Thursday, February 9, 2017

Bradford will ask the Supreme Court to Hear his Case

On February  2 , 2017 the  7th Circuit  US Court of Appeals denied Patrick Bradford’s request for relief. Bradford is no stranger to denied petitions, yet his experience at the federal level was anything but typical. 

Originally, a panel of three Circuit Court judges reviewed and denied his appeal—it was not unanimous. One judge, Hon. Judge Hamilton, strongly dissented and felt compelled to draft a very involved, informed statement explaining his dissent. He made a road map of the case, so to speak, in hopes that the other members of the court would read it and agree to rehear the case “en banc” (when the whole panel of judges hear the case). Hamilton’s statement worked and a rehearing was granted, yet days before the hearing was to take place it was inexplicably cancelled. As it turns out, one of the judges in favor of hearing the case was ineligible due to ethical conflicts (presumably financial in nature). This meant there was no longer a majority in favor of hearing it—resulting in a tie—which meant the original opinion to deny the relief was affirmed. There must be a majority in order to reverse such a ruling. 

Yet, something rather historic and unusual followed on the heels of this loss. Two more judges, one being the Chief Judge, signed on with the strongly dissenting Judge Hamilton. They issued a statement, almost a cover letter if you will, alongside the Opinion to deny the petition. In this statement, the judges explain the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the cancelled hearing and express hope that the Supreme Court will choose to pick up the case because of that. They also noted that there was “unusually strong evidence of actual innocence” and a strong belief that Bradford is “unlawfully detained”.

Something like this is extremely rare. That doesn’t happen.

Three federal judges,  a well-known attorney (who has offered his services pro-bono), and many fire-science experts all agree that Patrick is actually innocent. 

After nearly 25 years of fighting it, don’t you think it is time to admit that perhaps, just perhaps, the know-nothing’s in Vanderburgh County might have made a mistake—knowingly or not. Keeping an innocent man in prison is equally as wrong as the very crime committed. A life taken. Just because the media says he is guilty, or you hate him, or you knew the victim's family and they think he is guilty, or it makes a dramatic story...none of that makes it real. Read the record and know the truth.

I ask that anyone with information relevant to the crime please come forward via email.This far down the road there is no longer any reason to be afraid and anything helps. (

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

UPDATE (6/25/14)

On June 16, Patrick's legal team filed his final brief before the US District Court. Because of the conspicuous weakness of the State's brief, Patrick's lawyers were able to end on a very strong note: to "go in for the kill," as it were. Witness the opening paragraph:

"Mr. Bradford is innocent. The State's Return does little to dispute this critical proposition. Instead, it seeks to raise a number of procedural obstacles to freeing an innocent man. Fortunately, Habeas Corpus, a right protected by the Constitution, is designed to ensure the most important goal of our justice system: freedom for innocent people."

The rest of the brief hammers repetitively on the incompetence of the State's fire "experts", on the new scientific evidence of innocence, and on the fact that the State's own best evidence proves innocence rather than guilt.

From here, the Court will either grant our request for a hearing on additional scientific proof of innocence, or it will simply render a decision on what is before them. There is no way to tell which way it will go, but the best chance is at the next level in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Mickey's Forgotten Testimony

There is one victim of the tragic and heinous crimes that took place on August 2nd, 1992, in the house of Tammy Lohr who has been overlooked. Tammy's little dog, Mickey, was also found battered and stabbed to death in the smokey aftermath of the arson fire.

Mickey, an aged, dirty-white peek-a-poo, had been Tammy's devoted pet and friend for many years. He had grown old and infirm--mostly blind and nearly toothless-- yet it appears he gave his life in valiant  defense of his friend.  "Greater love hath no man..."

If Mickey had chosen to hide and live, he could have done no service to Tammy in the form of testimony against the monster(s) who did this to her. He could not have defended her by speaking out against those who profane her memory by their criminal conspiracy against one of her closest friends.

But in his heroic death, Mickey has spoken clearly and incontrovertibly on behalf of Tammy and her continuing cause for justice. In his own blood, quite literally, Mickey left evidence that proves Patrick Bradford was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the crimes.

The crude facts as follows:
--the killer set fire to the bedroom. The carbon monoxide level in her blood (% COHb) was .02%, which is essentially zero. She was dead before the fire started, and therefore breathed in none of the carbon monoxide.

--Mickey's COHb was 4.2%, 210 times higher than Tammy's. He was alive when the fire started.

--A scientific analysis revealed that Mickey breathed smoke for 25 minutes to 2 hours to uptake that amount of CO.

--The fire was extinguished 8 minutes after Patrick's arrival (known and established by bank camera surveillance).

--Therefore, the fire had been burning for at least 17 minutes (and up to 1.5 hours) before Patrick's arrival.

Ultimately, Mickey's blood proves he died during a time period when Patrick is known to have been elsewhere.

A host of other technical and scientific evidence demonstrates beyond all doubt Patrick's innocence. But the sheer weight of facts may have obscured a story that deserves to be told. It is a story of a dog's devotion and ultimate sacrifice equal to the best that can be found in humanity--and we all love a heroic dog story! This is Mickey's story, and his is a testimony that will live on.

Friday, June 20, 2014


Many people have questions, naturally, regarding the case and the process. The media is full of misinformation. These are a few frequently asked questions and their answers. Please write to if you have a question of your own.

Q: I love reading all of the fascinating testimonials about Patrick, but I feel left out. How do I add my own?

A: we welcome any and all testimonials! Please email them to

Q: I saw that David Camm is suing over his wringful conviction. If Patrick is eventually exonerated by the courts, will hebe able to sue?

A: There is no easy answer to this. There are several different criteria that must be met before a suit for wrongful imprisonment will be allowed to proceed. It remains to be seen if Camm's suit will survive the initial test. Only after Patrick is finally free will the necessary questions begin to be answered and the decision made whether or not a lawsuit will be attempted.

Q: The news reported that Patrick was out of appeals, how is he still in court?

A: Evansville news outlrtshave sought to lay this case to rest in the public memory since the sentencing in 1993. All of Patrick's State appeals are now exhausted. The case is now in the lowest level of the federal courts (the US District Court), after which there are two more levels (the Court of Appeals or the 7th Circuit, and the US Supreme Court).

Q: After being denied at so many levels, why is there any reason for optimism left?

A: It is certainly true that each higher level of review carries a reduced chance of success. But in this case, state politics have operated in such a way that the case has never had an impartial hearing. The current level, though a federal court, is still in Indiana, with an Indiana judge. We have higher hopes for a fair hearing in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is a case of innocence. It surprises most people to learn that the State court makes no provision for cases of actual innocence. No reviewing judge has even made mention of it in this case. Scientific evidence of innocence is discounted out of hand based on various rationalized technicalities about what constitutes "new" evidence.

By contrast, the federal habeus corpus review is primarily concerned with "fundamental miscarriages of justice", the most fundamental of which is when an innocent person has been convicted. For this reason, a case like Patrick's has a better chance at the federal level.

UPDATE (June 10, 2014)

Last week, the State finally submitted its much delayed response to Patrick's Petition for a Writ of Habeus Corpus. Patricks's attorneys were quite surprised at how little effort went into the State's response: it consists of little more than pasted-in excerpts from the biased opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals and the requisite case law references. It doesn't pay to read into such things, but clearly some able arguments would have made the task ahead a more difficult one. On the downside, the case is still before Indiana judges.

Patricks attorneys now have until June 16 to file a final answer before the Court begins deliberating.


Patrick is now able to send AND receive email. If you have ever send him an email, check your account to see if you have received one from him. If you would like to email Patrick, log on to and search for him (Glenn Bradford- DOC 933433).

Thursday, March 13, 2014


On November 25, 2013, Patrick Bradford filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeus Corpus in the United States District Court. This is essentially a federal appeal of the Indiana Supreme Court's denial of Post Conviction Relief. Patrick filed this initial Petition pro se (ie, without representation by an attorney).

On January 27, 2014, attorney Ronald Safer and Deborah Bone, of Chicago, IL, filed their appearances as Patrick's attorneys. They will file amendments to the Petition by February 27, which will include some additional issues and evidence. After that, the State of Indiana will have 20 days in which to respond (although the State is customarily granted at least two extensions).

In order further to prove Patrick's innocence, Patrick's new attorneys, who are representing him at no charge, have retained the services of the nation's best-known fire scientist, Dr. John DeHaan, of Sonoma, CA. Dr. DeHaan has been unofficially associated with our cause since 2001 and he appeared on the TV show "48 Hours: Mystery" in support of Patrick's innocence. For more information on Dr. DeHaan see:

Thursday, December 5, 2013

**UPDATE: Nov. 21, 2013**

         On November 21, the Supreme Court of Indiana denied Transfer on Patrick's appeal. That is to say they refused to consider the case any further. The next step is to file a Writ of Habeus Corpus in the U.S. District Court. Due to time constraints (deadline: Nov. 26) Patrick will file pro se, after which his new attorney, Ronald Safer, will enter his appearance and file any needed amendment.

         Although the denial of Transfer is indeed a perpetuation of the ongoing injustice, it is not without its silver linings, so to speak. In refusing to comment on the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court left two glaring oversights uncorrected, which will be very useful when the case finally finds an unbiased hearing in a federal court (probably not at the district level, which is stacked with Indiana Judges).

      As a general rule of thumb, every new level of the post-conviction process carries a diminished chance of success. But in this case, where corrupt judicial bias has been rampant and unconcealed, the further removed from Indiana, the greater the likelihood of a fair hearing.