Menu
Murder on a Sunday morning
The title of this column was also the title of a recently aired America Undercover program on HBO. It told a distressing tale everyone should be aware of.
A couple, vacationing in Jacksonville, Fla., had eaten breakfast and were on the way back to their room when they were accosted by a black male, brandishing a pistol. He told the woman to give him her purse. As she attempted to do that, he shot her in the face at almost point blank range, killing her instantly. When the police arrived, the husband described the assailant as a black male, 20 to 25 years old, more than six feet tall, wearing a fisherman's hat and a dark sweatshirt with no logo on it. As the police were investigating the crime scene, an officer spotted a black male walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. He approached the man, (who turned out to be a 15 year old boy) and asked him if he knew anything about the crime. The young man replied that he didn't and the officer asked him if he would mind getting into the police car and riding back to the scene of the crime with him. The young man complied. The husband of the victim was asked to come over to the car to see if the boy was, in fact, the perpetrator. As the husband approached the squad car, he replied that that was the person who shot his wife. This identification was made six to eight feet away from the car. He continued to the car, opened the squad car door, looked directly at the young boy and again stated that he was the one. When asked by an officer if he was certain, the husband replied that he was absolutely certain because he would never want to send an innocent person to jail.
The rest of the story is the scary part. The boy was taken to the police station where the interrogation process was initiated by homicide detectives. The young boy stated repeatedly that he knew nothing about the crime and gave detectives a detailed report of his actions and whereabouts for the entire morning, stating specifically that he was home at the time of the homicide and that his family could corroborate his story. Even though he was only 15 and offered an alibi that could have easily been checked, it wasn't. He was treated as an adult although he was a juvenile. His parents were not contacted. A detective told him he would arrange an attorney for him, but he didn't. He was interrogated for several hours by two homicide detectives, before a third (known as the closer) was called in. Although the young boy had steadfastly maintained his innocence, did not come close to matching the physical description given at the scene, was in possession of no weapon, purse, money or any other kind of physical evidence that would put him at the crime scene, the "closer" was told the boy was about ready to confess.
The "closer" attempted to establish a rapport with the suspect but was unable to do so. Seeing that this was not going to work, he changed tactics immediately, getting tough and demanding. The boy still insisted on his innocence. The "closer" decided to take the boy back to the scene of the crime, accompanied by the other two detectives, to look for evidence. There was a wooded area directly across the street from the scene of the crime and that's where they went. The two detectives searched the perimeter of the woods while the "closer" took the boy deep into the woods.
When they got to a point where they could not be seen or heard by the other two detectives, the "closer" hit the young boy in the stomach twice and the face once, knocking him to the ground each time he hit him. Photographs taken upon their arrival back at the police station noted bruises on the boys' cheekbone and chest that were not there when he was initially taken into custody. The "closer" again took him into the interrogation room and eventually coerced him into signing a confession, written in the words of one of the other detectives.
The case went to trial and the prosecutor's opening statements reminded the jury that it was the burden of the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that they were going to do exactly that because of eyewitness testimony and a signed confession. During the trial, family members of the defendant were called to testify and they confirmed his alibi. In addition, subsequent testimony showed that he had no juvenile history. He had never owned or used a gun. He was a good student. His family was very religious. There was no physical evidence to link him to the crime. The entire case rested on the eyewitness testimony of the victim's husband and the signed confession. The jury took less than an hour to acquit.
Six months later, the public defender's officer received word that a prisoner in custody had told his cellmate that he was the one who committed the murder. He fit the initial description given by the husband perfectly and, amazingly, looked nothing at all like the 15-year-old boy who had undergone confinement and trial for the same crime. The purse was eventually recovered in a dumpster nine and one half miles away from the scene of the crime and the second suspect's prints were found on the purse. He was convicted. We must always be careful, regardless of whether we are authorities of the state or dealing with matters of a personal matter, not to rush to judgment. It happens too often when it shouldn't happen at all.
Too many lives are damaged and often destroyed forever when we attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. And once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's pretty impossible to get it back in again.