To Concerned and Betty! I understand your feelings. Do you want to know why cops do what they do in cases like this? I"ll tell you. Just ask a question. I worked for 10 years plain clothes on the lower eastside of Manhattan. 1970 thur 1980 Observing street crimes as they occured. I"ll tell you what ever you want to know about the process from the arrest to the prosecution. I"ve arrested people for everythng, from riot (Bella Abzug) to homicide happening right in from of me!

48 Hours aired a story last night called "Where"s Our Baby"; a case which evolved around the disappearance of a families child. The parents were put through pure hell in this case all because of the shameful work on the part of the police and the prosecutor.

There were lots of examples in this story that reminded me of the injustice against Ferguson. In the Aisenbergs case the police went so far as to alter taped conversations the couple had over the phone to make it look like they said incriminating things that were actaully never said. They were trying to FRAME the parents in this case because they wanted so badly to get them convicted. It is an unbelievable story! What people have to endure and fight against in order to stand for truth and justice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/23/48hours/main703750.shtml

Here are a few quotes taken from the transcript:

Cohen says (this is the lawyer representing the Aisenbergs) there is nothing that points to his clients" guilt, but he says detectives had one mission, to prove the Aisenbergs were involved. "When I saw the police were acting in bad faith and that they were destined to try to frame Marlene and Steve, that’s when we stopped cooperating," says Cohen.

Cohen says he advised his clients not to testify because of the reputation of lead federal prosecutor Steven Kunz: "He"s a disgrace to his profession and the system."

"I think once law enforcement collectively decided that the Aisenbergs were responsible and guilty, then whatever it took to implicate the Aisenbergs and to charge them and to arrest them, that was going to be done," says John Fitzgibbons, a former U.S. attorney now in private practice in Tampa.


The prosecution"s case against the couple began collapsing. Now, it was the feds who had some tough questions to answer. "There is no doubt that law enforcement clearly went past the line from legality into that line of perhaps, illegality," says Fitzgibbons.

I think all the police care about at this stage is covering their own behinds. They know they are wrong! But you can pretty much guarantee they will never own up to their mistakes. Just as the prosecutor will never own up to his mistakes. Logic would have us think there would be even ONE policeman who would come forward and speak out for what they know to be honorable. Just ONE policeman to stand up for truth and justice. But that won"t happen either. There was a case in Broward County Florida where that happened. That policeman lost his job and was ostracized by his colleagues as you can imagine. Even though it was proven that the policeman had done the right thing and what he exposed ended up being the truth. The way the system is set up, once a wrongdoing is in place, everyone surrounding that person will support the lie in order to save face and reputations. The police department in Columbia Mo is already under scrutiny and at this point already has a questionable reputation. The stakes are just too high within the police department for anyone to step forward and speak out against this wrongful act. Even the police chief himself is going to cover for his own men"s wrongdoing as is evident from previous statements made by Boehm.

Because of my interest in this case, I have realized for a long time that the dectective told Chuck things he could not have known. At the very least he made a huge mistake. But is more serious than that in my mind. I"m glad this is now available for others to easily compare what he said to what he "believes" should be said in these cases.

My biggest concern at the moment is, Does anyone in the police department or in our justice system care?

Bill, take the interview with Det. Short supplying Chuckie with the details of the crime and the sworn desposition by Det. Short that contradicts what he actually did on the tape and bring it to a federal prosecutor. Show that prosecutor,using the interview tapes, that Det. Short under the "guise of the law" (the basis for a federal civil rights violation concerning state law enforement) did induce and suborne perjury from Chuckie in order to violate Ryan"s civil rights. It"s a rare occasion when you have a crime on video tape but you have one and believe me Det Short is sweating out this case because he the only one who has been caught on tape contradicting sworn testimony. The DA"s change on what he said to the jury or the class is not on tape so they would have a hard time prosecuting him but Det. Short is hanging out there all by himself. Ask a federal prosecutor to look at it, remember the answer will always be NO if you never ask!

Mmmm Good Point!

Bill, as Det. Short had been sworn in, it"s not unethical or unscrupulous, IT"S CALLED PERJURY!!!! why do you think he didn"t testify in court, at the trial. He would have been caught in this lie and the WHOLE CASE would have been lost right than and there!

As promised our new YouTube video is ready.

This will show Detective short swearing in a deposition taken June 2005 just 4 months before Ryan’s trial that he would not provide new information to a suspect but only remind the suspect of things he had said before.

As you watch the video and Detective Short interrogating Chuck Erickson you can see Detective Short blatantly providing evidence never known by Chuck or the public before this police video March 10, 2004.

Detective Short is not reminding Chuck of anything he had said before but providing entirely new unheard evidence,
This seems unethical and unscrupulous.

Detective Short says one thing in his deposition and does the opposite in the interrogation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MTAZ68Udfw&feature=user

Drinking was not the issue - even 2-3 drinks as I"m sure there are many kids drinking every weekend and none of them have been accused of such a crime.
If they were drunk or high perhaps there might be some long shot at a crime of some sort.
But Erickson, the one person that is pleaing and wanting to make Ryan and himself look as bad as possible, testified that Ryan had not taken any sort of drugs and only consumed 2-3 drinks the entire night.
And watered down drinks at best.
There is no motivation for this crime from Ryan or Chuck.
Besides, if Ryan needed money there were at least 10 different people he knew that were present at the club that they could have borrowed money from.
Rather than leave the club, walk to the car, pick up a tire tool, walk downtown to within 2 blocks of the police station and to rob a 6 foot 3 inch, 315 pound X-college football player and end up hitting the victim 11 times and then (just for good measure) strangle the victim with his own belt!!
Then calmly walk back to the night club after the crime (911 was called at 2:26am) and have a conversation with someone in the middle of one the busiest intersections in Columbia before returning to the club STILL without any money! Then staying until 5am because a police officer was in the parking lot.
This is a dream story at best!
The prosecutor could not produce a single witness to show the bar was open after 1:30am.
The prosecutor stated in court that there was not one single piece of evidence to connect Ryan or Chuck to this crime.
Plus the prosecutor lied in court during his closing in reference to both the hair in the victim"s hand and Ryan"s cell phone calls.

This should go without saying. Just because a teen is drinking or just because someone goes to a bar does not automatically mean they committed a murder! And just because someone later had a dream, or someone else decided they could identify somebody a few years later, also does not mean someone was guilty of murder!!