***A letter to the public, written by Patrick Bradford. Obtained from his Innocence Page (Seek Justice) on Facebook***
Falsely accused, maliciously betrayed, wrongly imprisoned; these are bad things! A man can get plenty of psychological mileage out of them. I got my fair share: anger, hatred, frustration, despair, vengefulness, obsession....But I have lived this experience as a journey, not an event, and the bitterness of its beginning is only that, a beginning.
To an extent, the widespread popular perception of cops as a tight-knit fraternity is accurate, but not in the way that it is generally understood. Brotherhoods will form among saints and cutthroats alike. They are inherently neither fine nor sublime.
I begin with this, because, on one hand, it was the false image of an honorable brotherhood that provided the mask behind which the antagonists of this story hid their criminal intent: "He must be guilty, because we would never do this to one of our own if we weren't completely sure." On the other hand, I myself had been taken in by the idealized concept, and I had to learn the truth the hard way.
As soon as suspicion had fallen on me (not without some justification, initially) I began to see my brothers in arms as one would a great herd of wildebeest: when one is found vulnerable by a single slim cheetah, the only conceivable response of ten or twenty tons of bovine sinew and hoof is to flee in mad terror to a safe distance to stare, twitching and wild-eyed, as the unfortunate one is devoured. And I was the unfortunate one.
For the most part, I was avoided as though my condition were contagious. My fellow heroes, along-side whom I had fought and bled, whose lives I had protected with mine, whose families I had guarded, whose asses I had covered both in the streets and under legal scrutiny; these same men could not maintain eye contact.
The few exceptions came like Nicodemus, at night: "I don't believe any of it...Most of the others don't either...The bastards have themselves a scapegoat...If you don't see me again..." And then I didn't.
And so it happened to me alone--as it had to be, in any event. I was wrenched from hearth and home, thrust out of my identity and my world and cast into an antithetical identity and a polar opposite world. I crossed over in an instant, in the sinister stroke of some disinterested pen, from decorated cop to degraded convict; from society's arm of enforcement to society's whipping boy; tough break! But it was only the beginning.
Damned Fool:
I remained foolish and naiive for much longer than the wiser people around me (family, and a colorful assortment of jailmates). I still held pitifully to the ridiculous ideal that what had happened was a terrible mistake. There was simply no place in my narrow reality for true cops knowingly bringing a false charge of murder against one of their own. But I was not allowing myself to see the obvious: these were not "true cops," and I (a fact of which I remain proud) was definitely not one of their own.
And so I had to be forcibly, though incrementally, extricated from my naivete. My first hard lesson came in form of a police report sent to me by my lawyer. The report, detailing the verification of the observations of a reliable witness, set forth undeniable proof that the fire--the fire that I stood accused of setting--was burning before my arrival.
The facts contained in this one report were more than adequate to have cleared me, had it not been suppressed. Instead, some judge had obliviously signed a warrant based upon the speculations of a fireman from the black box of his "experience," in direct contradiction to known facts! Thus, my fool's world quickly began to dissolve around me, and I was left to face the cold, stark reality: the crocodile tears shed by the Chief of Police, the exaggerated chagrin of the lead detective...
Now the diabolical truth was crushing in on me as I read one report after another that contradicted the charging affidavit. The time of death determined in the autopsy excluded me; the "witness" who reported a police car in the driveway was a mental patient, known to me, who reported the sighting as a recovered memory after the relevant information was printed in the newspaper the same day; the claim that I could not have observed the fire as I reported was utterly refuted by the first fireman into the house. I became physically ill.
I thought I was being cured of my sanguine worldview, but I remained a fool. Somehow I still believed that the clear, documented truth would prevail. I imagined--I blush inwardly to confess this--a sea of blue in the courtroom, if not in open support, then come to see for themselves if the allegations against this "one of their own" were true.
But this was not to be; a couple of cops showed up--one of them my relation. One by one, the State's witnesses whose original statements were exculpatory, blatantly changed their stories. Nobody was there to care that the entire case was founded on perjury. The judge allowed it, the jury uncritically accepted it, and the media effectively ignored it. My defense was like shouting for help in a blizzard: my voice muted to impotent silence. And that was the end of me; yet still the beginning.
Enemy Within:
An offense can be a powerful intoxicant. Even small ones will often cloud one's judgement to the extent that accurate self-evaluation becomes impossible. The sheer magnitude of the offense I nursed might have been sufficient to leave me permanently thus besotted. But prison can be a very sobering experience, offering a cruel internal light to pierce the fog of self-pity.
It came late at night, like Dickens' spirit triad. Much like the popular accounts of near-death, my life played out before my unwilling mind like a movie. But not my whole life; only the wrongs done, the mistakes made, the regrets earned, the dreams forfeited. It all returned, no matter how long forgotten, no matter how seemingly inconsequential; and the shame of the smallest sleight was equal to that of the most heartless betrayal.
My first reaction was to object that this was not really me; at least not in this purely negative presentation. I had done much good in my life. But the moral onslaught was relentless, and each event so vividly represented that there came to be no ground left for denial to the merciless string of charges paraded before my raw conscience.
What I had managed to compartmentalize in the hectic careen of liberal existence, I was bound to see holistically in my new contemplative vocation. As it happens, character cannot be compartmentalized. A man who treats his wife kindly and gently when present yet defrauds her of unconditional honor when absent in a bad husband--an abuser. The same man, though he lavish love and tenderness on his children, is not a good father.
All of this had to be conjugated in the first person, and that had been my problem all along: seeing myself accurately. In short, my self had been the problem: selfishness, self-indulgence, and now, (God help me!) self-pity. Accepting this--saying this--was the necessary stroke to complete my demise and allow me to begin a posthumous existence, rather than to persist indefinitely in a living death.
None of this should be taken as mitigating, in the least degree, the guilt of those who have made themselves murderers along with the psychotic demon(s?) who committed the very act. By this I mean the suborners of perjury, obscurers of truth, robbers of children, exploiters of grieving parents, the liars, the cowards, the silent, and the willingly deceived. Above all, those who orchestrated and presided over the gang-rape of justice by one perjurer after another. Their guilt will deliver them either to destruction or redemption. But I can no longer decify myself as to determine which.
Reclamation:
Nobody likes prison...or do they? Whenever somebody released from prison comes back for some new crime, we say tongue in cheek, "He must like it here." The truth is, obviously, they don't like prison, but no other state holds a realistic place in their pitifully narrow worldview.
Victor Hugo wrote, roughly, that to open a school is to close a prison. Like Hugo, I believe one of the primary causes of serial incarceration is a certain intellectual narrowness which attends lack of education. I first saw the correlation in the awakening of curiosity and wonder I witnessed in a couple of illiterate men I was teaching to read. Just a hint of a new perspective on the world had them thinking in a universe of possibility outside the confines of their intellectual prisons.
I saw an exponential flowering of this in the eyes of those whom I later would tutor in pursuit of college education. In almost every case, the student was looking to become the first in the history of his family to earn a college degree. (Ironically, my own degrees, earned in prison, make me the last of my family to so achieve). Without exception, these unlikely scholars begin to envision a state of affairs in which crime makes little sense.
Some criminals are irredeemable for societal purposes; and I am happy they are in prison, though some be my friends. But the majority--the vast majority--can benefit from the reforming power of intellectual expansion. I find that I am particularly effective at teaching, tutoring, and mentoring them.
Simply put, I am a crime fighter. It would appear that it remains my calling in the underworld, as it was in life.
As Is:
As to my crime fighting career in its former iteration, I have no need of a defense. The record is clear, and I in no way aggrandize myself in maintaining that I distinguished myself according to a fine tradition. My record stands on its own against the effete coward who, in a shameless political play, from his artificial moral height, would accuse me of betraying the public trust.
Having thus purged, however, I observe that, from an ideal perspective, it would always be in a community's better interest if the breasts upon which it would pin its medals were to beat only with pure hearts. But I know cops, and so I am sure that the caveat will always be "as is".
Patrick Bradford
1/1/2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Jailhouse Religion
It may come as a surprise that a hot-shot street cop, mostly known for a marital fidelity problem, wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, would be found in prison as a devout Christian believer.
Patrick is fond of referring to his faith (tongue in cheek) as "jailhouse religion". The fact is, nobody hits absolute bottom in their life journey (such as going to prison) without either accepting or rejecting a moral/spiritual reality superintended by a God of like nature. Patrick simply accepted.
To Patrick, it has been a "no-brainer" to trust and serve a God who has continually guided and protected him in the midst of the most extraordinarily deadly circumstances. This God has faithfully cared for Patrick's two children, bringing them to healthy adulthood despite the tremendous potential for psychological damage in the way that they lost their father. And who could fail to see a divine hand in raising Patrick up to be a well-respected and highly fruitful agent of reformation and practical rehabilitation?
Patrick is very touched and honored by those kind friends and fellow ministers who testify so glowingly of his Christian character and service. But he believes his miraculous success is merely the fruit of a normal Christian life. It's pretty confusing for those who haven't been with God themselves.
The Bible says, by the pen of a prisoner, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." In that spirit, Patrick is content that, whether in prison or out, whether vindicated or not, whether he lives or dies, he simply can't lose.
Patrick is fond of referring to his faith (tongue in cheek) as "jailhouse religion". The fact is, nobody hits absolute bottom in their life journey (such as going to prison) without either accepting or rejecting a moral/spiritual reality superintended by a God of like nature. Patrick simply accepted.
To Patrick, it has been a "no-brainer" to trust and serve a God who has continually guided and protected him in the midst of the most extraordinarily deadly circumstances. This God has faithfully cared for Patrick's two children, bringing them to healthy adulthood despite the tremendous potential for psychological damage in the way that they lost their father. And who could fail to see a divine hand in raising Patrick up to be a well-respected and highly fruitful agent of reformation and practical rehabilitation?
Patrick is very touched and honored by those kind friends and fellow ministers who testify so glowingly of his Christian character and service. But he believes his miraculous success is merely the fruit of a normal Christian life. It's pretty confusing for those who haven't been with God themselves.
The Bible says, by the pen of a prisoner, "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." In that spirit, Patrick is content that, whether in prison or out, whether vindicated or not, whether he lives or dies, he simply can't lose.
Nicholas Hermann=Stan Levco
Stan Levco, former Vanderburgh County prosecutor, is a criminal. As shocking as it sounds, this is a reasonable conclusion if you consider it a crime to knowingly present perjury in a criminal trial. In the last election, the voters chose the upstart Nicholas Hermann over Levco, the entrenched political power, suggesting that they expected some kind of change.
But did we get any kind of change? Or, is one prosecutor about the same as another? Is Stan Levco really gone?
Nicholas Hermann had an excellent opportunity to differentiate himself from his corrupt predecessor when Patrick Bradford's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief came before the Court on Oct. 11-12, 2011. The trial record in that case is replete with undeniable, documented perjuries, all knowingly presented by Stan Levco. No honest person would want to be associated with such a crime. But Mr. Hermann chose to defend it. In so doing, he has made himself equally guilty.
No doubt Hermann made his choice for the sake of political expediency (or gain). But it was not just political calculation; it was a moral choice. Now we know all we need to about Nicholas Hermann. Now we know exactly what kind of prosecutor we have: the same as the one we had before.
Stan Levco has not yet left the building.
But did we get any kind of change? Or, is one prosecutor about the same as another? Is Stan Levco really gone?
Nicholas Hermann had an excellent opportunity to differentiate himself from his corrupt predecessor when Patrick Bradford's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief came before the Court on Oct. 11-12, 2011. The trial record in that case is replete with undeniable, documented perjuries, all knowingly presented by Stan Levco. No honest person would want to be associated with such a crime. But Mr. Hermann chose to defend it. In so doing, he has made himself equally guilty.
No doubt Hermann made his choice for the sake of political expediency (or gain). But it was not just political calculation; it was a moral choice. Now we know all we need to about Nicholas Hermann. Now we know exactly what kind of prosecutor we have: the same as the one we had before.
Stan Levco has not yet left the building.
Art Gann: Chief of Fools
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.
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.
Why Lie?
People have been shocked to learn of the many examples of flagrant perjury that took place in Patrick Bradford's 1993 murder trial. E.g., the county medical examiner changing the time of death, the veteran firefighter reversing his three prior statements, a drug addict recovering a memory after reading a newspaper report, the key alibi witness utterly contradicting his first statement. These were all primary witneses meticulously prepared by prosecutor Stan Levco--all absolutely critical to the State's case.
But these were not the only perjuries in the trial. There were several more, less prominent instances. These lesser lies are, in some ways, more baffling than the more outrageous ones.
It is not difficult to see how a practiced and skillfully corrupt prosecutor or detectives might subvert a key witness: by appealing to their financial relationship with the county (the M.E.), by drawing them in as an insider (the fireman), by feeding critical information through the press (the junkie), or by offering a deal on a host of pending charges (the alibi witness).
But what motivated the lesser lies? How were they brought on board?
One example arises out of the first dispatched run Patrick made after the supposed window in his alibi (12:11). Sometime late in the preparation of the case, two officers who were present at that location surfaced with a mildly incriminating new story: Patrick took an unusually long time to arrive, and when he did, his brakes smelled hot, as though he had been driving at high speed.
This story suggested that Patrick had come from all the way across town (the crime scene), rather than from downtown where he said he was. (Never mind that he was seen in his district at 11:45, after the state claims he was at the crime scene.)
Officer Donald Erk, Jr. testified that Patrick was so late to arrive to transport their prisoner that the prisoner's extended family, called from somewhere, arrived before him. He also gave the story of the hot brakes. But Erk had already given a verbal account to a detective which contained none of these claims. When confronted with this under oath, he said his original statement had been mistaken (2165-86).
Officer Robert Hahn testified also that Patrick was late, arriving after family members. He also stated that he had called dispatch to determine the cause of the delay. But there is no record of this call in the radio transcripts (2174-76).
It would be impossible to disprove a claim that the brakes smelled hot, but the prisoner, David Bray (whose charge was dropped), testified that there was no smell of hot brakes in or near the car. More importantly, Mr. Bray testified that only his wife was present at the arrest, and no family came to the scene at all (2716-21).
Although Mr. Bray was quite convincing, the story about a late arrival is fully refuted by another means. Patrick was dispatched at 12:11 pm, according to the radio record. He radioed that he was on the way to headquarters with the prisoner at 12:20. This gave him a total of eight minutes and 32 seconds, according to Detective Ted Mattingly, to drive from his inner city district to 2426 W. Franklin, communicate with the officers there, exchange handcuffs on the prisoner, obtain paperwork, secure the prisoner in the car, and drive away: Patrick's travel time was "not unusual" (3421-22). Why lie?
Another lie with no apparent motivation came from a neighbor of the victim named James Lofton. Mr. Lofton testified that he saw Patrick arrive at the house on the morning of the fire, but he didn't notice smoke coming from the house. This is believable enough, because the 80 year old witness said he never looked up at the eaves or roof vents where the smoke would be escaping.
But Mr. Lofton wasn't happy with the effect of his testimony. He went on to insist that, if the smoke had been there, he would have seen it. This was in direct contradiction of his original statement in which he volunteered that the smoke could have been there, "I wasn't looking" (1177-79). Why lie?
Another example of baffling perjury comes from Officer William Schaefer. Officer Schaefer was one of the first to respond to Patrick's call for assistance. In his first two statements (a written supplement and a debriefing immediately after the events) Schaefer reported that Patrick had said, "I think Tammy's inside." On the stand, Schaefer changed the statement to "She's inside." When confronted with the conflict, Schaefer first tried to deny it, but then settled on the nonsensical explanation," That was my recollection at the time" (993-94).
It makes little practical difference how Patrick expressed his logical belief that Tammy had died in the fire. But the prosecution chose to try to make something out of it. What is significant is that Schaefer's new story must be a deliberate lie induced by the prosecution. It can hardly be a coincidence that Schaefer's reinvented version meshed precisely with the State's strategy. Why lie?
It would be difficult to ascribe motive to each instance of petty perjury presented by Stan Levco, but it is not difficult to see Levco (or his detective surrogates) as the common denominator. There were many, many instances of perjury in Patrick Bradford's trial. All were State's witnesses. All but one contradicted prior statements favorable to the defense (Hahn did not have a prior statement). All lied in favor of the State.
Why lie? Perhaps the question itself is inappropriate. Is there ever an acceptable motive to lie under oath?
But these were not the only perjuries in the trial. There were several more, less prominent instances. These lesser lies are, in some ways, more baffling than the more outrageous ones.
It is not difficult to see how a practiced and skillfully corrupt prosecutor or detectives might subvert a key witness: by appealing to their financial relationship with the county (the M.E.), by drawing them in as an insider (the fireman), by feeding critical information through the press (the junkie), or by offering a deal on a host of pending charges (the alibi witness).
But what motivated the lesser lies? How were they brought on board?
One example arises out of the first dispatched run Patrick made after the supposed window in his alibi (12:11). Sometime late in the preparation of the case, two officers who were present at that location surfaced with a mildly incriminating new story: Patrick took an unusually long time to arrive, and when he did, his brakes smelled hot, as though he had been driving at high speed.
This story suggested that Patrick had come from all the way across town (the crime scene), rather than from downtown where he said he was. (Never mind that he was seen in his district at 11:45, after the state claims he was at the crime scene.)
Officer Donald Erk, Jr. testified that Patrick was so late to arrive to transport their prisoner that the prisoner's extended family, called from somewhere, arrived before him. He also gave the story of the hot brakes. But Erk had already given a verbal account to a detective which contained none of these claims. When confronted with this under oath, he said his original statement had been mistaken (2165-86).
Officer Robert Hahn testified also that Patrick was late, arriving after family members. He also stated that he had called dispatch to determine the cause of the delay. But there is no record of this call in the radio transcripts (2174-76).
It would be impossible to disprove a claim that the brakes smelled hot, but the prisoner, David Bray (whose charge was dropped), testified that there was no smell of hot brakes in or near the car. More importantly, Mr. Bray testified that only his wife was present at the arrest, and no family came to the scene at all (2716-21).
Although Mr. Bray was quite convincing, the story about a late arrival is fully refuted by another means. Patrick was dispatched at 12:11 pm, according to the radio record. He radioed that he was on the way to headquarters with the prisoner at 12:20. This gave him a total of eight minutes and 32 seconds, according to Detective Ted Mattingly, to drive from his inner city district to 2426 W. Franklin, communicate with the officers there, exchange handcuffs on the prisoner, obtain paperwork, secure the prisoner in the car, and drive away: Patrick's travel time was "not unusual" (3421-22). Why lie?
Another lie with no apparent motivation came from a neighbor of the victim named James Lofton. Mr. Lofton testified that he saw Patrick arrive at the house on the morning of the fire, but he didn't notice smoke coming from the house. This is believable enough, because the 80 year old witness said he never looked up at the eaves or roof vents where the smoke would be escaping.
But Mr. Lofton wasn't happy with the effect of his testimony. He went on to insist that, if the smoke had been there, he would have seen it. This was in direct contradiction of his original statement in which he volunteered that the smoke could have been there, "I wasn't looking" (1177-79). Why lie?
Another example of baffling perjury comes from Officer William Schaefer. Officer Schaefer was one of the first to respond to Patrick's call for assistance. In his first two statements (a written supplement and a debriefing immediately after the events) Schaefer reported that Patrick had said, "I think Tammy's inside." On the stand, Schaefer changed the statement to "She's inside." When confronted with the conflict, Schaefer first tried to deny it, but then settled on the nonsensical explanation," That was my recollection at the time" (993-94).
It makes little practical difference how Patrick expressed his logical belief that Tammy had died in the fire. But the prosecution chose to try to make something out of it. What is significant is that Schaefer's new story must be a deliberate lie induced by the prosecution. It can hardly be a coincidence that Schaefer's reinvented version meshed precisely with the State's strategy. Why lie?
It would be difficult to ascribe motive to each instance of petty perjury presented by Stan Levco, but it is not difficult to see Levco (or his detective surrogates) as the common denominator. There were many, many instances of perjury in Patrick Bradford's trial. All were State's witnesses. All but one contradicted prior statements favorable to the defense (Hahn did not have a prior statement). All lied in favor of the State.
Why lie? Perhaps the question itself is inappropriate. Is there ever an acceptable motive to lie under oath?
Where's the Door? A Case of Official Corruption
The most hotly contested technical issue in the 1993 Murder and Arson trial of Patrick Bradford was whether or not the plywood panel of the bedroom door could have burned through in eight minutes or less. Because that panel did fail at some point during the fire, and Patrick did not arrive until eight minutes before the fire was extinguished, Patrick must be innocent if the panel would take longer than eight minutes to burn through.
Experts for the State asserted that the panel would have failed within 2-4 minutes. The defense argued that this was impossible, given the oxygen-starved fire conditions: a large, gasoline-fueled fire in a small, closed space. But neither side provided any scientific support for their position.
The first scientific examination of the question was done between 1997 and 2001, when three prominent fire scientists undertook (pro bono) to test the State's theories under the exact conditions as specified in their own case. In several full-scale fire recreations, comparable plywood panels did not burn through in anything close to eight minutes.
There is reason to believe that local officials got wind of these experiments. They were conducted in a neighboring county with many area firemen in attendance. Immediately afterward, the prosecutor attempted to rush a pending appeal through court which was under an indefinite continuance for investigation purposes.
But the cat was all the way out of the bag soon after, when 48 Hours Mystery aired an episode in which the test results were revealed. Two of the fire scientists declared unequivocally that the State's theory was "impossible".
At this point, prosecutor Stan Levco must have reasoned that the only possible defense against such proof would be to maintain that the test panels were not necessarily comparable to that in the actual bedroom door. (This would be a weak argument; there was an extreme disparity between the test results and the State's assertion.) He must have thought that the only hope was to do away with the actual door (which was locked away in secure evidence) so that the comparability of any test panel could never be established.
What we know as a fact is that, after the 48 Hours episode aired, experts did attempt to examine the remaining lower panel in the door, but the door was missing from the rest of the evidence from trial. Stan Levco had ordered that the door be destroyed--critical evidence in a murder trial officially under review. Levco's written order was produced in open court, but the evidence custodian could find no documentation as to who had removed the door, or when. It was simply gone.
Although foul play should be obvious at this point, there is a further aspect which removes all doubt. Levco had no authority to remove the evidence. His actions and those of his anonymous accomplice(s) were directly in violation of a very specific court order. In 1997, Judge Richard Young had ordered that no item of evidence in this case was to be removed from holding without the consent of both parties or a hearing before the court.
But there is an ironic twist. There were original doors remaining in the house where the crime occurred. These were identical to the bedroom door. These other doors were donated by the home's current owner and sent to a lab in Maryland. There, it was determined by a top fire scientist in a closely controlled laboratory testing that the bedroom door panel could not have burned through in anywhere close to the eight minutes required by the State's case.
Levco's malfeasance gained him nothing--except to prove his own corruption.
Final Note: Although Stan Levco is no longer officially in office, current prosecutor Nicholas Hermann has effectively endorsed his corrupt actions. In the October Post Conviction Relief hearing, Hermann's deputy, Suzan Garbers, attempted to argue against live testing results because the original door is not available for comparison...exactly Levco's plan all along.
Experts for the State asserted that the panel would have failed within 2-4 minutes. The defense argued that this was impossible, given the oxygen-starved fire conditions: a large, gasoline-fueled fire in a small, closed space. But neither side provided any scientific support for their position.
The first scientific examination of the question was done between 1997 and 2001, when three prominent fire scientists undertook (pro bono) to test the State's theories under the exact conditions as specified in their own case. In several full-scale fire recreations, comparable plywood panels did not burn through in anything close to eight minutes.
There is reason to believe that local officials got wind of these experiments. They were conducted in a neighboring county with many area firemen in attendance. Immediately afterward, the prosecutor attempted to rush a pending appeal through court which was under an indefinite continuance for investigation purposes.
But the cat was all the way out of the bag soon after, when 48 Hours Mystery aired an episode in which the test results were revealed. Two of the fire scientists declared unequivocally that the State's theory was "impossible".
At this point, prosecutor Stan Levco must have reasoned that the only possible defense against such proof would be to maintain that the test panels were not necessarily comparable to that in the actual bedroom door. (This would be a weak argument; there was an extreme disparity between the test results and the State's assertion.) He must have thought that the only hope was to do away with the actual door (which was locked away in secure evidence) so that the comparability of any test panel could never be established.
What we know as a fact is that, after the 48 Hours episode aired, experts did attempt to examine the remaining lower panel in the door, but the door was missing from the rest of the evidence from trial. Stan Levco had ordered that the door be destroyed--critical evidence in a murder trial officially under review. Levco's written order was produced in open court, but the evidence custodian could find no documentation as to who had removed the door, or when. It was simply gone.
Although foul play should be obvious at this point, there is a further aspect which removes all doubt. Levco had no authority to remove the evidence. His actions and those of his anonymous accomplice(s) were directly in violation of a very specific court order. In 1997, Judge Richard Young had ordered that no item of evidence in this case was to be removed from holding without the consent of both parties or a hearing before the court.
But there is an ironic twist. There were original doors remaining in the house where the crime occurred. These were identical to the bedroom door. These other doors were donated by the home's current owner and sent to a lab in Maryland. There, it was determined by a top fire scientist in a closely controlled laboratory testing that the bedroom door panel could not have burned through in anywhere close to the eight minutes required by the State's case.
Levco's malfeasance gained him nothing--except to prove his own corruption.
Final Note: Although Stan Levco is no longer officially in office, current prosecutor Nicholas Hermann has effectively endorsed his corrupt actions. In the October Post Conviction Relief hearing, Hermann's deputy, Suzan Garbers, attempted to argue against live testing results because the original door is not available for comparison...exactly Levco's plan all along.
Where There's Smoke...Stan Levco's Loose Logic
But this logical error, this non sequitur, was a driving factor in the investigation and prosecution of the murder of Tammy Lohr. Prosecutor Stan Levco took great pains to emphasize that several witnesses did not see smoke before Patrick Bradford arrived and reported a fire at Tammy's house. The argument he advanced was that if the fire and smoke had been present as Patrick reported-light smoke rising from roof vents-then somebody would have seen it before him.
Such evidence is not necessarily irrelevant, but logic requires that much more be taken into consideration. What did all the witnesses report, and what were the conditions under which their observations were made? With sufficient data, some reliable conclusions can be drawn. Following is a timeline with synopses of witness observations.
TIMELINE
5:30-6:00 AM:
(Stacy Moser) Neighbor in house, one block west, smelled smoke (Pet. Exh. 28, p.4; Exh. 29, p.3)
6:15-6:20 AM:
(Ronetta Smith) Commuter in car--north on Boeke past 1106--, saw no smoke.
Not looking "in particular" (1183-1190).
(Terry Rickard) Commuter in car--north on Boeke from Washington--saw no smoke.
Attention at street level: "looked both ways" for traffic (1191-1200).
6:25-6:30 AM:
--6:25--
(David Coleman) Commuter in car--south on Boeke past 1106--saw nothing unusual.
No special attention to 1106 (1202-1208).
--6:26--
(Joyce Martin) ATM user in car--Boeke and Bayard Park--didn't notice smoke anywhere.
(1218-1220)
--6:28--
(Gerald Johnson) Paper carrier on foot--1106 S. Boeke (scene of fire)--smelled wood smoke.
(2930-2960).
--6:30--
(Randy Baugh) Commuter in car--Boeke and Washington--saw no smoke.
Attention focused at street level, on other vehicle at intersection (1055-1117).
6:33 AM:
(David Steward) Commuter in car--North on Boeke past 1106--saw no smoke.
Tree-lined street; custom-tinted upper windshield (1138-1149).
6:35 AM:
(James Lofton) Neighbor on foot--in front of 1106--saw no smoke.
Very elderly; said "it could have been there, I wasn't looking" (1177-79).
Did not look up at eaves or vents (1177).
(Patrick Bradford) In car--S. on Boeke from Washington--saw haze of smoke at roof level.
Didn't notice column of smoke above house until arrival (2481-3410-13).
(Nancy Satterfield) Commuter in car--S. on Boeke past 1106--saw no smoke.
Saw Officer Bradford; "main focus" was looking around for a police car.
Didn't look up to roof, eaves, or vents (1229-1263).
6:36 AM:
(Linda Allen) Jogger--Boeke North of Powell--saw smoke above the trees (907-918, 2282).
(Sue Bengert) Jogger--Boeke North of Powell--saw smoke column up in the air.
"Very dark, black-looking, and so thick" (922-932, 2282).
6:38 AM:
(Michael Dietsche) Commuter in car--North on Boeke past 1106--saw smoke coming from front door.
"That's the only place I observed smoke" (933-938).
(Kenneth Taylor) Responding officer--Boeke and Washington--saw smoke in the air above house.
Upon arrival, didn't see smoke column rising from vents (956-981).
(William Schaefer) Responding officer--Washington west of Boeke--saw smoke rising above treetops.
Upon arrival, didn't notice smoke column rising from vents (983-996).
6:39 AM:
(Jennifer Greenwell) Neighbor in house--Across from 1106--saw officer at front door.
Saw smoke from door and eaves, did not see smoke column above house,
(939-946)
6:40 AM:
(Ryan Rizen) Responding officer--Boeke South of Lloyd-- saw smoke column in sky (997-1020).
6:41 AM:
(Randy Baugh) Responding fireman--Washington at Ross Center--saw smoke above house.
"dark, thick column" (1055-1117).
6:43 AM:
FIRE EXTINGUISHED (1116)
6:50 AM:
Smoke still coming out after extinguishment (1142)
6:55 AM:
(Nancy Satterfield) Commuter in car--Boeke and Washington--saw no smoke or emergency vehicles (1229-1263).
Bearing in mind that it is faulty logic to conclude that something necessarily does not exist before it is seen, the following conclusions are sound:
I. The fire was detected before Patrick's arrival
While it is technically true that nobody reported seeing smoke before Patrick's arrival, at least two people smelled it. Ms. Moser, a block away, smelled smoke between 5:30 and 6:00 AM. This might be written off as coincidence, but it would be a huge coincidence, given the significance of the event that would be discovered just a half-hour later.
The odds against mere coincidence become insurmountable with a second witness to smell smoke, not a block away, but standing at the corner of the house where the bedroom burned, Mr. Johnson, the paper carrier, reported smelling wood smoke there at around 6:28, 7-8 minutes before Patrick's arrival.
II. Non-sightings are all but irrelevant
Following Levco's logic, a huge column of dense smoke must have appeared and disappeared several times. The distinct column was seen by the joggers from two blocks away above tall trees at 6:36. Then, at approximately 6:38 when the joggers had made it all the way past the house, Mr. Dietsche did not see it as he approached on Boeke--not even after he became aware that the house was on fire!
Officers Taylor and Schaefer saw the smoke above the trees on approach on Washington, but didn't notice the column rising from the roof vents after they arrived. Ms. Satterfield, driving by just after Patrick arrived, didn't see smoke. But she also didn't see either smoke or any emergency vehicles from a stoplight at Boeke and Washington at 6:55, when smoke was over the whole neighborhood and police cars and fire trucks littered the street all the way up to Washington.
Even Patrick reported first seeing only a haze at roof level, not noticing the distinct smoke column until pulling up to the house.
III. It appears that drivers' observations were impaired
Nobody who was in a vehicle saw the smoke unless they were already alerted to the fire and/or house (responding police and firemen). By contrast, three out of four witnesses on foot detected smoke, though none of these had been otherwise alerted. (The one exception being the very elderly Mr. Lofton).
Two probable explanations are:
- A vehicle roof obstructs upward vision.
- As several of the commuters explained (and for the rest, it can be inferred) their attention was at street level, and/or they had no reason to look at or above the house.
No witness who did not see smoke reports having looked where the smoke might be: above the house, on the roof, under the eaves.
IV. The report of the joggers is actually an account of smoke before Patrick's arrival.
The two joggers' sightings of a dense column of smoke above the trees were at 6:36. This was about one minute after Patrick's radio report of the fire. However, the fire obviously had to have been burning well before then for enough smoke to have escaped through the one-inch bedroom door opening to be seen in such density from such a distance.
Although this is intuitively obvious, it has been scientifically proven. Don Belles, a prominent fire scientist (ret.), calculated the time and mass it would take to produce such a column visible above the 75' treeline. It would be many times longer than the present one-minute interval. These calculations were solidly verified in full-scale fire testing. Several minutes into the precisely recreated fire, only light wisps of smoke are seen escaping the test house (video-documented).
The joggers' sightings unmistakably establish that the fire was initiated before Patrick's arrival.
This has been an exercise in simple logic. But even simple logic can be obscured and twisted by a skilled and unscrupulous rhetorician. Stan Levco lobbed one such fallacy after another past a not-too-bright jury. His success was a failure of both logic and justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)