Bill, is it true Ryan now has the assistance of the Public Defenders System? Wow, what does the word indigent mean to your family? Shouldn"t folks in your income class pay for their own representation?

Oh, if I were Judge Asel I would err on the side of caution and order the release of the mental health records to the defense to let them decide if there"s anything worth pursuing in the civil appeal.

From a laypersons point of view, the request for mental records is a smart move. My prediction is Asel will not order a new mental exam since his current mental state is not relevant. Morrell is correct on that point. As for the release of the mental records Asel could grant Leftwichs motion or she might reject it after personally reviewing the records. As I understand it is the main issue here is if any professional experts concluded Chuck exhibited delusional behavior that could have and should have been explored by Ryans lawyer. The issue is relatively straightforward enough that Asel will probably review the records and determine if there is anything helpful to the defense. My tentative opinion until further information is released is that the mental health experts who examined Chuck probably found no severe mental impairment, because if the doctors had determined that Chuck was unable to distinguish reality from fantasy they would have recommended he be deemed incompetent and he wouldn"t have been allowed to plead. Remember the role of the psychologist is while they work for the state their job is not to assist them in obtaining a conviction. Their role is to serve as an impartial examiner of the inmate in order to make informed recommendations to the judge.

"Charles Erickson was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder,
Post-traumatic stress disorder and depression while being held at the
Boone County Jail before Ferguson’s October 2005 trial.
I can not help but think Charles Erickson was "psychotic and
delusional"

How else would you explain Erickson’s testimony in which he testified he saw Dallas Mallory at the intersection of Providence and Ash just 5 seconds from the crime scene.

Mallory has since provided a sworn affidavit June 2005 saying he did not see or speak with either Chuck or Ryan, was not downtown, did not own a car and did not have a driver’s license.

Only than did the prosecutor and Erickson realized that Mallory was not going to support Chuck’s story. spoke to Dallas Mallory who was stopped at the intersection of Ash and Providence wearing a police uniform? Erickson says on video tape he saw Mallory just 5 seconds after the crime.


This is why the Prosecutor did not call Mallory to testify during the trial.

Dallas Mallory lived with his parents who drove him to work each day.

After Erickson received discovery he changed his story October 1, 2004 to say he departed the crime scene, traveled south to the diner and on to Locust and Providence where he testified he saw and spoke to Mallory who was stopped at a red traffic light in a car with two girls.

Remember the police tracking dog continued south from the diner to the campus of the University of Missouri.
In fact MoDOT has provided a sworn affidavit stating the traffic light
in question was a flashing yellow light at that time of the morning and the two girls have never been identified.

Who would stop at a flashing yellow light at 2:30am in the morning on
Providence?

This is delusional at best.

"Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a serious disorder," Leftwich told
Circuit Judge Jodie Asel. "Some people with it think they ran over someone on the way home and turn the car around to check and see if anyone’s injured. These are all defined in the DSM-IV" - a diagnostic manual of mental disorders.

Erickson testified that after he allegedly talked to Mallory he
reentered the By George Night Club sometime after 2:30am where the music was loud and kids where still dancing.

Erickson testified they could not leave before 5am because a police officer was in the parking lot. If this were true why wouldn’t the officer issue a summons for being open past 1:30am? Again Erickson is delusional.

The prosecutor was unable to produce a single witness to prove that the club was open after 1:30am.
Police records show no police officer was in the area of the By George Night Club between 1:30am and until the following evening.

Erickson testified they stayed past 5am and drove back by the crime
scene where he testified he could see the body bag.
Detective Nichols testified that this would be very difficult to
accomplish.

Erickson’s story was "psychotic and delusional" and makes absolutely
no sense.

Remember no physical evidence was ever found to connect Chuck or Ryan
to the crime.

Erickson was evaluated by the same psychologist twice before his
testimony, but attorneys for Ferguson never had their own independent testing conducted.

Ryan’s attorneys were not given the results of the psychologist
evaluation until one week prior to the trial.

Look at the time frame....
Approximately 2:15am - The victim was murdered.
Erickson says he saw and talked with Dallas Mallory (plus he changes his story and tells two completely separate stories seeing Mallory at two totally different locations)

He says he reentering the By George Night Club by 2:45am.
All three of these events were alleged by Erickson to have occurred
within 30 minutes from the time before the murder to entering the club a second time.
This is "psychotic and delusional". There is no evidence or individual
To support his story. Only Erickson’s memory!

No physical evidence to connect either Chuck or Ryan to the crime.
Never mind Detective Short providing (spoon feeding) evidence to
Erickson that was not known to the public or Erickson himself.

Quotes from the Columbia Tribune

http://columbiatribune.com/2008/Jan/20080122News001.asp

Just read the Tribune article tonight, Jan. 22, where Ryan"s attorney is trying to get Chuck"s medical records considered and/or to have Chuck evaluated themselves. I"m praying hard for good to come of this for Ryan. I think Chuck"s mental illness is KEY to how this all happened in the first place. What I am wondering is how Erickson met legal competency guidelines before the trial. Did someone overlook that information while they were feeding Chuck his story?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jan/20080122News001.asp

Master"s conviction thrown out:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/22/masters.case/index.html

Another case......

http://liestoppers2.blogspot.com/2007/07/nifonged-in-fort-collins-timothy.html