There were many instances of perjury in the 1993 murder and arson trial of Patrick Bradford. Most of these appear strongly to have been suborned (induced) by prosecutor Stan Levco and his detective accomplices. For example, medical examiner Dr. John Heidingsfelder changed the time of death at the request of detective Guy Minnis, because the time listed in the official Autopsy Report excluded Patrick as a viable suspect.
However, there is one example that appears to be unique, with no evidence of having been directly solicited. The key word here is "directly", because what led to this blatant perjury is every bit as astonishing as the suborning of the other ones.
On August 2, 1992, the morning of the discovery of the murder, Elizabeth Spradley, a drug addict with a history of mental illness and a long criminal record of deception and theft happened to come to the scene where the crime was being investigated. At this point she knew few details of the crime, other than the exact location (1809-10, 1835-38, 1841-42).
Spradley volunteered to officers there that she had heard loud voices in the early morning hours coming from the direction of the crime scene over a period of a half hour (1819-21). Over the next few days she learned much more specific information about the crime, most importantly that an on duty police officer, somebody she actually knew, was being sensationalized in the press as the primary suspect (1854).
In the meantime, detectives were working hard seeking out witnesses to establish where Patrick was throughout the night. What they learned would be absolutely critical in determining whether or not he could have been involved in the crime. Naturally, the early stage was highly sensitive. Information to the public had to be tightly controlled so that witness accounts could be reliable. Detectives were doing a fair job of holding the important cards close to the vest.
Enter Police Chief Art Gann, Evansville's top law enforcement officer began indiscriminately releasing sensitive information to satisfy a clamoring press. Gann and Inspector Marvin Guest revealed in an August 5th article in the Evansville Press (then the evening paper) that radio dispatch records show Patrick was busy on calls all night except for "65 minutes between 11:07 p.m and 12:11 a.m".
As any competent police officer (let alone a top official) would know, the reason for keeping information tightly controlled during an investigation is that any nut-case in the community might use what they find out to become a false witness. This is especially true in very sensational cases. If a witness knows critical information that was kept secret, this enhances their credibility. On the other hand, if a witness reports information after it was released in the press, they might just as easily be a crank.
Re-enter Elizabeth Spradley. Just a few hours after Art Gann's media fiasco was circulated on Aug. 5, this crank recovered a memory of having seen a police car at the scene of the crime at around 11:00 p.m. Spradley again showed up at the scene to volunteer information, but first she engaged a clueless officer Brian Hildebrant in a conversation about details of the crime, and specifically confirming that Patrick had been alone that night (1923-26, 1854). It was at this point in the conversation that the epiphany supposedly struck her, and a highly detailed account of seeing the police car materialized (1824-25).
The most likely- most obvious- explanation is that Spradley, by whatever pathology that compels her to serial deception and crimes of dishonesty, was drawn to that horrible scene like a moth to a flame. She first invented her story of loud voices based on the only information she knew at the time: the location. In the two days of media frenzy that followed, she learned the irresistibly lurid details of the crime and possibly developed some kind of fixation base upon her past acquaintance with the media's suspect of choice.
Chief Gann's and Inspector Guest's incompetence in the evening news gave Spradley the information she lacked to insinuate herself as a key figure in the sensational case. That same evening she appeared again at the scene. Before committing herself, she fished for more details about the crime and Patrick from the overly talkative officer on guard duty. More confident then, she feigned the recovered memory on the spot.
Although there were many instances in which originally favorable witnesses reversed their stories to become incriminating, Elizabeth Spradley appears to be an exception. It is highly unlikely, and there is no evidence to suggest, that Levco or some detective suborned her perjury. The timing of the release of information in the paper leaves little doubt that Spradley was operating on her own, motivated by a sick mind, a penchant for lies, and possibly the hope of some consideration in her present and future criminal cases.
But this barely reduces the culpability of police and the prosecutor. As soon as the Chief of Fools released the sensitive alibi information, any emerging witness was tainted. But detectives were obviously so eager to exploit that supposed gap in Patrick's alibi that they were willing to disregard the obvious problems with Spradley's aggressive volunteerism. Levco made a star witness out of the first nut that took the bait. He went to great lengths before the jury to turn Spradley into a credible witness, knowing all along that she was merely a product of Art Gann's incompetence.
Levco objected to a rather inept attempt by the defense counsel to produce the Aug. 5 article to the jury. Although there were plenty of other inconsistencies in Spradley's story, the jury never heard that her recovered memory emerged only a few hours after the vital information was made public.
As the Supreme Court of Indiana once decreed, the State's interest in a criminal prosecution "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done" (Berger v. United States. 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Justice is a commodity that was in short supply in the Bradford trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment