20 years ago today, a bright young woman (not much younger than myself), had every dream and opportunity ripped from her by force. It is so undeniably tragic that the world was denied her presence. Her family and friends have suffered, and countless others have been victimized as a result of her murder.
Some may be confused by the statement "others have been victimized by her murder". The truth is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the wrong man was prosecuted and convicted for this crime. It is uncomfortable to think that we may have been wrong. It is much easier to believe the media's distorted version. I mean, no one wants to be wrong...especially about something so pressing. Because of the wrongful conviction of Patrick Bradford for the murder of Tammy Lohr, a long list of people have been victimized. Tammy's family, who was exploited and led to believe that those entrusted to seek justice for their beloved were actually taking the responsibility seriously...They have been denied justice, blindly at that! Patrick's family endured (and still do on occasion) public humiliation. They watched as a beloved son, husband, father, brother, uncle, friend was wrenched from them, defamed, and thrust into a living hell for a crime he did not commit; a crime the facts prove him innocent of. Last but not least, the public is a victim. We naturally rely on investigators and other elected officials to pursue justice honestly and responsibly. Yet, those who handled this particular case abused our trust. They lied to us and manipulated us by means of the media...playing us for fools, all for the sake of bolstering their careers. It is nothing short of shameful.
It astounds me how many people think they KNOW something about this particular case. After scanning comments posted on Courier & Press articles I've had the privilege of seeing just how ignorant--and I mean that in the least offensive way possible--the public is about the real meat and potatoes of this case. They are convinced that there was "overwhelming evidence" against Patrick Bradford. If you've spent even 2 minutes reading the case files you can see there is actually no evidence. At all. No blood spatter, fingerprint, eye witness, confession, motive, hair, fiber, gasoline trace..nothing. So, to clear the record I've decided to post exactly what the State alleged, in all of its absurdity. I've also included highlights of Patrick Bradford's defense and some closing arguments. Happy reading. May you be enlightened and hopefully as enraged as those of us who have had the pleasure of knowing the ugly truth all along.
THE TRIAL
The
murder/arson trial of Patrick Bradford in 1993 lasted about 3 weeks. The
evidence against him was 100% circumstantial: no eye witness to the crimes and
no physical evidence linking Patrick to the crimes.
Prosecutor
Stan Levco presented a case based almost entirely on perjured and incompetent
testimony.
The
theory of the State’s case was that Patrick began his patrol shift behaving
normally, gassed up at approximately 11:00 PM, arrived at Tammy Lohr’s (victim)
house halfway across town at virtually the same time, became enraged over some
unknown thing, stabbed her to death (21 wounds), performed elaborate impromptu
crime scene staging (disabling outside telephone lines, rifling and ransacking,
cutting out a window screen, propping open the window and placing a ladder
underneath), as well as removing all traces of blood, all within about 20
minutes. He then allegedly made a false local wanted check on the radio at
11:27, was seen patrolling across town at 11:45, and behaved normally and
performed exemplary throughout a busy night shift.
The
theory further entailed that Patrick returned to the scene at 6:35 AM, walked
casually into the house, went out the back to retrieve a gas can, relocked and
latched the back doors, went down into the basement to find and switch off the
power breaker specific to the bedroom, came back upstairs and caught and killed
Tammy’s dog, doused the body, bed, and floor with gasoline without leaving a
trace on his clothes, ignited the gas and closed the bedroom door and emerged
from the house with a huge column of smoke already visible from blocks away,
all within 20-30 seconds before calling for help on his radio.
Thereafter
and without exception his behavior was appropriate to the circumstances in the
opinions of many civilian and law enforcement witnesses.
THE STATE’S CASE
The
features of the prosecution most relevant to the crimes alleged were:
The
State led with technical data, radio logs, and supporting witnesses,
establishing beyond any doubt—down to seconds—the times at issue:
Patrick
went on his shift shortly before 11:00 PM and went to fuel his car. He called
for a local wanted check on a subject at 11:27. His first dispatched run was at
12:11 AM. After his shift ended, he arrived at Tammy’s house just before 6:35,
and almost immediately reported the fire on his radio.
Several
witnesses testified that they did not see smoke in the area before Patrick’s
arrival. Several police officers testified to their observations as they
arrived to assist; their accounts were consistent with Patrick’s, and their
descriptions of his demeanor were consistent with innocence.
Some
of the officers reported that Patrick had told them that Tammy was inside the
burning house.
Crime
scene technicians (aided by the FBI) could find no physical link between
Patrick and the crimes (hair, fingerprint, DNA, blood, fiber, gasoline), but
they also offered the opinion that they cut screen, open window, and disabled
phone lines were staged. This was supported only by Cpl. Stan Ford’s
demonstration, standing the inside of a mocked-up window, following the
existing cut line with an imaginary knife—he admitted upon cross examination
that the same could have been done from the outside.
A
forensic pathologist testified that Tammy could have died as much as 24 hours
before the crime was discovered--despite the time he listed on her death certificate which placed her death at 5 hours but more likely 2 hours before discovery (based on the fresh appearance of the pancreas and other organs).
Two
fire investigators opined that the fire must have begun approximately at the
time of Patrick’s arrival.
A
fireman swore that, upon entering, he found the door closed and no flames
discernible, contrary to Patrick’s statement that he could see flames in the
bedroom (See “Perjury”, Capt. Baugh).
Several
witnesses described seeing police cars in Tammy’s driveway at widely different
times and on different shifts--which actually indicates that she was involved with other police officers. Strangely, they were never identified.
Another
witness reported a recovered memory (after three days of media reports) of
seeing a police car in Tammy’s driveway at 11:00 PM on the night before the
discovery of the crime (See “Perjury”: Elizabeth Spradley).
A
local thug denied having been out where Patrick claimed to have seen him at
11:27, when he called dispatch for a local wanted check (see “Perjury”: George
Russell).
Two
officers swore that Patrick arrived late, and with smoking brakes, to his first
run at 12:11 AM, suggesting that he had left from the crime scene across town
(See “Perjury”: Donald Erk, Jr. and Robert Hahn).
The
lead detective described a timing test which, he claimed, revealed a 20 second
window of unaccounted-for time after Patrick’s arrival at the scene at 6:35 AM.
The
State also called the most likely suspect—Finis Vincent—to clear himself. An
avowed enemy of Tammy’s, on whom she had filed a police report for stalking,
swore that he had been at home all night until after 7:00 AM. His wife
corroborated this, although their stories were contradictory.
THE DEFENSE
The
Defense case consisted primarily of reactions the allegations of the
State. A long list of witnesses
established Patrick’s alibi from 12:40 AM through the end of his shift, which
forced the State to its 20 minute window for the murder and 20 second window
for the arson.
The
many alibi witnesses confirmed both that Patrick was where he had claimed to be
and also that his demeanor was normal and his duty performance was admirable
throughout the night. A neighbor reported that Tammy’s bedroom light was on at
12:30 AM, proving both that somebody was alive in the house after the State alleges Tammy was
killed, within Patrick’s established alibi, and that a trip to the basement
breaker box must be figured into the 20 second arson window in the State’s
theory.
A
traffic engineer calculated that Patrick had almost certainly encountered a red
light just before reaching Tammy’s house in the morning, eliminating altogether
the already fantastic 20 second opportunity for arson.
A
newspaper carrier testified that he had smelled smoke just outside Tammy’s
bedroom window several minutes before Patrick’s arrival.
A
private fire expert testified quite inexpertly that the fire must have been
burning well before Patrick’s arrival. (See “Science: Junk Science” Barker Davie).
Several
witnesses who had passed by the house between 11:00 and 11:30 PM testified that
they did not see a police car in the driveway.
There
was a day and a half of testimony and cross examination of Patrick Bradford,
which revealed little beyond his prior statements and no significant
irregularities.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
The
closing arguments were telling: Prosecutor Stan Levco maintained that the
State’s theory had been proven, despite the admitted unlikelihood,
self-contradicted key witnesses, and virtually impossible windows of
opportunity. At least ten times during his summation, he used phrases like “I’m
not saying I can prove this, but…”.
For
the Defense, attorney Terry Noffsinger concentrated primarily on the extreme
unlikelihood (reasonable doubt) of the timing aspects of the State’s theory and
the fact that all of the State’s key witnesses had given directly contradictory
prior statements.
The
Jury deliberated for three days before delivering a verdict of guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment