Erickson, a junior high school classmate of
Ryan Ferguson, and a known drug and alcohol abuser, was seen by his friends
as a person prone to telling outrageous stories. His story on March 10, 2004
was no exception.
He was first interviewed by Columbia Police
Det. John Short, and subsequently interrogated by him in a videotaped
interview shortly thereafter. During the course of the 52-minute videotaped
interview, Erickson "confessed" to the murder and robbery, and implicated
Ryan Ferguson.
Although Erickson and Ferguson were only 17
years old at the time of Heitholt's death, Erickson stated that they were at
a Columbia nightclub called By George, and had run out of money. He claimed
they left the club before 1:30 a.m. when Ferguson suggested they go and rob
someone for money. He claimed they went back to Ferguson's car parked nearby
and that he grabbed a tire tool from the trunk.
He claimed they then walked to the Columbia
Daily Tribune building and saw Heitholt in the parking lot. Erickson
claimed he struck the victim over the head once, became sick and vomited at
the scene. He claimed Ferguson then strangled the victim with his bare
hands.
He claimed they then saw a cleaning lady and
he called out to her. He claimed he sat down for a moment, and then they ran
off towards the intersection of Providence and Ash, where within seconds of
leaving the crime scene, he said they saw and spoke to a friend, Dallas
Mallory, who was supposedly in his car with two female companions and
stopped at a red light at the intersection. Erickson claimed he told Mallory
what they had done. He claimed he washed the blood off his hands in a nearby
creek, and they returned to Ferguson's car to dispose of the tire tool,
before they went back to By George, arriving after 2:30 a.m.
Throughout the course of this interrogation
with Det. Short, Erickson was confused and could not provide any accurate
information relating to the murder. Short repeatedly asked questions
specifically relating to the murder, and Erickson simply could not answer
accurately.
Short realized this, and proceeded to
spoon-feed specific details to Erickson. Whenever Erickson could not answer
his questions accurately or in detail, Short provided the answers, and a
confused, scared and easily manipulated Erickson simply went along with
whatever the detective was saying.
One key element of Erickson's "confession"
was the number of times he said he hit the victim. Short asked Erickson,
"How many times did you think you hit him all together?" Erickson replied,
"Just the once." Short, knowing the victim was hit 11 times, and knowing
Erickson was wrong, asked, "Just the once? Well, the only problem I have
with that is I know he was hit more than once," to which Erickson simply
replied, "Yeah", and that, "I'm saying I just hit him once." Short
continued, "You just hit him once? You didn't hit him more?" to which
Erickson replied, "No", and again stated, "I didn't hit him more than once."
Erickson never claimed Ferguson hit the victim.
Another key element of Erickson's story
related to Ferguson's supposedly strangling Heitholt. Erickson had no
problem in clearly saying that Ferguson strangled the victim, yet he had
absolutely no idea how or what with. He first indicated that Ferguson had
strangled the victim with his hands while the victim lay on his back on the
ground. When later asked by Det.
Short what Ferguson strangled the victim with, Erickson replied, "I think it
was a shirt or something." Short, knowing Erickson was wrong again said,
"Well, I know it wasn't a shirt." Erickson, clearly having no idea what to
say, started guessing, "Maybe a bungee cord or something from his car."
Unhappy with the answers given, Short again spoon-fed Erickson and decided
to just tell him, "Well, we know for a fact that his [the victim's] belt was
ripped off of his pants and he was strangled with his belt." Surprised to
hear this, Erickson said, "Really?" and went on to say, "I don't remember
that at all."
Short changed the subject, then later
returned to the subject of the strangling and asked, "So it's possible Ryan
could have strangled this guy with his belt, got the keys, and you not know
about it?" Again confused, Erickson asked, "The guy the man's belt?" to
which Short replied, "Yeah". Still confused and surprised, Erickson
continued, "His own belt?" Short answered, "Yes. Does that ring a bell?" to
which Erickson replied, "Not at all." Short then asked, "But you saw Ryan
strangle him though?" and now not as certain as he was earlier, Erickson
replied, "I thought I did", and said, "I might not even know what I'm
talking about now."
After this interrogation, detectives took
Erickson on a videotaped drive around the crime scene and surrounding area.
It was during this time that Erickson asked the detectives to show him where
the murder had taken place. One would think that in confessing to a murder,
one thing Erickson would be sure of was where it took place.
After their drive around, Erickson was again
interrogated in a 22-minute videotaped interview by another detective, Jeff
Nichols. It was during this interrogation that the detective threatened
Erickson, saying that Ferguson would talk and blame Erickson for the whole
event. Erickson replied, "I don't know. I mean, I don't even really know,
it's just so foggy, like I could just be sitting here fabricating all of it
and not know. Like, I don't know. I don't."
Erickson also said, "This is after reading
the newspaper article in October and this is kind of what I put together
with, I mean I don't know if I'm just flipping out or whatever, but I mean
this is kind of what I put together with what could have happened", and,
"I'm just presuming what happened. I'm making assumptions based on what I
read in the newspaper."
Det. Nichols told Erickson that he had
provided specifics that no one else could know. Erickson asked, "Like what?"
and the detective said the cleaning lady, which Erickson said he read in the
newspaper.
At this point, Nichols became aggressive and
said, "I'm not going to sit here and listen to this kind of gibberish ok?
I'm not going to waste my time doing that." He raised his voice and pointed
his finger at Erickson, saying "I'm gonna start talking and you're gonna
start listening." He again threatened Erickson and told him that Ferguson
would talk and blame him, and "It's you that is on this chopping block." (Click
here to view a video clip of this interview).
Erickson became scared and was still
confused. Det. Nichols moved closer to Erickson and continued pointing his
finger at him aggressively and said, "I don't want to hear all of a sudden
I just think I may have fabricated all of this.'" The detective then went
back to the beginning of his story, probing for more details that Erickson
simply didn't know, so the detective told the story himself, and Erickson
went along with it, too scared to say otherwise.
Despite the gaping holes in Erickson's story,
the fact that he was confused, knew very little details of the crime, and
said on numerous occasions that he didn't know what he was talking about and
was making it all up, the police arrested and charged him with second-degree
murder and robbery.
That same day, March 10, 2004, 19-year-old
Ferguson was arrested at 12:35 p.m. in Kansas City. He was transported to
Columbia and interrogated for nine hours. Ferguson repeatedly pleaded his
innocence. Knowing he had nothing to do with Heitholt's murder, he felt he
did not need an attorney during the interrogation. Detectives tried numerous
tactics to obtain a confession, but Ferguson remained steadfast in
maintaining his innocence. (Click
here to view a video clip of this interview).
Heitholt's colleague, Michael Boyd, was the
last known person to see the victim alive. He had a conversation with
Heitholt in the Tribune parking lot just minutes before his death. A
few hours after the murder, Boyd was questioned via telephone that morning
and again later that evening in person. On that day, he told two very
different stories. In one story, he stated he and Heitholt stood by
Heitholt's car for a few minutes, and had a conversation about a stray cat
that Heitholt frequently fed. He then went back to his car and drove off.
In another story, he stated that he was in
his vehicle and adjusting the radio for a couple of minutes, before he saw
Heitholt exiting the building and walking to his car. He then backed out of
his parking spot and drove through the parking lot, stopping at Heitholt's
car. He rolled down his window and had a conversation with Heitholt. They
discussed a possible problem with Boyd's car, the stray cat, and some
work-related matters, before he drove off.
Despite the fact that Boyd told two different
stories that day, and was the last known person to see the victim
alive, he was never investigated.
He would alter his story three more times, in February 2005, July 2005 and
June 2006, with changes ranging from which parking lot he was in, and even
the color and model of the vehicle he was driving that night.
In October 2004, some seven months after the
arrests, easily manipulated Erickson was offered a deal to plead guilty and
provide testimony to convict Ferguson. In return, his sentence would be
drastically reduced from life to 25 years, with a possibility of parole
after 12 years. As a result of his deal, Erickson's story changed
significantly.
Erickson now "remembered" that he hit the
victim 11 times. He now "remembered" exactly how Ferguson supposedly
strangled the victim. He also now "recalls" seeing Boyd, a "white man,"
talking to the victim before he attacked him, yet Boyd is African-American.
The only way Erickson knew about Boyd was from reading the police reports,
and he believed Boyd was white because the police had incorrectly designated
Boyd as a "white man" in their reports.
 |
|
Copy of portion
of the police report stating Boyd was white.
Click here to view full page
of report. |
Erickson also completely changed his story
about the way they left the crime scene. He claimed they did indeed head in
the same direction as the K-9 tracking dog, although unlike the dog, they
headed back to By George. He stated they went in the complete opposite
direction of his original story.
There are huge inconsistencies in his story.
Erickson stated they went back to the club after the murder, thereby
arriving after 2:30 a.m. The club closed at 1:30 a.m. There has never been
any evidence to support that the club was open after 1:30 a.m.
Erickson claimed the motive was robbery and
that they needed more money for drinks, yet the victim's wallet, which was
in a console inside his car, was not taken. The only missing items were
Heitholt's watch, a portion of his belt, and the keys to his car.
Erickson claimed they couldn't leave the club
because there were police in the parking lot, yet there is no record of any
police activity at the club, and if the club were open after 1:30 a.m., as
Erickson stated, the club likely would have been given a citation.
Erickson claimed they drove past the crime
scene after leaving the club around 4 a.m. and saw the victim being placed
in a body bag, yet it is impossible to see the crime scene from the street,
and the body was not placed in a body bag until 5:20 a.m.
Erickson claimed Ryan's father, Bill
Ferguson, found a wallet, which Erickson alleged was the victim's, yet the
victim's wallet was never taken. Erickson claimed he vomited at the scene,
yet no vomit was found.
Erickson initially claimed Ferguson strangled
the victim on his back, yet the victim was strangled on his stomach.
Erickson claimed they were chased from the scene, yet no one chased the
perpetrators.
Erickson claimed they saw Dallas Mallory in
his car with two female companions stopped at a red light at the
intersection of Providence and Ash, yet the Missouri Department of
Transportation stated that there was only a flashing yellow light at that
time. Regardless, Mallory did not hold a valid driver's license, and did not
own a car. Was he driving an imaginary car without a driver's license? If
what Erickson says were true, then why were the two female companions not
identified and interviewed?
On the day of the arrests, Mallory was
interviewed by a group of detectives. He denied seeing or speaking to
Erickson or Ferguson on the night of the murder. The detectives would not
accept his statement, so they yelled obscenities at him, tried to intimidate
him, and even threatened to charge him with the murder.
The detectives told Mallory that Erickson
claimed he saw him on the night of the murder, and that Mallory had been
wearing a police uniform as a Halloween costume. Upon hearing this
information, Mallory realized he must have seen Erickson that night, however
was adamant it was not in the early hours of the morning after the murder,
as he was not in the vicinity of the crime scene at that time.
It was later established that both Mallory
and Erickson were at a Halloween party hours before the murder occurred, and
were photographed together, with Mallory wearing the police uniform costume.
This is how Erickson knew Mallory was wearing a police uniform that night,
not because they spoke after the murder. That simply did not happen. The
only time that Mallory mentioned seeing Erickson on the morning of the
murder was under severe police duress. Since that time, Mallory has
maintained that he did not see or talk with Erickson or Ferguson on the
morning of the murder. On Dec. 1, 2004, Mallory provided an affidavit in
such terms.
On Jan. 4, 2005, the prosecutor interviewed
Mallory. It was during this interview that a subsequent paragraph was added
to the follow-up police report, for the first time claiming that Mallory saw
Ferguson that night, as this was previously omitted in the original report.
Mallory subsequently read this report, and explained that the police
falsified the portion of the report pertaining to his supposedly seeing
Ferguson on that night, when in fact he did not.
Add these to the previously mentioned
inconsistencies, and one wonders how any of this was believed. Despite all
of this, Ferguson stood trial in October 2005 at the Boone County Courthouse
in Columbia, Mo., presided over by Judge Ellen Roper. In his opening
statement, Prosecutor Kevin Crane told the jury there was no physical
evidence to connect Ferguson to the crime. The prosecution only had the
concocted testimony of Erickson and Ornt's supervisor, Jerry Trump, to pin
the crime on Ferguson.
During the course of the five-day trial,
Erickson testified against Ferguson, and this time, during questioning by
the prosecution, he was confident, concise and much clearer in the details
than before. He admitted on cross-examination having rehearsed his testimony
over the course of several weeks and role-played the assault with the
prosecutor and investigators from the prosecutor's office. If he knew the
details as clearly as he claimed, why would he need to rehearse?
On cross-examination by the defense, Erickson
also admitted that he had been guessing in the videotaped interrogations on
the day of his arrest, and that he was confused and didn't know many details
of the crime at that time, and was making presumptions based on the
newspaper articles. He further admitted that during the course of the
interrogation on March 10, 2004, he was trying to tell detectives that he
didn't know if he committed the crime. He also testified that he had found
many errors in the police reports.
During cross-examination, he was unable to
clearly explain his lack of memory of the crime at the time of his arrest
and was often vague and had difficulty in explaining his answers to the
defense's questioning, prompting the defense to ask questions more than
once. He testified that he was currently on psychotropic medication, which
affects the central nervous system and alters brain function, which results
in changes to a person's mood, cognition, perception and behavior, and that
his jail psychiatric records over a year-and-a-half, brought into evidence
during the trial by the defense, showed no problems with his memory and that
his memory was intact.
He further admitted to having undergone
testing by psychologists at the University of Missouri weeks after the
murder, including memory testing, but made no mention of the crime. He
admitted to having graduated from a substance abuse treatment program in
November 2001, despite his continuing use of marijuana during the course of
the program, and his use of a detoxifying substance to clear the body of the
traces of marijuana to pass drug testing. He also testified that he had been
under the influence of alcohol and cocaine when he first told friends of his
dreams about the murder.
Kent Heitholt's wife, Deborah Evangelista,
was called by the prosecution, and testified that Heitholt often worked late
into the night at the Tribune, and that the day he was murdered was
his fifth year anniversary of his employment at the Tribune. During
Evangelista's testimony, the prosecution tendered photographs of Heitholt,
including a photograph taken on Oct. 31, 2001 some hours before his death.
Evangelista identified Heitholt's watch and belt, items he was wearing in
the photograph taken on the day of his murder, which were taken from the
crime scene.
The prosecution then called William Hawes, an
investigator with the Boone County prosecutor's office. Hawes testified that
on Aug. 2, 2005, he was instructed by the prosecutor to walk the route
Erickson described that he and Ferguson took on the night of the murder from
By George nightclub to the Tribune building and back to the club
after the murder. Hawes testified that this took him 17 minutes and 1
second.
On cross-examination, the defense pointed out
that while Hawes walked this route from the Tribune building back to
the By George nightclub, he failed to allow for the time Erickson claimed he
took washing the blood off his hands in a creek, going back to Ferguson's
car to dispose of the tire tool, and having the conversation with Dallas
Mallory. Nevertheless, it was agreed by Hawes that the earliest possible
time Erickson and Ferguson could have returned to the club would have been
2:26 a.m., almost an hour after the normal closing time.
The prosecution called Shawna Ornt's
supervisor, Jerry Trump, a registered sex offender, who earlier had told
police he could not provide a detailed description of the man he saw in the
Tribune parking lot. Trump now identified Ferguson as that man. They
also called Ornt, the person who provided the composite drawings, who did
not identify Ferguson as the person she saw.
Kent Heitholt's colleague, Robert Thompson, a
sports writer for the Tribune, testified for the prosecution that he
worked with Heitholt on the night of the murder. He testified that Heitholt
left the office at his usual time after 2 a.m. with colleague Michael Boyd,
and that 15 to 20 minutes later, Ornt went to the sports department in the
Tribune building and asked, "Where's Kent?" Thompson testified that
Trump then arrived at the sports department and stated there were two people
by Heitholt's car and that he thought Heitholt had been hurt. Thompson
testified that he ran out to Heitholt's car and saw him laying half
underneath his car and slumped on the left side of his stomach, face down.
He noticed there was blood "everywhere", so he shook Heitholt in an attempt
to wake him up.
Thompson testified that he then noticed that
Ornt and Trump had returned to the rear dock of the Tribune building,
so he called out to them that Heitholt was hurt badly and they should call
911. His co-worker, Russ Baer, then came out to Heitholt's car, and together
they checked for a pulse, but did not find one, so they rolled him over.
Thompson further testified that police and
paramedics soon arrived at the scene, and the paramedics cut Heitholt's
shirt open and tried to revive him, using cardio-pulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) and a defibrillator machine, but to no avail. He further testified
that police then sealed off the crime scene and the entire Tribune
parking lot and began its investigation.
The prosecution then called Det. Jeff Nichols
of the Columbia Police Department Major Crimes Division. He testified that
he arrived at the crime scene at around 3 a.m. on the morning of the murder.
He said he observed two pools of blood, one on the pavement near the rear
wheel of Heitholt's vehicle, and another right next to the victim's head,
and that he saw a belt buckle and a portion of a belt about a foot from the
victim's head.
Det. Nichols identified the pants, t-shirt
and sweater worn by Heitholt at the time of his death, and testified that
they were all covered in blood. He said that there were blood spatters on
the inside of the driver's door window and on the floor of Heitholt's
vehicle. He further stated that there was blood on the wheel of the vehicle,
which was transferred from Heitholt's bloody head hitting the wheel.
Nichols testified that on Nov. 3, 2001, he
performed luminol tests on the sidewalks leading from the Tribune
building south on Fourth, across Walnut and ending at Broadway. He testified
that there were two different types of bloody shoe prints found, and he
believed the shoe prints showed that two people were initially walking away
from the scene, and then they started running. He testified that this
luminol testing was done to check that the K-9 tracking dog was going in the
right direction on the night of the murder.
Nichols also testified that he processed
Heitholt's vehicle and obtained fingerprints from the interior and exterior
of the vehicle, and was unable to obtain the source of these fingerprints,
and they were therefore unknown. He further testified that he found the
victim's wallet inside a console in the vehicle.
Nichols said that he attended Heitholt's
autopsy, performed by Dr. Edward Adelstein at the Medical Examiner's Office,
and that he had placed bags on the victim's hands at the crime scene to
preserve evidence. He said he collected a hair sample from the victim's
hands during the autopsy.
On cross-examination, Nichols was questioned
about the luminol tests performed on Nov. 3, 2001, admitting he stopped the
testing near Walnut and Fourth, to proceed to McDavid Hall and Flat Branch
Park to perform luminol tests in those locations. This was the route the K-9
tracking dog and Officer Todd Alber had followed. He testified that no blood
was found at either of these locations, so they headed back to Walnut and
Fourth and proceeded towards Broadway.
The defense asked Nichols if it were possible
to see the victim or his vehicle on the night of the murder from Providence
Road, as Erickson said he had. Nichols confirmed it was not.
The defense then extensively questioned
Nichols about Erickson's interrogations on the day of his arrest. Nichols
admitted that during the videotaped drive around the crime scene, Erickson
didn't appear to know where the crime took place. He said, "He [Erickson]
didn't seem to know specifically where it occurred, and so I did show him. I
did tell him. I pointed out the specific location", and, "He [Erickson] was
having a hard time recalling exactly where this location was. And he was
having a hard time or seemed to be having a hard time figuring out exactly
what his route of travel was from the parking lot."
Nichols further admitted that during the
third videotaped interrogation on the day of the arrest, Erickson, "seemed
like he had a hard time recalling details." The defense asked Nichols if he
was really trying to find the truth from Erickson by not allowing him to say
he was confused and unsure. Nichols evaded that question by giving general
comments about interrogation tactics.
The prosecution then called Dawn Kliethermes,
a criminalist and latent print examiner with the Missouri State Highway
Patrol Crime Laboratory. Kliethermes testified that there was an unknown
fingerprint found on the rear inside passenger window of Heitholt's vehicle,
three unknown fingerprints found on the driver's side of the vehicle, one
unknown fingerprint on the rear-view mirror of the vehicle, and one unknown
fingerprint on papers on the driver's seat of the vehicle.
On cross-examination, the defense pointed out
that this amounted to six unknown fingerprints in this case, and questioned
Kliethermes whether these fingerprints matched Ferguson, Erickson, Heitholt
or Heitholt's daughter, Kali, to which she testified that they did not.
Cary Maloney, the DNA technical leader of the
Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Laboratory, was called by the
prosecution and testified that he performed DNA tests on Heitholt's shoes,
t-shirt, pants and sweater worn at the time of his death, and all of the DNA
on these items belonged to Heitholt. On cross-examination, Maloney admitted
that none of the DNA tested in this case belonged to Erickson or Ferguson.
The prosecution's final witness was Dr.
Edward Adelstein, deputy medical examiner. He testified that there were
abrasions on the right side of Heitholt's cheek, bruising and hemorrhaging
to his eyes, bleeding under the skin, multiple injuries to the tops of both
hands, which were possible self-defense wounds, and abrasions and
hemorrhages to the neck. He also testified that Heitholt was struck 11 times
in the head by a dense object.
Dr. Adelstein further testified that
Heitholt's hyoid bone (a bone in the neck which separates fluid and air) had
been broken, and that it would take a great deal of pressure to break the
hyoid bone. He testified that Heitholt was strangled from behind, and that
the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression of the neck caused by
strangulation.
On cross-examination, Dr. Adelstein testified
that the lacerations to Heitholt's face were likely to have been caused by a
different object to the lacerations on his head, or that it was possible
that it was the same object, but that two different ends of that object were
used. He also testified that the strikes to the head could have been caused
by a variety of instruments, and that it was possible that there were two
different instruments used in the beating. The defense questioned whether
these types of injuries were consistent with street robberies, and Dr.
Adelstein responded that these types of injuries usually occurred during a
serious fight.
The prosecutor failed to provide the defense
with details of exculpatory evidence that two of his investigators had
obtained from two witnesses who were questioned before the trial. This is a
violation of the Brady Rule, a federal law requiring prosecutors to turn
over to the defense any information or evidence favorable to the defendant
uncovered during the crime's investigation. The witnesses were an employee
and a patron of By George. They told investigators that the club had indeed
closed at 1:30 a.m. The judge acknowledged this violation, but the jury was
never informed.
The prosecution did not call their lead
detective, Det. John Short, to give evidence. It is rare in criminal trials
that the prosecution does not call the lead detective to give evidence. They
did not call Dallas Mallory, the only person who could have corroborated
Erickson's story, because he had provided the defense with a sworn affidavit
stating he did not see or talk with Ferguson during the early morning hours
of the murder.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor
deceived the jury about the hair in the victim's hand. In Det. Nichols's
deposition, he stated that a hair was adhered to the bloody fingers of the
victim, and that he had taken a photograph of this hair. This hair is a
crucial piece of exculpatory evidence in this case, and is believed to
belong to the killer, yet a match to this hair was never found. In his
closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury there was no hair found in
the victim's hand. The prosecutor deceiving the jury about this crucial
piece of evidence is a form of prosecutorial misconduct.
Ferguson's defense team, which consisted of
lead attorney Charles Rogers, Kathryn Benson and Jeremy Weis, called Ryan
Ferguson's sister, Kelly Ferguson, who testified that, together with her
friend Christine Lo who knew the bouncer at By George, she had arranged for
Erickson and Ferguson to be allowed to enter the club on the night of the
murder, despite them being underage at the time. She testified that they met
Erickson and Ferguson at the front door of the club and they entered
together, and that they split up once inside, and she only saw her brother
in the club once after that time. She further testified that the lights in
the club came on between 1:15 a.m. and 1:30 a.m., and that the staff began
to push people out the door during that time, as it was closing time.
The defense then called Ronald Singer, a
forensic scientist and crime laboratory director of the Tarrant County,
Tex., Medical Examiner's Office Crime Laboratory. After receiving reports
from the defense, as well as photographs of the crime scene and Heitholt's
vehicle, Singer examined the blood spatter patterns and evidence. He
testified that he was able to provide a general reconstruction of what took
place in the attack, and that the blood spatter patterns were consistent
with a beating.
Singer testified that there was blood on the
inside of the driver's door of Heitholt's vehicle, which indicates that the
attack began with the driver's door open, and with Heitholt standing upright
near the door. Heitholt then moved and was attacked near the driver's
side rear tire of his vehicle.
Singer testified that at one point, Heitholt's head was at a similar level
to the hubcap, and his head came into contact with the hubcap, and that he
was then struck while his head was on the ground. He also testified that the
blood spatter pattern showed cast-off blood, which was blood from a blunt
object being sprayed off the object while the object was in motion,
presumably due to the beating.
The defense called Jenny Smith, a forensic
chemist at the Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Laboratory. She testified
that she tested the hair found in Heitholt's hand, plus samples belonging to
Heitholt from his hair brush, and samples from Erickson and Ferguson. She
concluded that the hair found in Heitholt's hand was not consistent with
either Heitholt, Erickson or Ferguson. Smith further testified that she sent
the samples to the FBI Lab in Quantico, Va., for mitochondrial DNA testing.
The defense then called Karen Lanning, a
physical scientist in the Trace Evidence Unit of the FBI Lab in Quantico.
She testified that she conducted tests of the hair found in Heitholt's hand,
and compared it to hair samples from Heitholt's hair brush, and samples from
Erickson and Ferguson, and concluded that the hair found in Heitholt's hand
did not belong to Heitholt, Erickson or Ferguson.
Catherine Theisen, a forensic DNA examiner in
the Mitochondrial DNA Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, was then
called by the defense. She testified that she conducted mitochondrial DNA
testing of the hair found in Heitholt's hand, and compared it with buccal
swabs (swabs taken from inside the mouth) of DNA from Erickson and Ferguson,
and a blood stain from Heitholt. She testified that she extracted
mitochondrial DNA from each of these samples, and confirmed that the hair
found in Heitholt's hand did not match Heitholt, Erickson or Ferguson.
The defense called Holly Admire, a high
school friend of Ferguson and Erickson. She testified that she spoke to
Ferguson on her cell phone in the early hours of the morning on Nov. 1,
2001. The defense submitted her cell phone records as evidence, which showed
telephone calls between Admire and Ferguson after 1:30 a.m. on the night of
the murder.
The defense then called Melissa Griggs, an
associate of Ferguson and Erickson. She testified that she attended By
George on the night of the murder, and recalled seeing Erickson and Ferguson
at the club. She further testified that the club closed at 1:30 a.m. that
night.
The defense called Kristopher Canada, a
barman at By George. He was located by the defense team on day three of the
trial. The defense discovered that Canada had earlier been contacted by
investigators from the prosecutor's office, where he told them that he had
worked at the club that night, and confirmed that the club closed at 1:30
a.m. Canada testified that he worked as a barman at the club on the night of
the murder, and that the lights of the club came on between 1:10 a.m. and
1:15 a.m. that night, and that at that time the bouncers told everyone to
leave, and the doors were locked and the club closed at 1:30 a.m. that
night.
The defense subpoenaed Columbia Police
Officer Todd Alber, who was the K-9 dog tracker who accompanied the dog
following the trail of the killer/s on the night of the murder. Officer
Alber did not receive the subpoena before he went on vacation, and therefore did not testify. As a substitute for Officer Alber, the defense
requested to call Officers Rugstadt or Hatton, who followed Officer Alber
and the dog that night in order to provide security for them. The court
would not allow these witnesses to be called, due to the lateness of them
being identified. This was prejudicial to the defense, as they were unable
to inform the jury of the route the K-9 tracking dog took, to confirm that
it was the opposite direction of what Erickson claimed during his
interrogation on the day of his arrest.
Ferguson took the stand in his own defense
and testified that he had no involvement in the crime. He was asked by the
defense whether he went to the Tribune building or parking lot and
whether he saw Heitholt anywhere that night, to which he replied, "No." He
was also asked by the defense whether he participated in the murder, to
which he again replied, "No." Using a map, he also pointed out to the court
where he had parked his car near the club that night, and the route he drove
after leaving the club to Erickson's home, before returning home himself.
In his cross-examination, the prosecutor
tried to intimidate and agitate Ferguson, but he remained calm and answered
each question clearly and respectfully. He stated that he never thought he
would be arrested for a crime he didn't commit.
The defense called Professor Elizabeth
Loftus, a memory expert and author of many publications on false memories.
She testified that it was her opinion, after 30 years of studying memories
and based on her vast research and experience, that Erickson's was a false
confession. She was of the opinion that a person cannot forget something as
significant as committing a murder, and not have any recollection of doing
so the next day, the next week or the next two years, and then suddenly
regain a memory of it at a later time.
The defense also submitted Ferguson's cell
phone billing records as evidence, which provided details of the time and
duration of the calls made and received by Ferguson on the night of the
murder, between 1:41 a.m. and 2:10 a.m., and showed that he talked
continuously during that time. These calls included five outgoing calls made
by Ferguson to various friends, lasting a combined duration of 10 minutes;
and three incoming calls received by Ferguson lasting a combined duration of
15 minutes. Ferguson testified that these calls were made and received after
he returned home, while he sat on the curb outside his home.
Due to the lapse of time involved, the cell
phone company's records no longer provided details regarding which
cell-phone towers transmitted the calls Ferguson made. Thus the defense
could not establish that the calls were made from Ferguson's home as he
alleged. These calls, if the defense could have established that Ferguson
had made them from his home, would have excluded Ferguson as the murderer.
The defense further highlighted the lack of
physical evidence in this case, and the fact that it was never determined
who the DNA, fingerprints, footprints and hair in the victim's hand belonged
to.
Ferguson's defense team made fundamental
errors in its handling of the case and the running of the trial. The defense
failed to interview Dallas Mallory and Michael Boyd, and did not call these
critical witnesses to give evidence during the trial. Neither did they call
rebuttal witnesses to show that Erickson was untrustworthy, a drug and
alcohol abuser, and prone to exaggeration.
They similarly failed to call character
witnesses to attest to Ferguson's upbringing, good nature, and lack of prior
criminal or violent behavior. Potential character witnesses could have
testified as to Ferguson graduating high school early, and obtaining the
rank of Eagle Scout, the highest ranking in the Boy Scouts of America.
Without these witnesses, the jury was given no insight into Ferguson's
character and personality, to demonstrate that he was not the cold-blooded
killer the prosecution made him out to be.
The defense failed to locate further
witnesses to confirm that By George had closed at 1:30 a.m. that night. It
also failed to obtain official records showing that the club had never
received any citations for being open after 1:30 a.m. The closing time of
the club is one of the major inconsistencies in Erickson's story. Therefore,
the defense's failure to locate witnesses to attest to the club's closing
time and thereby refute Erickson's story was severely prejudicial to their
client's case.
The defense failed to enlist an expert
witness to examine the victim's injuries, and attempt to discredit
Erickson's story. This denied the defense the potential to further question
Erickson's story, challenge his credibility, and highlight the countless
inconsistencies in his testimony and apparent recollection of the murder.
The defense failed to produce an adequate map
of the crime scene and surrounding area, and failed to label correctly and
use the map it did have. The defense's lack of preparation with regards to
the map caused confusion when witnesses were unable to accurately identify
various areas on the map and show their whereabouts and the routes taken on
the night of the murder.
In its closing argument, the defense focused
on there being no physical evidence linking Erickson or Ferguson to the
crime, that Trump's testimony was unreliable, and that Erickson's story was
inconsistent, continually changing, and unreliable, and that there was
no-one able to confirm Erickson's story. They also highlighted the major
points of the testimony of the defense witnesses, and Ferguson's cell phone
calls on the night of the murder.
However, the defense failed to list a number
of the obvious inconsistencies in Erickson's story to highlight to the jury,
including the fact that there was no vomit found at the crime scene, that
Dallas Mallory vehemently denies that he saw Erickson and Ferguson that
morning, that Erickson did not know how Ferguson supposedly strangled the
victim, how many times he hit the victim, the direction they left from the
crime scene, and that they supposedly drove past the crime scene and saw the
victim's body being placed in a body bag, which actually happened over an
hour after Erickson claimed.
Given that Erickson's story was the majority
of the prosecution's case against Ferguson, and that his story is
inconsistent and unreliable, thereby making the majority of the
prosecution's case unreliable, tearing apart Erickson's testimony should
have been the primary focus of the closing argument. Destroy Erickson's
credibility, destroy the case against Ferguson. The defense should have also
demonstrated that Trump's original statements to the police proved he could
not identify Heitholt's assailants. If the defense could have discredited
Erickson and Trump, the government's case against Ferguson would have
dissolved.
The defense made blatantly unprofessional
errors during the trial by repeatedly becoming confused and mixed-up with
Erickson and Ferguson's names, which was not only embarrassing, but
potentially confusing to the jury.
What must have made this case so difficult
for the jury was the fact that Erickson had already admitted to being
involved in Heitholt's murder. The jury knew that Erickson would be spending
the next 12 to 25 years of his life in prison as a result. This is powerful
information for any juror to digest. Who could imagine that Erickson was not
involved in the murder if he had already admitted to it? This type of
knowledge apparently allowed the jury not to be bothered by the lack of
evidence or the countless inconsistencies in this case. They were not
bothered by the fact that this case was investigated by detectives who were
disinterested in the truth, or that the case relied on the word of Erickson,
an unreliable witness given the major inconsistencies and changes in his
story over the one-and-a-half year period between the arrests and the trial,
and the word of a registered sex offender who previously could not provide a
detailed description, yet four years later identified Ferguson as the person
he saw. After only five hours of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty
verdict.
Five members of the jury were later
interviewed by "48 Hours Mystery" and several stated they had already made
up their minds about Ferguson's guilt before the defense began its case.
This is tantamount to jury misconduct.
In December 2005, Ryan Ferguson was sentenced
to 40 years in prison 30 for the murder and 10 for the robbery. He will be
eligible for parole in 2040.
The murder of Kent Heitholt was hideous and
brutal. It took the life of an innocent man. The conviction of Ryan Ferguson
makes him the crime's second innocent victim. In the prosecution and
police's zeal to close Columbia's only unsolved murder, Ryan Ferguson was
the scapegoat for a crime he had nothing to do with, where not one shred of
evidence implicated him. All the prosecution had was the fabricated
testimony of a delusional, confused teenager and the specious, concocted
testimony of a sexual offender.
Ryan Ferguson's court-appointed appeal
attorney, Ellen Flottman, appealed his conviction in late 2006 to the
Missouri Western District Court of Appeals. That court denied his appeal on
June 26, 2007, upholding his conviction.
Flottman will next file a motion for
rehearing with the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals. If that is
unsuccessful, she will file an appeal with the Missouri Supreme Court. The
next stage of the appeal process will focus on the ineffective counsel from
Ferguson's trial attorneys.
For more information on this case, Ryan
Ferguson may be contacted by writing to him at:
Ryan Ferguson #1137593
Jefferson City Correctional Center
8200 No More Victims Road 3C 203
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Ryan's outside contacts are his parents, Bill
and Leslie Ferguson. They can be contacted at
Freeryanferguson@aol.com or
send a comment through
FreeRyanFerguson.com.
