read a full set of the police reports that you obtained from Mr. Sanders?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you read the reports that contained interviews with Kenneth Edwards, Michael Woodfork, Mark Senior, and Eugene Beckwith?

A: Yes,

Q: Did you make any attempt to interview any one of those four people?

A: No.

[Really? No attempt to interview the people who had seen Porter in the park, and the guy (Edwards) who said he saw Porter pull the trigger???]

Even a grand juror seemed to pick up on the theme that Protess and the students were not actually seeking the true facts:

GRAND JUROR: Based on the professor's reputation, did you at any time feel that it was in your best interest so that you would be better off finding this man innocent?

A: No.

GRAND JUROR: So you were never attempting to find innocence, you were trying to find facts?

A: Yes.

[If that were really true, why didn't Protess, Rubinsky and the rest of the group fail to interview all the witnesses who saw Porter in the park at the time of the shooting???]

Hmm. . . what do you think?

Were David Protess and his students seeking all the facts, i.e., the truth, or was their mission trying to establish Porter's innocence as advocates?

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part VIII - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Kenneth Edwards

Andy Hale — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:35:47 -0600

On February 17, 1999, Kenneth Edwards testified before the Grand Jury.

Here are the key points from his very powerful testimony:

* He is currently 38 years old

* In August 1982, he was living on East 56th Street, which was about a block from Washington Park

* He had lived in that neighborhood his whole life

* He was familiar with a man named Tony Porter

* He could recognize Tony Porter by sight

* He was familiar with Tony Porter's whole family his whole life

* On August 14, 1982, shortly after midnight, he decided to go swimming in the Washington Park pool with his friends Eugene Beckwith, Michael Woodfork and Mark Senior.

* Before hopping the fence to go into the pool, the group walked by the bleachers next to the pool and he saw Tony Porter sitting at the top of the bleachers

* There were three other people sitting by Tony Porter.

* After hopping the fence and swimming for a bit, he heard gunshots

* He looked up in the bleachers and saw the muzzle of the second gun shot

* After the shots were fired, two men walked calmly down the bleachers and a female who had been shot staggered down the bleachers

Now - I will provide some exact questions and the answers provided by Mr. Edwards under oath:

Q: AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, CAN YOU TELL THIS GRAND JURY WHO IT WAS THAT FIRED THOSE SHOTS?

A: I SURE CAN.

Q: WHO WAS IT?

A: IT WAS TONY PORTER.

Q; AND THE PEOPLE THAT YOU SAW COMING DOWN THE STAIRS CALMLY BEFORE THE WOMAN STARTED TO STAGGER, DID YOU KNOW WHO EITHER OF THOSE TWO PEOPLE WERE?

A: ONE WAS TONY PORTER. THE OTHER GUY I DID NOT KNOW.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GRAND JUROR: NOW THAT YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF ALSTORY SIMON IN THE NEWSPAPER, COULD THAT OTHER PERSON HAVE BEEN HIM?

EDWARDS: NO, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN

GRAND JUROR: DO ALSTORY SIMON AND PORTER KNOW EACH OTHER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WERE THEY MORE THAN THAT?

EDWARDS: I REALLY COULDN'T SAY BECAUSE I HAD NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE UNTIL I SAW HIS PICTURE ON THE NEWS, SIMON, THAT IS.

GRAND JUROR: WY WOULD SIMON SAY HE DID IT NOW AND HE DIDN'T SAY IT THEN?

EDWARDS: YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE. IT JUST MAKES ME LAUGH THAT THE SITUATION IS THE WAY IT IS NOW.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pretty compelling testimony in our humble opinion.

Edwards said he saw Porter fire the gun.

Porter was someone Edwards knew from the neighborhood.

Wow.

Why didn't David Protess interview Kenneth Edwards?

Was this a search for the truth?

Or did David Protess have a different agenda?

What do you think?

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part VII - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Mark Senior

Andy Hale — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:52:26 -0600

On February 11, 1999, Mark Senior testified before the Grand Jury.

Here are the key points from his testimony:

* He knew who Anthony Porter was

* On August 14, 1982, sometime after midnight, he went swimming in the Washington Park pool with his friends Michael Woodfork, Eugene Beckwith, and Kenneth Edwards.

* He saw four or five people in the northwest corner of the bleachers next to the swimming pool

* One of the persons he saw in the bleachers was Anthony Porter

* He heard gunshots and turned around and saw a male standing up and holding a gun.

* After the shots were fired, a woman staggered down from the bleachers and another person was laying down at the top of the bleachers

* He could not tell which person fired the shots

So, again, another person who puts Anthony Porter in park, in the bleachers, at the time of the shooting

And, again, Porter denies he was in the park that night

Hmm. . .

Why didn't David Protess or the Northwestern Medill Journalism students interview Mr. Senior?

Were they searching for the truth?

Or did they not want to know the truth?

Was their goal simply to spare Anthony Porter from the death penalty?

Stay tuned. . .

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part VI - The Grand Jury Testimony Of Eugene Beckwith

Andy Hale — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:21:35 -0600

On February 9, 1999, Eugene Phillip Beckwith testified before the grand jury after Anthony Porter had been conditionally released from prison but prior to Alstory Simon being charged with the murders.

Here's a summary of the key points from Mr. Beckwith's testimony:

* On the night of August 15, 1982 he decided to go swimming in Washington Park with friends

* After he jumped the fence to the pool, he looked in the grandstands and saw Anthony Porter

* He saw a total of four people in the grandstands but only recognized Porter

* Moments later, he saw a person stand up and shoot two other people

* The shooter and another person then walked away

* He then ran over to the grandstands and saw "Jerry" who was "laying there dying"

* He did not know which person of the two who walked away pulled the trigger

Hmm. . . . We thought Anthony Porter said he was not in Washington Park at the time of the shooting?

Why didn't David Protess and his students talk to Eugene Beckwith?

Stay tuned. . .

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part V - David Protess & His Grand Jury Testimony

Andy Hale — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:52:00 -0600

In 1999, after Anthony Porter was released from prison, grand jury proceedings were conducted to investigate the claim set forth by David Protess and his journalism students that Porter was innocent and that Alstory Simon was the real killer. The grand jury testimony that Mr. Protess gave under oath on February 22, 1999 is surprising, to say the least:

Grand Juror: There seems to be at least eight witnesses or so that testified in the original trial and there is at least four of them that did put Porter at the scene but none of them were interviewed by any of your students. Can you explain why?

Protess: Why we didn't interview the alibi witnesses?

Grand Juror: Why you didn't interview the witnesses that saw Porter at the scene of the shooting?

Protess: Well, we - - one of the witnesses - - there were two key witnesses as far as we were concerned from reading the testimony. One of those witnesses is dead and the other was William Taylor.

Grand Juror: Those were the only two that were key that you found?

Protess: That's correct.

ASA Gainer: Let me ask you a follow-up question, professor. You at some point read the police reports that were obtained from Mr. Sanders?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: You were aware that there were four other young men who were interviewed by the police, were you not, in connection with the shooting the same night that Taylor and Williams were interviewed?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Those people being Beckwith, Senior, Woodfork, and Edwards, correct?

Protess: I don't recall the names, but I do remember what you are saying.

ASA Gainer: Those four people gave the police an account of what happened that night that appeared to be more consistent with Alstory Simon's account, did they not?

Protess: I can't remember.

ASA Gainer: That is to say those four people put four people up in the bleachers that night?

Protess: Yes, I remember reading one of the witnesses' statements that they - - but they weren't able to discern who they were.

ASA Gainer: Mr. Edwards identified Anthony Porter as the shooter that night, did he not?

Protess: I would have to go back over the report.

ASA Gainer: Please do so. I direct your attention to page 4 of the August 16, 1982 Supplementary Report under RD 290330 authored by Salvatore and Gray?

Protess: Unfortunately, I don't have my reading glasses, but I'd ask you to read it to me.

ASA Gainer: I will be happy to read it. "Kenneth Edwards was interviewed and he related he and three of his friends, Woodfork, Beckwith and Senior went to the Washington Park swimming pool about midnight on the day in question, 16, August '82, Sunday. Kenneth related that he and friends entered the pool area on the north side fence. He observed four people in the gallery area in the uppermost northwest section (victims and offender, unknown male black). They were sitting and talking to each other. Kenneth and his group proceeded further down the pool area and he and Eugene Beckwith began to swim. Approximately 15 minutes later Kenneth had come out of the pool. He heard a shot and looked up and saw a muzzle flash from a handgun. He then observed the offender Tony Porter standing over one of the victims and fired two more shots at the victim at point blank range." Do you remember reading that?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: Do you remember reading anything about those four men?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Okay.

Protess: I don't remember reading anything that specifically identifying Anthony Porter. It's the last part I don't recall. I would have to go back and look at other documents to see how it was that he came to identify Tony Porter as the shooter.

ASA Gainer: As you sit here today, do you have any recollection of these police reports?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Well, are you aware that this is the only place that Kenneth Edwards' name appears in these reports?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: That is the only summary of any interview with him?

Protess: Okay.

ASA Gainer: Are you aware of that?

Protess: Am I aware of whether or not there is another report - -

ASA Gainer: Yeah.

Protess: - - that mentions the witness? I don't know.

ASA Gainer: Okay. But you are aware Edwards, Woodfork, Senior and Beckwith gave an account that is more similar to the Alstory Simon account?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: And your students didn't investigate these four men, did they?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't ask Paul Ciolino to find those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't go out yourself and look for those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: None of your group ever conducted any interview of those four men?

Protess: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Really???

We thought David Protess was a professor at the Medill School of "Journalism."

Were Protess and his students interested in the truth?

Or were they simply interested in finding a way - any way - for Porter to avoid the death penalty?

Did Protess teach his students to ignore key witnesses to a story?

Did Protess teach his students to focus only on those witnesses who may be helpful and to ignore witnesses who could implicate Porter?

Was this journalism?

Or was this one-sided advocacy for Porter?

What do you think?

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part IV - Why Didn't David Protess And The Northwestern Journalism Students Interview The Other Eyewitnesses?

Andy Hale — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:45:40 -0600

During the grand jury proceedings, a grand juror noted that at least four other witnesses said Anthony Porter was at the scene of the shootings. Yet, David Protess and his students failed to interview any of these witnesses. Here's a portion of Protess' sworn grand jury testimony:

ASA Gainer: And your students didn't investigate those four men, did they?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't ask Paul Ciolino to find those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't go out yourself and look for those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: None of your group ever conducted any interview of those four men?

Protess: That's correct.

How can this be?

We thought David Protess and his journalism students were seeking the truth?

Were they not interested in all the facts?

Were they really not interested in the truth?

What kind of journalists seek only one side of a story?

Why did David Protess and his journalism students show no interest in interviewing these four witnesses?

This question has never been answered.

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part III - Why Did David Protess And The Northwestern Students Leave Key Facts Out Of The William Taylor Affidavit?

Andy Hale — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:57:37 -0600

One of the eyewitnesses who identified Anthony Porter as the person who shot and killed Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green was then thirty-nine year old William Taylor. At Porter's criminal trial, Taylor testified that he went for a late night swim at Washington Park and as he was climbing out of the pool he saw Porter shoot and kill Hillard and Green. As you recall from our earlier blog posts, Porter denied being in Washington Park at the time of the shootings and claimed to be drinking with some of his buddies.

Once David Protess and the Medill Journalism students got involved in Porter's case, they turned their attention to Taylor. On November 14, 1998, journalism student Tom McCann placed a telephone call to Taylor. Taylor told McCann that "There is no doubt in my mind that this man (Porter) is guilty. I will not be happy until Porter is finally executed." Taylor also told McCann he "didn't want to talk about this case anymore."

Not satisfied, on December 11, 1998, McCann and private investigator Paul Ciolino made an unannounced visit to Taylor's house and the two are alleged to have played good cop bad cop with Taylor. After meeting with Taylor Ciolino wrote out an "affidavit" for Taylor to sign that stated Taylor: (1) was in Washington Park on the night of the shootings, (2) did not see Porter shoot anyone, (3) never saw Porter with a gun and (4) did not see who shot the victims."

What is puzzling is what McCann and Ciolino failed to put in the affidavit. What they left out is that Taylor also told them that he had seen Porter in the pool area of Washington Park the night of the shootings. McCann admitted this key omission during subsequent grand jury testimony:

ASA Gainer: That was not included in the affidavit, that he (Taylor) saw Anthony Porter in the park that night, right?

McCann: Right

This omission was obviously very significant and very intentional, as Porter had denied being in Washington Park near the time of the shootings. If Porter really was in the park at the time of the shootings, that pretty much killed his whole alibi story.

We thought Medill Journalism students were seeking the truth, the facts, whatever they may be.

Isn't that what a journalist does?

Does a journalist advocate for one side, and slant the facts for one side in a misleading way?

Why did David Protess let his journalism students submit the Taylor affidavit with this key omission?

This question has never been answered. . .

The Whole Truth Project Looks At The Anthony Porter Case - Part II - Why Didn't David Protess And Northwestern Investigate Porter's Alleged Alibi?

Andy Hale — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:40:59 -0600

In our last post, we discussed Anthony Porter's alleged alibi and how he denied being in Washington Park at the time of the shootings. Instead, he claimed he was drinking with his friends. We also noted how Chicago Police Officer Anthony Liace, responding to a 911 call, arrived at Washington Park moments after the shooting and stopped and frisked Porter who was fleeing the park (making it seem impossible that Porter was really drinking with his friends at the time of the shooting).

Once David Protess and the Northwestern journalism students commenced their "investigation," did they investigate Porter's alleged alibi?

According to grand jury testimony, David Protess, despite "investigating" the case for months, did not know what Porter's specific alibi was.

Northwestern journalism student Shawn Armbrust, testified, in part, to the grand jury as follows:

ASA Gainer: Did you discuss with him (Porter) his alibi for that night?

Armbrust: My professor asked him if he had been in the park that night, and he said no, I was with my family.

ASA Gainer: Is that the total of your conversations that you either personally had or overheard on that occasion concerning his alibi?

Armbrust: Yes

. . . . . .

ASA Gainer: Did you investigate his alibi?

Armbrust: No.

ASA Gainer: Did you ever read the transcript of the testimony of his alibi that the witness (Doyle) gave at his trial?

Armbrust: No.

. . . . . .

If David Protess and the Northwestern Medill School of Journalism students were seeking the truth, as true journalists, why didn't they investigate the merits of Anthony Porter's alleged alibi?

This question has never been answered. . .