Free Kate Hunt and Decriminalize All Teen Relationships

Whether we like it or not teens will have sexual contact in high school.  The most important thing, aside from condoms, is that teens be taught that sex is a beautiful meaningful experience, and it can really hurt to become sexual with someone you don't care about and who doesn't care about you. Teens might be more receptive to "waiting" because they want a great experience rather than trying to scare them to death about HIV and pregnancy and ruining their lives. 

However teens have more to worry about than HIV, pregnancy or getting hurt.  They have to worry about being labeled sex offenders and going to prison for years.  If your 17-year-old son or daughter has a 14- or 15- year old girlfriend (or boyfriend) and he's about to turn 18, he could go to prison AND have to register as a sex offender depending upon what state you live in.  In California where I live, in Florida, and really many states, it is considered "rape" for an 18-year-old to have sex with a 14- or 15-year old and even though the younger person has "consented" many states do not recognize 14- and 15-year-olds and being able to consent.  So the 18-year-old is charged as though he or she has committed a serious felony. 

I believed that cases like this were just given a slap on the wrist, maybe probation, recognizing that a high school senior who is 18 might be dating a high school sophomore who is 15. I understand of course that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sexual contact with, say, a 35-year-old of either gender. But if the difference in age is even a DAY over three years, the case against and 18-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend would be prosecuted the same way as if the 18-year-old were 40 years old.  

I recently read about Kate Hunt on Twitter.  Kate is an 18-year-old high school senior who is a cheerleader, gets excellent grades and is clearly college-bound. When Kate was 17 she got to know a fellow student in her class, a girl who happened to be 14. The 14-year-old girl was in a college credit class and was in school with many other seniors.  The two girls became friends and in this case, the relationship turned romantic. The relationship continued for six months and during that time Kate turned 18. The younger girl's parents got wind of the nature of the relationship and without contacting Kate's parents or their own daughter or talking to the girls at all, they called the police and reported this as a crime. Kate willingly spoke to the police without an attorney. As a result of her conversation without an attorney, Kate is being charged with statutory rape and several other felonies.  

I thought they'd offer someone like Kate probation or maybe therapy but I was WAY off. They did offer college-bound Kate a deal, though. The deal is that she plead guilty to a felony, undergo two years of house arrest AND that she register as a sex offender! I will never understand the point of having Kate register as a sex offender. This registry is necessary and important but when it's flooded with people who had what most of us consider consensual sexual relationships with someone 3 1/2 years their junior, how can we identify the real predators? There is the possibility of challenging the sex offender status using the Romeo and Juliet Exception, however this remedy is only available AFTER someone has been convicted.  

Because pleading to a felony would greatly limit her opportunities in life and might even mean she couldn't attend some of the colleges she had been accepted to, and because registering as a sex offender was unacceptable, Kate and her family have decided to fight these charges. They are taking a great risk, though, since Kate faces up to FIFTEEN YEARS IN PRISON if she loses. As far as I know, the trial is set to take place this summer, in July of 2013. 

Some states, by the way, including PA, HI, OH, CT, CO and a number of others* have provisions in place to prevent someone like Kate from being prosecuted. Most states do not. And because states can lose federal funding for not registering as a sex offender anyone who technically would be considered one, most don't have a choice but to force teens age 18 and 19 who have been in a relationship with another high school student to be on this list.  

Below is my letter to the State's Attorney and Prosecutor in the 19th Judicial District of Florida about this case.  The family has asked that anyone writing to these two men be sure to do so respectfully and that no attack letters or hate mail of any kind be sent.  



June 2, 2013

Bruce Colton, State Attorney
Brian Workman, Prosecutor
19th Judicial Circuit of Florida
Saint Lucie, Florida

Dear Mr. Colton and Mr. Workman,

My name is Claudia Miles and I am a licensed as a Marriage and Family Therapist in California. I am writing to you in regard to the Kate Hunt case because I feel so strongly about this situation (and similar cases). In situations where teen romance is involved, and an age difference of no more than 4 years exists, it is bad for families and society to prosecute these kids as if they are sex offenders or deviants.

Please consider letting Kate Hunt plead to a misdemeanor and be on probation, perhaps go to therapy and/or group or classes. Society will not be helped but harmed by having Kate Hunt go to prison or register as a sex offender.

I myself have enormous concern about sexual predators, particularly those who molest children, and in my view these people cannot be "reformed" and we must be protected from these monsters. Having studied criminal behavior and abnormal psych extensively, I know this far better than some of my overly idealistic colleagues. Further, I have worked with the victims of these predators and in many ways these children have their life stolen even though they are not dead. I do not take this subject lightly. In fact, I myself have made reports to the police.

Because it is so crucial that these sex offenders be identified, making teens in relationship with other teens, register as sex offenders seems just plain wrong. I believe some girls of 14 IS capable of having a consensual physical relationship with a peer, even if that peer is up to four years older.

Generally it is boys who are affected by these laws since 14 year old girls have little interest in immature 14-year-old boys. I myself (long ago) was a 14 year old who had a 17 year old boyfriend. We were together for 4 years (with my parents knowledge). These young men
(& in this case, a young woman) should not be prosecuted solely based on age.  If the younger girl is found to be mentally incapable of consenting that is something else.

I understand the law is black and white but people are not. I don't think either of you believe Kate Hunt is a predator who we need to protect society from. I know the law on this is clear in Florida however it is so profoundly different from state to state that it becomes meaningfulness, especially when sex offender registration is tied to federal funds. In many states Kate would have committed no crime because either the age of consent is 14 or it is 16 or 18 but exceptions are made in the case of two teens or young people who are no more than four years apart. In Florida a 16 year old girl is allowed to consent if a man is 21. Quite confusing.

Now I believe the law should be changed but short of that, why throw those involved in a teen romance into the same category as a Mary Kay LeTourneau or a repeat child molester?  Kate Hunt is not a criminal. Nor are others in this situation.

Why not give Kate two years of probation for a lesser plea of criminal misdemeanor and send her to a class or to therapy. And please please don't have her register as a sex offender. It only makes the real offenders harder to find. The more "Kates" on the list, the harder it is to spot the real sexual predators who will reoffend and will harm women and children.

Ask Kate Hunt to submit to an assessment by a court psychiatrist, and write a report on whether Kate is a pedophile or risk to society. Make a deal that requires court ordered psychotherapy and ongoing assessment for Kate. She did not do anything that at least 50% of her peers have not done.

Thank you for reading my letter. I deeply hope you will consider either dropping the charges or letting her plead to a misdemeanor.

Thank you too for your hard work and dedication.

Respectfully yours,

Claudia Miles

Former NYPD Cop Richie Guglielmo Was Wrongly Convicted of Murder

Please watch or record The Richard DiGuglielmo Story on CNN Sunday night Jan. 22, 2012 at 8pm and 11pm

I got to know Jerry Palace when I asked his advice on what I could do to assist a woman I believed was wrongly convicted. Jerry is a retired NYPD homicide detective and present day P.I. who was the lead investigator on Court TV's The Wrong Man, so I figured he'd know. On the series Jerry and his partner Reggie looked into cases which were suspected to be wrongful convictions and re-investigate those cases. 

Jerry is responsible for helping to get several wrongful convictions overturned over the years but the case he became most invested in is that of former NYPD cop Richie Guglielmo who, when he was off duty, killed a man in self defense after the man became enraged that Richie took his parking place & began whacking Richie's father with a baseball bat. At this point Richie feared for his father's life and shot in self-defense.

The case took on a political tone when headlines read White Off-Duty Cop Kills African American Man. To make matters worse, several witnesses reported that Richie used the "N word" during the altercation. (These witnesses later admitted under oath on videotape that they lied during the original trial. However the damage had been done.)

 Although the facts prove a case of self-defense, astonishingly, Richie was convicted not of manslaughter but second degree murder in 1997. In NYC people were angry about perceived racism and saw this as an unjustified "cop killing" without knowing the facts and the D.A. was pressured to put Richie behind bars.

DiGuglielmo spent 11 years in Sing Sing (mostly in isolation given his former NYPD status) . Richie's parents spent all their savings trying to help him and eventually Richie found an experienced appellate law firm who believed in the case & took it on pro bono. Jerry Palace was hired by the DiGuglielmo family as an investigator for two years and after funds ran out, Palace took on the case gratis and has been working for free for the past 11 years. 

In 2008, a judge overturned the conviction based on the recantation by several witnesses who admitted they lied in the original trial and Richie was released. He immediately got a job and planned to go to law school. In 2010 a higher court overturned the lower court's ruling and sent Richie back to Sing Sing to serve out his sentence.

An Open Letter From Ret. NYPD Detective Jerry Palace 

THIS SUNDAY WHILE WE ARE ALL HOME WATCHING OUR FAVORITE TEAMS BATTLING IT OUT, RICHIE DIGUGLIELMO WILL BE SPENDING ANOTHER DAY IN PRISON FOR A MURDER HE DID NOT COMMIT.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE, RICHIE GUGLIELMO WAS AN OFF-DUTY NYC COP AT THE TIME. HE SHOT AND KILLED CHARLES CAMPBELL AN INDIVIDUAL WIELDING A BASEBALL BAT AND STRIKING RICHIE'S FATHER TWO TIMES.

RICHIE GUGLIELMO WAS SET FREE AFTER SERVING 11 YEARS IN SING SING AND SPENT NEARLY 2 YEARS AS A FREE MAN BEFORE BEING SENT BACK TO PRISON. TRULY A POLITICAL PRISONER. 

PLEASE WATCH THIS IMPORTANT CNN PRODUCTION.

PASS THIS ALONG TO EVERYONE WHOS' EVER BEEN A COP, KNOWS A COP, IS RELATED TO A COP, AND A FRIEND OF A COP AND TO ANYONE WHO FEELS PASSIONATELY ABOUT WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS.

JERRY PALACE

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/justice/diguglielmo-new-york-deli-killing/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

A Kiss is Just a Kiss: How Amanda Knox Was Transformed By the Media into a Monster

    
Admit it. Most of us have a taste for the salacious. We may be horrified but if we weren't curious about murder and rape, there wouldn't be a seemingly endless number of books, films, TV shows, websites and discussions on social media on the subject. Our appetites are so insatiable there is more than one cable channel dedicated to real life crime mostly of the murderous kind.

There are many types of murder but motive is sometimes broken down into three categories: money, revenge and sex. Revenge can include murders meant to make political statements -- like those perpetrated by Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber, but primarily are focused on personal revenge.

Sexual murders do not necessarily include sex and it is the murder itself which is sexually satisfying whereas other sex murders are primarily focused on rape and the murder is a necessary step so the perpetrator may avoid detecting.  getting caught. These crimes are most often stranger murders where the perpetrator has no connection to the victim. They are beyond our ability to rationally understand and certainly to relate with or make sense of and thus there is a field of study dedicated to understanding these horrific crimes and the minds of those who commit them.  & yet which we must learn to understand so they can be solved.  The most common type of sex murder is committed by the  serial rapist whose primary motivation is sexual in nature and the murder itself is committed to avoid detection. In either case, sex crimes have an understandably powerful impact on society and on individuals and cause all manner of passionate responses.

Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox's roommate, was the victim of a sex crime.  She was raped and violently sexually attacked and she was murdered and left to die (or dead). She lived in an obscure area in a small town which suggests she may have been stalked and observed her for a while before the attack occurred. The brutality of the crime was excessive. She had multiple knife wounds, many more bruises and male DNA belonging to Rudy Guede was found inside her.  48 Hours (Amanda Knox: Update) reported that it took Meredith Kercher two hours to die. I have since been told that she likely died much more quickly so I'll have to research that further.  

According to data gathered by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, a crime like this is nearly always committed by one person. That person is nearly always male (97% of the time) and that person nearly always has prior offenses, usually for peeping, stalking, molesting and rape (to name a few). A brutal murder, the kind of murder Meredith Kercher fell victim to, is not someone's "first" crime. Criminals of this type, sex criminals, work their way up to rape and murder. They nearly always get caught at something, nearly all have rap sheets.

Detectives experienced with murders like this don't need to call Quantico to know they are looking for a lone male. The idea that a 20-year-old female college student with no record, no mental illness, no history of violence or abuse (as victim or perpetrator) could get carried away by lust and suddenly partake in a violent murder, killing with her bare hands, is pretty much unheard of.  Except maybe in the movies.
  
Prosecutor Guliano Mignini must watch a lot of movies. But there is also evidence is that Mignini himself possesses a rather twisted mind. How titillating, the idea of an orgy which included two beautiful girls. Watching beautiful coltish Amanda Knox kiss her young boyfriend sparked Mr. Mignini's imagination. His fantasies ran wild.

I believe what he saw in a Amanda Knox was a beautiful girl whom he wanted but knew he could never have. I believe he hated her for that "rejection", hated that his chance to stand where Raffaele stood was long past. I believe the coldness Mignini saw was simply the fact that Amanda Knox was unavailable to him. Knox's sweetness, her warmth, her youthful  sexuality--these were turned off in his presence instinctively. And besides, who is "warm" after finding out her roommate was dead and she narrowly missed being murdered herself.

The crime scene did not suggest anything like an orgy had occurred. Rather, there was evidence of a single perpetrator. Only Rudy Guede's DNA was found at the scene.  It was by all accounts the work of a  lone criminal, of one man (a conclusion made by famed FBI profiler John Douglas, author of "Mind Hunter" in his interview with award-winning journalist Krista Errickson, WomanOnAWire.blogspot.com).    So how did Amanda Knox get blamed. How did she get demonized? What made police decide, that girl is a monster?

She kissed her boyfriend in front of her apartment.

Let me repeat that. Looking as if she were in shock, Knox KISSED her boyfriend in front of the apartment in view of everyone. Oh sure, there was other "evidence" too: She  was called "foxy knoxy" at school (meaning she must have been some kind of slut); oh, and she did a cartwheel while she was at the police station.  No doubt after sitting for hours and hours in an interrogation room she was trying to shake off the stress. And being 20 and naive, she was unaware of the fact that doing cartwheels while in a police station is, as we know, "clear evidence" of guilt.

The most damning "evidence" of Knox's guilt was that she told the police her boss was involved in the crime.. That does seem suspicious. Of course what one doesn't hear is that this piece of info was the result of hours and hours of interrogation in which Amanda was in custody without a lawyer. She was cajoled, threatened, yelled at, called all manner of names. They demanded she confess or to tell them who did it. One or the other. Confess.  Tell us who was with you.  Were you meeting him? Was he there? Tell us the truth. For hours and hours. The last text she'd gotten before the crime was from her boss and her reply to that was "see ya." That must mean they were going to meet up later for the orgy that turned into a murder. Tell us he did it or you will sit her for another 40 hours.  Over and over.  So finally she did. Now why would Amanda Knox tell police her boss was involved in the crime when she knew for a fact he wasn't there? It might be enough to convince you of her guilt if you weren't familiar with the "coerced confession."

I used to think that I would never falsely confess and certainly wouldn't ever point the finger at someone else if I were wrongfully accused, but now I know differently. I've seen hours of videotapes of grueling interrogations in which suspects can't speak to anyone, are plied with soft drinks, not allowed bathroom breaks, left alone for hours, lied to, told they are LYING over and over and told things like, "just admit you were THERE and we will let you have a break", I understand the phenomenon better. If you refuse even that, the next tactic is to demand, intimidate, wheedle and cajole you into telling them who was there.  So after many hours with interrogators tag-teaming Knox in a now-custodial situation, demanding she admit she was there, a  new cop comes in and says, just tell us who was there then.  It was your boss, wasn't it? We KNOW he was there but if you corroborate this we can move forward. Just tell us what we already know and you can leave. It's a kind of brainwashing. The weariness, the need to get out of the room, the belief they DO know something and the slow loss of any grip on reality, I see this might easily lead to a suspect giving false information. It's not quite "beating a confession out of someone like the old days" but it may be worse.  And given that 25% of DNA exonerations involve false (coerced) "confessions", clearly it's not uncommon.

But WHY  was it so easy to see Amanda Knox as a cold-blooded killer?

Why were 54 forensic errors made in the investigation?

Why didn't experienced detectives see the case more clearly?

 How did Mignini sell this baseless story to the press and how did they sell it to us?

I can see Amanda Knox more clearly now. I too thought she might be guilty. As a result I feel
a duty to understand why a bunny  looked just like a zebra to me and why I never once asked why a zebra didn't have stripes or hooves or a mane.      

Think about this: Often when someone is arrested for heinous crimes (The Green River Killer
for example) neighbors &
acquaintances comment, "He seemed like such a nice guy" or "I never would have believed "Joe" was capable of that." It's so common to hear this it's cliche.

The reason you don't suspect your neighbor or co-worker of murder is you see them through a particular lens. You assume they are like you, good people at heart. You don't really know them but ascribe to them the same moral compass you possess.  It's really just projection. Smoke and mirrors. We see them as we believe they MUST be.

No surprise that this  can easily happen in reverse. Once you see someone led into court by guards, her image flashed on the screen next to the words "murder suspect," you start to see evil in a person's face.  Given that we all have the capacity for evil, it's not really so odd. Once someone is arrested it's just hard to seem innocent. If you speak out loudly, and protest your innocence, you are "filled with anger." You protest too much. Or you are just another guilty liar.

If you don't deny your guilt emphatically cops say, if someone accused me I'd be mad. I'd tell the world I didn't do it.

If you hire a lawyer too quickly, it looks "suspicious." If you sit quietly in court while your name is sullied you are emotionless or must be guilty. If you cry, you are crying because you got caught and you are selfish. If you do not cry you are cold. Once you are accused,
every word, every gesture takes on an air of guilt. For example...

A KISS IS JUST A KISS.

 What might have been an innocent comforting kiss by Amanda Knox's boyfriend, is interpreted by Prosecutor Guiliano Mignini as meaning Amanda is cold and callous. I believe he titillated as well, which led to fodder for his "orgy theory".

I admit, I too, started seeing the "kiss" or series of kisses as sinister. Especially as it was played over and over again. I also saw Amanda Knox casting blame on her boss as an indicator of guilt. Again- I did not have the facts.  I believe I even held the silly nickname against her, hearing it reported over and over like it mattered at all.

One thing that was really held back was the absolute guilt of Rudy Guede, the fact that he ran, the fact that there was absolutely NO connection whatsoever that was ever found between Knox, Raffaele  and Guede. Not a call, text, email, sighting, or anything else.

It was not public knowledge that Guede originally denied that Amanda and Raffaele were there and said he was the sole killer. And that once he realized that because they were on trial, saying the two helped with the crime would reduce his sentence from 30 years to 16. Clearly he had a motive.

I never felt convinced Amanda Knox was guilty but I take responsibility for accepting a media lynching at face value and not looking at it more closely.

I am now 100% convinced Amanda Knox is innocent.  The forensics, Mignini's agenda, the psychology behind the crime and the DNA certainly make her innocence clear In the end it was listening to Amanda Knox speak about her innocence and having a chance to hear both from her and  her family and friends who she is, that removed any doubt I could have had.

If one thing comes of this horrible case,  it may be that more and more people will see how easy it really is to convict someone guilty. And that may well lead to less wrongful convictions. As awful as her experience was, I hope one day Amanda Knox will feel able to share her story with others. She may find meaning in that she never imagined she'd find. And though I don't know Amanda, after hearing her speak so passionately and eloquently on the topic of justice and her own innocence,  I have a hunch that she will.

-Claudia Miles                  
  

http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

Ray Krone: The Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction

Ray Krone spent ten years in an Arizona prison, four of them on death row, for a crime he did not commit.  Shocking?  Not really.  He was the one hundredth person to have served time on death row and later to be exonerated by DNA evidence.  To date, 227 people have been cleared of murder convictions due to DNA evidence thanks to Project Innocence.

What is shocking to me is that the so-called evidence used to convict Ray was so flimsy. Even worse, it was theory and hypothesis dressed up as "science." Due to what is being called the "CSI effect", people are more and more swayed by so-called "scientific evidence" and less by motive, character, logic and even alibi witnesses. The problem is, much of what passes as science is in fact so much sleight of hand. Barry Scheck aptly coined the term "junk forensics" to describe speculative theories that do not meet the standards actual science requires. Examples of junk forensics include bite mark "matches", tire track "matches" and shoe print "matches," all of which can be confirmed only by visual inspection. Unlike DNA & fingerprints which are matched with scientific certainty, visual inspection is subjective, and yet presented as fact. It then becomes a "battle of the experts"--if the defendant can afford to hire his own expert at all (and most can't). Jurors hears this evidence presented by scientists and forensic "experts", and given the impression these matches are based on science.

Paula Zahn ("On the Case with Paula Zahn," 1/23/11, Shadow of a Doubt) reported on the Ray Krone case in January of this year.  You have to think that, were it not for shows like
this and reporters like Ms. Zahn, many less wrongfully convicted folks would be exonerated. Project Innocence estimates that at least 5% of people convicted for violent crimes in the
U.S. are innocent, which is tens of thousands of people  

In Ray Krone's case, the story begins in 1991. Krone, an Air Force veteran and postal worker with no criminal record, was a regular at the CBS Lounge in Phoenix, Arizona where he liked to play darts. In December of '91, Kim Anacona, a bartender at the CBS Lounge and the mother of three, was brutally murdered. She was sexually assaulted and tortured and left on the floor of the men's room with a visible bite mark on her breast.  It was a horrific murder, and the kind a community wants solved, and pronto!  Detectives on the case looked at the bite mark on the victim's breast and thought it appeared "snaggle-toothed" and felt it would have come from someone with extremely crooked teeth.  During the investigation, bar patrons remembered that bar regular Ray Krone had extremely crooked front teeth due to a car accident.  Asked about any relationship between Krone and Anacona, several said they saw Krone give Kim Anacona a ride to a holiday party that many bar patrons attended. Some saw Ray Krone give Kim Anacona a kiss under the seasonally placed mistletoe. Investigators became eager to speak with Ray who was asked to come in to speak with them about a murder and who willingly cooperated.

When first questioned about Kim Anacona, Ray asked, "Who?" That was because he only knew the CBS bartender as Kim, and had never known her last name.  Becoming suspicious, they asked again, "You don't know Kim Anacona from the CBS Lounge?" Once they mentioned the CBS lounge, Ray replied that he did in fact know the bartender there, a woman named Kim but hadn't known her last name.  This made detectives even more suspicious. "You don't know your girlfriend's last name?" they demanded. Ray did not.  And that, of course, is because Ray and Kim were not boyfriend and girlfriend which Ray explained. Their entire relationship outside the bar consisted of his giving Kim a ride to the party that night, and one kiss under the mistletoe.

Because the bite mark seemed like such an important clue, the DA asked a forensic dentist employed by the state to examine the bite marks. That dentist on a superficial exam said, yes, those bites are identical. This was the day after Anacona was murdered.  All investigation stopped then.  This, despite the fact that the lab had identified hairs left at the scene as Native American, and despite the fact that police received an anonymous note saying, "An Indian did it- I saw him behind the CBS bar. He was 6 foot and 200 lbs."  The state forensic dentist changed his opinion about the bite mark match after he made a mold of Ray's teeth and examined the bite marks, further.  The prosecution discharged their own expert from the case, and found another dentist who was willing to say it was a match.  The information about the original dentist changing his mind was withheld from the defense. 

There was blood at the scene that did not belong to the victim, but DNA was not yet sophisticated enough to match this blood to anyone, let alone Ray.  Shoeprints were found at the scene, too.  The shoes were never found and the prints were a full size smaller than what Ray wore, yet the jury was told the shoe prints were "close" to Ray's size. At the trial, the jury Ray's attorney did not call another expert to challenge the bite mark. This was probably Ray's attorney was unaware of the "junk"-like quality of this type of forensics. Barry Scheck's "Junk Forensics" had not yet been written. If only his lawyer had known that he could have found numerous forensic dentists who would contest the original analysis. In fact, when retrying the case, three independent forensic dentists stated they were 100% positive the bite marks were NOT Ray's. One of them was a longtime expert for the state. So if Ray's attorney didn't know how precarious this type of evidence was, certainly one could not expect the jury to have such information.

In presenting the bite mark, the prosecution used a fancy projection technique to show an overlay of Ray's teeth on a picture of the bite mark, and voila, it looked like a match.  This type of showmanship is typical when "junk forensics" is used. This "evidence" (an expert saying the bite matched Ray), combined with the fact that several people testified that they had seen the two together and it looked very much like they were romantically involved, which Ray denied. Other evidence included that "close" shoe print match.  (The shoe prints were actually smaller than his foot and he couldn't have gotten a shoe that size on his feet.) Also, experts said that a couple hairs were "similar" to Ray's (although in fact, they were dark straight hairs which most felt came from someone of Native American descent).  All of this so-called "evidence" was enough to convict Ray. A faulty bite mark "match", a visual inspection of hair that wasn't tested for DNA and a "close" footprint size.  Ray's lawyer did not challenge any of this "forensic evidence." Ray became known as the "snaggle-toothed killer and was sent to death row.

Ray had almost no family and no money.  He was pretty much on his own.  However, luckily for Ray, he had a curious cousin whom he had never met.  Jim Rix learned from his mother that the man on death row, the snaggle-toothed killer, was actually related to him. It never occurred to him that Ray was innocent, but he became highly curious about how a member of his own family could have committed such a brutal crime.  He decided to write to Ray and see what he had to say.  Ray wrote back to Jim and told him he was innocent, explained his side of the story.  After several letters were exchanged, Jim became curious enough that he wanted to meet Ray Krone.  After a meeting with Ray, Jim Rix became very curious about the bite mark.  He hired a forensic dentist himself and gave that dentist the molds and the pictures on which the match had been based.  Lo and behold, the dentist told him that he was positive Ray was not the person who bit Kim Anacona. 


The more he learned about the case, the more appalled he became, and Jim Rix hired a lawyer himself to represent his cousin at appeal.  He worked with the attorney, and they uncovered so much exculpatory evidence they were beside themselves.  Ray won an appeal for a new trial, although he was not allowed bail.  At that trial, three forensic dental experts all testified that they were CERTAIN Ray's bite mark did NOT match the bite mark on Ms. Anacona.  They explained that, while the jaw size might be similar, there were striking inconsistencies.  One definitive inconsistency was that the "biter" had pronounced spaces between his lower teeth.  That was clear.  Ray had NO spaces in his lower teeth.  NONE.  Also, the DNA found at the scene had been identified, and it was determined it did NOT match Ray Krone.  The footprints could NOT be Ray Krone's because they were a size SMALLER than his.  (It might be possible to wear shoes larger than one's own size, but smaller? Clearly not.)  The hair at the scene, which in the first trial was thought to possibly match Ray (from visual examination), was proven through DNA testing NOT to belong to Ray.  So in this second trial it seemed that Ray would be exonerated.  I was SHOCKED, then, when a jury convicted Ray a second time.  So, too, was the judge, who said that this case "would haunt him the rest of his life" and added that he had serious doubts about the identity of the killer.   However, for whatever reason, the judge did not overturn the jury verdict.  And back to prison, though not death row, went Ray.

For many, that would be the end.  But Ray's cousin, Jim Rix (author of Jingle Jangle) and his lawyer could NOT let this go.  They knew Ray was innocent.  And his attorney explained that in order to free Ray, they would, for all intents and purposes, have to catch the killer.  So his attorney petitioned the court to test the DNA again, not just to exclude Ray (which they had), but to put the DNA through the DNA database and see if they could find who's it was.  As Ray says, the court resisted this, saying it was "a wild goose chase, a waste of the court's time and money... "  But what happened was, when put through the database, they got a match. The hair and saliva and other DNA samples matched a man who was a Native American and a convicted sex offender, and who was currently incarcerated.  That man was Kenneth Phillips. Motions were filed to overturn the conviction based on this match, but the court refused because the DNA was not "new evidence."  Ultimately, Ray's attorney had to send an investigator to meet with Kenneth Phillips and somehow extract a confession from him. The confession, however, was considered new evidence, and finally, Ray's attorney got the conviction overturned.

So finally, Ray Krone was set free.  Ten years later.  Ray actually got a settlement from the state, not that it made up for the lost ten years. As the prosecutor said, it's too bad this couldn't have been detected sooner...  Talk about an understatement!  However, I'm impressed he actually admitted that Ray was innocent.  This rarely happens. He did not, however, acknowledge that he withheld the initial investigator's report saying he did not believe Ray Krone's bite to be a match to the bite  on the victim.

When Ray Krone was released, there were cameras and journalists everywhere as he was the 100th person who had served time on death row to have his conviction overturned.  When asked what he was feeling by the press, Ray Krone's first words were about Kim Anacona, the crime victim, and her family.  He wanted her to be remembered.  He also stated that he planned to look ahead, and not back.  That he didn't want to waste any more time.  He spoke with a grace and dignity that is unexpected after going through what he had. And since Ray's release in 2002, he has been a speaker all over the country on the topic of wrongful convictions, and an advocate for those wrongfully convicted. 

Just a reminder folks- Our justice system may be the "best in the world" but still, is seriously flawed and we need to be aware of that.  We have to know that everyone in prison is not necessarily guilty- that jury verdicts are not magical- that juries can be WRONG! 

And maybe next time you are called for jury duty, don't try to get out of it.  If those of us who know the system is flawed do not serve, you can see what happens. Thank you Paula Zahn.  Thank you Ray Krone for the dignity with which you walked through this nightmare, and for the work you do now to educate others.  Thank you Cousin Jim for your dogged determination.  What a nightmare!  Let's free the innocent who are locked up and allocate funds for DNA tests.  Please!  

To read more about this case, read Jim Rix's book about his and Ray's experience: "Jingle Jangle."  

Casey Anthony Verdict: Why the Jury Did the Right Thing

Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent to suffer. That's why it isn't easy to convict someone even if it seems "obvious" they are guilty-or rather, it should not be.  Once convicted, even proof of actual innocence can't always free the innocent. And despite all the checks on our system, there are tens of thousands of innocent people in prison.  The looser the requirements to convict, the more innocent people go to prison (or are executed).  That's why it's GOOD that our system demands a certain level of proof before convicting people of serious crimes.

As to the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury did not find her "innocent."  They found her Not Guilty (by law). And they did so because there was a) no cause of death presented by the medical examiner, meaning, the state medical examiner could NOT rule out accidental death; b) no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that linked Casey to a murder weapon (i.e., evidence she bought ingredients to make chloroform, evidence she made chloroform); c) no connection between Casey and the body (the state perhaps effectively proved the odor of decomp was in the car; they did not prove beyond doubt it was Caylee); and d) in lieu of all the missing pieces, they didn't present evidence that Casey would like to be rid of Caylee or had any motive (as horrific as Casey's behavior, it does not prove she wanted Caylee dead prior to her death).

Many people compare this case with the O.J. case.  Except for the large viewing audience, I see no comparison. O.J. was a popular celebrity, an African-American man on trial in an atmosphere of racial tensions and recent rioting. In the O.J. case, there was PLENTY of evidence.  An embarrassment of riches, as they say.  His DNA (blood) was at the crime scene, a bloody glove with his Nicole's blood (and Ron Goldman's blood) was found at his
house, he had a cut on his hand. He fled from the police with his passport and a large sum of cash in his car. He had a history of beating up Nicole, and she had a history of calling 9-1-1 and reporting it.  He had a clear motive.  She left him and he wanted her back. When she made it clear she wasn't going back that time, he, like many other abusive controlling spouses before him, made sure no one else was going to have her.
It's unheard of to have that much evidence in a murder case. And that was a clear case of jury nullification. The jury members were charmed by O.J. and did not want to send him to prison.  In the Casey Anthony case, people are likely to want to punish someone for the death of a child. I think jurors no doubt WANTED to be able to convict her but couldn't.

 Did she do something, whether murder her daughter or cause her death by neglect or cover up an accident? One of those scenarios seems probable. But I still couldn't say which one I thought it was. While the most casual observer can see that Casey Anthony is cold, narcissistic and perhaps truly evil, the exact nature of the crime she committed unfortunately was not proven.

When you have no official cause of death, no murder weapon, no timeline, no evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to how she did it, no motive beyond conjecture, I'm not sure a jury can say guilty AMD follow the law and keep their sworn oath.

There are cases where people are convicted without a body having been found.  There are cases like this one where the corpse has decomposed to the point that no cause of death can be known, and the killer is convicted.  But those cases are the exception.  They tend
to have a lot more evidence than this case does. With no cause of death and no evidence (physical or circumstantial) linking Casey to the actual body, this case was a long shot.  If it hadn't been covered to such an extent in the media, the verdict would have been no surprise.

People are upset because they believe they "know" Casey Anthony is guilty of murder--and I'm not saying she isn't.  What I am saying is, the evidence in this case was lousy. And it turns out that the prosecution was aware before the trial began that there were NOT 86
searches for chloroform, but only one, and never turned that info over the defense. The prosecution is required to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense and not doing so is a serious violation.  IF Casey Anthony had been convicted, she would have been granted a new trial.  Judge Perry might even have done so immediately.  This would have been equally devastating for all, if not worse.

When you follow as many wrongfully convicted criminal cases as I do, it's a relief to see a jury make a ruling not on emotion but on evidence. This verdict actually gave me hope there will be less wrongful convictions in the future. The fact that jurors are having to quit their jobs and go into hiding due to death threats is a whole new tragedy. I think it must have been truly hard and painful to do the right thing here. I do believe however that that's what these 12 did.

Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty, Justice Denied for Caylee

The jury just announced that Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY on all murder and manslaughter charges!!!


Is this real?  Is this true?  Is this just a bad dream???

I'd been watching  Casey Anthony on trial for murdering her child for six weeks.  I was hooked.  A beautiful child turned to bones in a bag.. HOW had this happened?  Is this pure evil?

Watching the trial every day, hearing almost every word the jurors heard, as the trial neared its end, I assumed most of the jurors were leaning toward 1st Degree Murder, possibly the death penalty.  Although if they went with 1st degree murder not 2nd, I was pretty certain they'd give her Life in prison.

The other charges of note, Aggravated Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse, didn't sound as "serious"...unless you knew, as the jury would, that finding Casey guilty on both those charges would mean a 1st Degree Felony Murder Charge. If the jury did not find multiple counts of child abuse, they could find her guilty of a single count of child abuse along with child manslaughter, which had a recommended sentence of five years, and a max of 20 years.  I hoped Judge Perry would lean toward 20 years if that was what they chose.

The other four charges were misdemeanors. Lying to the police in various forms.  Interfering with a police investigation. Interestingly, lying to the police in the course of an investigation is merely a misdemeanor, in contrast to lying on the witness stand (perjury), a felony, which carries a ten-year sentence.  It seems to me lying to the police in a matter like this, i.e., the investigation of a missing child, should have a more serious penalty. But that hardly seemed to matter.  The question here was, would she get life or death?  Mostly for George and Cindy Anthony's sake, I hoped she'd get life.  It seemed too much to have to watch George and Cindy deal with the impending execution of their daughter.

As I sit here now, I know I expected 1st Degree Murder, but assumed the jury would not sentence her to death. That was really all I could imagine.

On Day Two, just after the 10th hour of deliberation, the jury announced it had a verdict.  This was quick, and quick usually means guilty.  Usually.  That could only mean one thing.  The went with 1st Degree Murder.  Would they be reasonable and not give her the death penalty?  I hoped so.

When the jury began to deliberate, In Session put a "jury clock" on the right hand corner of the screen.  It ticked away, one hour, two hours, three hours. Vinnie Politan, In Session commentator and former prosecutor, said that he usually estimated about one day for every week of trial, or one hour for every day of trial. That would mean four to six days.  Florida juries, said several legal experts, like those in Texas, tended to come back much faster than those in other states, so two to three days was one estimate.

About noon on the second day of trial, I was watching In Session and that jury clock was gone.  Instead, VERDICT REACHED was flashing across the screen.  Verdict reached.  I kept looking at the two words.  Verdict Reached...  VERDICT REACHED????  It took several minutes for this to sink in.  I don't think I've ever felt the kind of anticipation I felt right then during a criminal trial.  After all those days, all those videos of Caylee playing, singing, dancing, laughing...  I was invested.  I had "friends" on Twitter who were invested.  It seems odd to explain how deeply I felt about this case of a young mom charged with killing her nearly three year old child.  It was as if she were my neighbor, and the Anthony family too.

Verdict Reached.  My heart was pounding. I took to Twitter and Facebook:  Verdict reached.  Announced in 45 minutes.  Mobs surrounded the courthouse, with police keeping the crowd under control.  People were making phone calls, texting, tweeting. It was unreal.

The judge looked at the verdict, handed it back to the bailiff.  I'm not sure right now who read it, but I don't think it was the jury foreman.  Maybe it was.

Deep breath. I could hear someone saying.. (maybe it was the foreperson..)  "On the count of first degree murder, we find Casey Anthony... NOT GUILTY."  Wait.. what? What? Not guilty...?  This was HUGE.  The jury had found Casey Anthony Not Guilty of First Degree Murder.  It took a few moments to register that this meant she'd been found NOT GUILTY of 2nd Degree Murder too.

I guess they went with the Aggravated Child Abuse- Aggravated Manslaughter charges. Both were needed for a First Degree Felony Murder charge.

Next charge being read.  "On the Count of Aggravated Child Abuse, the Jury Finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty."  I was stunned.  Stunned.

Next Charge: "On the Count of Aggravated Manslaughter, the Jury finds Casey Anthony Not Guilty."

Stunned silence filled the courtroom.  I did not hear this right.  I know I didn't.  What was I missing...?

Charges continued to be read, the misdemeanors.  I knew they'd find her guilty on those, as the defense admitted to those.  She lied to everyone including the police.  Surely they were going to say, The Jury Finds Casey Anthony Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. But only silence filled the courtroom.

George and Cindy Anthony did not smile.  They did not embrace.  They got up and exited the courtroom. George's name had been dragged through the mud, but no one would be reading a verdict clearing him.  There would be no, George Anthony, NOT GUILTY of CHILD MOLESTATION.  There would be NO, George Anthony, NOT GUILTYof covering up the death of his granddaughter.  Those accusations would stand on the record, and he and his wife would have to live with that.

This was July 5, 2011.  After 31 days of trial, six weeks.  Three years of reading about this case.  Months of reading about the search for Caylee...  Here it was.  OVER.  Over.  And Casey Anthony had gotten away with it.  Maddeningly, no one-- except Casey Anthony-- knew exactly WHAT it was she had done.  But we all knew she'd done something.  And we all saw she was not being punished.

I knew then, in a moment, that not knowing what had happened... not knowing at ALL what had happened... that was what it was.  That is why the jury didn't convict here.  Before deliberations that never even occurred to me.  But I knew now.  With all there was, there wasn't a cause of death.  It was, as someone from the prosecutor's office said, a "dry bones case."  And "dry bones' cases," he said, are extremely tough to win.

It's now four days later... and that verdict still echoes in my head.   I feel shaken to my core.  Is it real?  Is it a bad dream?  I can't say.  I can say that I now know how badly I wanted justice for Caylee Anthony, a child I didn't know, but feel I did.  I've never known anyone who was murdered, and never knew anyone who's child had died that way.   For the first time I know what it feels like..just a little...just a little..  to know of a child who was murdered...and to watch her murderer walk away scot free.

I think all of us who watched the trial in depth, we came to know Caylee, the subject of MANY many a home video.  A child full of life, full of promise.. as children are... a child whose bones were found, in a bag, in a swamp, with duct tape over her face, or rather, the skeletal nose and mouth.  Caylee Anthony, a child whose life touched so many, is a child whose death touched even more.  She joins the ranks not just of murdered children, but of murdered children whose killers walk free.

Somehow George and Cindy Anthony must find a way to live with this.  I'm not quite sure how they will.  I'm not quite sure that they will.

Somehow the rest of us must find a way to make sense of it all.  One of my fellow trial watchers Susan kept saying she just wanted to make sense of it all.   But how? Without the guilty party punished, how can that happen?  How will it?  I'm not sure it will.  Not sure at all.

But those of us saddened, shocked and outraged..  we must take that pain and must use it to do something good.  In honor of Caylee Anthony.  In honor of all murdered children. Help a child. Help a mom. Become a big sister or brother.  Visit a children's hospital.  Do something for a child.  Do something good.   It's the only way I know to make this matter.

Jury is Back as of 1:45pm EST 7/5/11

The jury is back. It seems pretty quick. They may have had a verdict last night as they came in to court dressed up today, one man who'd never worn a tie, wearing a tie today.

Statistically, a fast verdict is not favorable to the defendant.