Is Erick Guilty or Innocent?

[William Ruddock]

Erick in a recent letter indicated that he want to hear from all sides. He wants to hear from people who think he is guilty. This allow him to frame is observations to those who do not believe him.

Here is a partial list of why I believe Erick is innocent:

1) No physical evidence at the crime scene linking Erick to it.
2) No physical evidence in his car or home or cloths or anything else linking Erick to the crime.
3) The confession has more statements that are inconsistent with the crime than are consistent with it.

a) The cloths Erick described in his statement were found in his home not thrown away.
b) The souvenir tomahawk was found in a shed at the Westervelt home, not thrown away.
c) The souvenir tomahawk showed no signs of being used to commit a crime. There was no blood or recent markings on it.
d) The dog was found running loose, not in the house.
e) The description of the blows Erick gave in the statement did not match the autopsy.
f) If the "Italian" note was printed at a library, the note would have had prints on it.

4) Bowdich testified that he and Erick wrote the statement together. It took almost 2 hours to write that out!!!
5) I believe that Erick's analysis of the crime is basically sound (see Erick's Observations).
6) The technique for obtaining Erick's statement are consistent with Jeffrey Deskovic. Right down to the "failed" "voluntary" Lie detector test.
7) Erick cooperated completely with the police rather than put up barriers right from the start.
8) His parents both testified that Erick was at home that night watching a Yankees game on TV and playing video games with his brother.
9) Moffre's statement is impossible to believe.
10) The Bethlehem police denied Erick access to an attorney when he asked for one.
11) The two tomahawk theory just doesn't hold up to the giggle test.
12) At trial, the defense arguments were weak at times. They neglected on multiple occasions to object to things that should not have been allowed. They failed to get exculpatory evidence presented.
13) The same firm representing Erick was representing a high profile client in another murder case at the same time. They could not give Erick's case the attention it needed.

Bill

[William Ruddock]

I want add two more reasons under 3) Confession statements that are inconsistent with the facts of the case:

e) The toy hatchet was found in a Shed at the Westervelt home, not thrown into the neighbors garbage. The box it was found in had dust on it indicating that the hatchet had been resting peacefully in that spot for a long time.
f) The toy hatchet found had not evidence that it had been used in the commissioning of a crime. No blood found on the hatchet, no dents or other markings which would indicate violent use.

Bill

[bobbyo1011]

Bill: I was asked the following question: Since the toy hatchet is identified as the murder weapon, did the police actually claimed that it was used to kill Tim Gray during the trial?

I am asked this by an anonymous Suffolk County cop who is fascinated with Erick's case.

I would rather you answer that than give a inaccurate answer since I still have a lot to learn about Erick's case.

BTW, you might be developing a little bit of a following from here in Suffolk County. Many people have Marty Tankleff's case still fresh in their minds and are angry that the prosecutors and cops lied to the public about his guilt.

It is safe to say that in Suffolk County, people are now far less willing to accept what the DA's office and the homicide squad say at face value.

[William Ruddock]

Bob: This is a difficult question to answer. In Erick's statement, the toy hatchet was stated to be the instrument used during the crime. In Erick's statement he also said he threw that hatchet away. After his statement was given, search warrant in hand, the police searched the Westervelt home for evidence. The toy hatchet was found in a shed in a box that was covered with dust. The hatchet was tested and no evidence of its being used in a crime - especially not this crime - was found.

The toy hatchet was presented at trial. If I were the Jury, I'd have a hard time knowing if the police were saying yes it was the weapon or no it wasn't the weapon. While on the stand the prosecution asked Erick's mother about the search for the hatchet and she said the police were looking for two hatchets. She told them that Erick's father had a similar hatchet but they were not interested in that.

In Summary closing Erick's attorney pointed out the inconsistency between the statement and the fact that the hatchet was not thrown away. Also he pointed out the inconsistency with that hatchet not having any evidence of being used. Also in summary, Erick's attorney pointed out that the prosecution had indicated either this toy hatchet or a similar duplicate was used.

In summary the Prosecution kept talking about the hatchet like it was the murder weapon. They took Erick's mothers testimony about the police search for two hatchets as evidence that she was lying...

When the Dr. who did the autopsy was on the stand he indicated the blows to the head were blunt instrument blows that could have been made by a toy hatchet.

So again, I think the Jury was totally baffled on what the murder weapon was. Standing back, it is impossible to conclude that the toy hatchet was the murder weapon, but to deny this you have to say Erick's statement wasn't completely true now wouldn't we.

[aunthula]

Bill,
As someone who sat thru the trial, I agree with your observations. By the time of the closing arguments, I believed the prosecution had manipulated their words to try and make us believe the toy hatchet that was shown to us (clean of any DNA), was the murder weapon.

[deepblue]

Eric has a brother and the chances of having 2 tomahawks are very likely. Why would u ever write and sign a confession if u didn't do it.

[bobbyo1011]

There is way too much evidence of false confessions to answer a silly question like that.

I continue to maintain that the only way that Erick is going to get out of prison is for him to find out who really murdered Tim Gray. There are those who disagree with me as is their right. Only time will tell who is right.

Not that long ago, the conventional wisdom was that no one under any circumstances would ever confess to something they did not do. However, that assumption has been turned on its ear by DNA and other forms of forensic science.

25% of absolutely indisputable exonerations by DNA involve false confessions. That means that 1 in 4 cases where DNA proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that a person was innocent that the wrongfully convicted "confessed" to something they did not do.

As a retired police investigator who interrogated hundreds during my career with a fair degree of success, I can honestly say that people, under the right conditions and circumstances, can and will falsely confess. Any honest cop who is any good at interrogations know what I am talking about and would have to agree.

[William Ruddock]

This is a reply to deepblue's comments about a 2nd toy tomahawk.

First I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond. It is because I have been very busy with my work life, not because your question does not need an answer that I'm so late in responding.

The Albany County Prosecutor had the same problem and question. Erick's statement clearly said that his weapon was a toy tomahawk that he got as an 10-11 year old child. When it turned out that this toy was in storage at the Westervelt home, with no signs of it ever perpetrating a crime, much less a bloody murder, the prosecutor had to invent a 2nd toy tomahawk.... The problem of course is there is no second tomahawk. Erick's brother was only 3-4 years old when Erick's toy tomahawk was purchased at Lake George. Erick's brother never had a toy tomahawk.

If you read the transcript of the trial carefully this is an area that the Albany County prosecutor really did a poor job. He totally confused the jury. I can honestly say that if I had witnessed this trial as a juror, I wouldn't know if there was one toy tomahawk or two or three. I would encourage you to read the testimony of Erick's mother Wendy Westervelt. The Police on finding the toy tomahawk kept asking for a 2nd tomahawk. Read also the closing arguments of the prosecution.... If you don't walk away confused, I'd like to be enlightened by your interpretation.

To me, your question represents a good example of trying hard to make the case fit the statement. In reality the facts don't support the statement.

If there was indeed a 2nd toy tomahawk, it was the prosecutors job to show, beyond a shadow of doubt that a 2nd one existed and it was indeed used in the crime. But he did not do this, but only "implied" there might have been a 2nd one.

Thanks for your comments.

Bill

[William Ruddock]

Again, deepblue asked the following: Why would u ever write and sign a confession if u didn't do it?

First I want to stress that in Erick's case, he did not write this confession out. It was a joint development effort between Detective Bowdish and Erick. Bowdish supplied the details and Erick provided the signature.

As to why this happens it is mysterious to almost all thinking people. So I really appreciate your question. Why do we find that a full 25% of DNA based ex-honorees confessed to crimes we know know they did not commit? Try as you might to dismiss this fact you just cannot.

So What makes a person do this? A lot has to do with techniques that are commonly used by detectives. In Erick's case we don't know what was said and how things played out because it was not video taped. We do know that Erick was fully cooperative with the police. He did not withhold anything about his relationship with Jess and with Timothy Gray. All of his statements about those relationships are supported by evidence at trial. He did not withhold access to his DNA or to his car or anything that the Police asked for.

Personally I think Erick wanted to cooperate as much as possible with the police. I think he naively believed that once the facts of the case were checked against his statement that the police would realize he couldn't have done this because he had made his statement up. The real facts would contradict his statement so much that the police would follow up on other leads, etc.

Bill