IT"S ALL IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER!
I just got through watching Dateline on NBC and they ran the story about innocent Eric Volz. They showed how all his evidence the Judge just threw to the wind and the lie of an alcoholic stood to convict Eric. Thank God Eric is home in Nashville now! You can only imagine how I feel as I watch this stuff as they reported they are trying to throw the last Judges in prison because they reviewed the case fairly. We as North Americans can be seen as rich and corrupt. But I am personal friends with missionaries who spent years buidling med. clinics, schools, sewing centers and for who? People down in Nicaragua!!! I sent all my teaching supplies down there a few years ago. Exporting educational materials week after week. In fact I went down there to visit. It bothers me that our media does not report the sacrifice of missionaries or US Engineers that helped them after their earthquakes or giving to relief efforts over the years. We are not all rich and corrupt!!! Eric is innocent and Ryan is too.

Another prosecutor caught for prosecutorial misconduct.

Cathy E. Krinick, a Virginia prosecutor was found to have been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct which could have led to an execution.

Will anything happen to Prosecutor Cathy Krinick for willfully lying and altering evidence?

Many prosecutors lie but receive no punishment. Seems like the justice system has created an environment where prosecutors can lie but have nothing to lose if they are caught.

This will only encourage more prosecutors to cut corners and lie to obtain guilty verdicts.

There should be meaningful retribution for misconduct.


News paper links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/us/19death.html?hp


http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-news_atkins_0118jan18,0,7277862.story?coll=hr_breaking_500


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011703172.html

Is Cathy E. Krinick a criminal?

WILLIAM go back to that juror and do some reporting for us. Find out how they came to their decision. GET that inside dish for us WILLIAM. Than let us know so we can make some sense of this mess!

I am from Lincoln county and was talking with a man who was one of the jurors at Ryans trail, he was talking how he and 3 other jurors all lived within about 5 miles of each other which I thought was a little odd that the system doesn"t try to pick people from different areas of a county instead of letting 4 people who all know each other have a chance to serve together.

I just read about this case from another site. Unbelievable is utterly inadequate to convey my thoughts on this. From the beginning of this account to the end, it is unbelievable that this happened. More astonishing is that any prosecutors office would uphold this "confession" much less lower themselves to bring this fabrication before a jury. As to the jury, they ought to be sharing the adjoining cell with Ryan.
Granted, I have not seen the trial transcripts however, just the accounts of Erickson"s "story" would have made anyone with a sliver of common sense see through this. How the defense bungled this case is beyond me.

Youtube is okay for videos, but google is less restricted. If you have the 48 hours news story, you should be able to upload the entire video to google video (still different than youtube).

Stan The Man
I agree with what you are saying. But I would add the following: Detective Short was extremely unethical when he told Chuck about evidence the public and Chuck were unaware of. This was improper and shameful behavior.
Detective Short had said in his deposition June 2005 that no one should provide new information or evidence otherwise unknown by the suspect. But it was OK to remind a suspect of things he had mentioned in prior statements.
Detective Short violated his own rule and the rule of law by providing evidence known of only by the police. Detective Short violated this rule at least twice during the first interview.
Charles Erickson had no idea about the number of strikes or the belt having been used.
This can be clearly seen on the video located on the front page of our web site titled "Have You Ever Had A Cop In Your Face part I".

While I think the Tankleff case holds some promise out to those who are convicted based on false confession, I do think it worth noting that there is a pretty major difference in what happened with the Tankleff case and what happened with Chuck...In Tankleff"s case, the investigator actually (and I find it hard to believe the confession was ever allowed to start with after this), told Marty his father had come to and fingered him in his murder. This was completely and totally untrue and the investigator knew it. They just thought if they lied and told Marty this, that he might somehow fess up. Marty, confused by the statement starts to speculate on why his father would do such a thing and in the process, "admits" to the act, but then quickly recants.

In Chuck"s case, the investigator did not "lie" per se...He simply filled in holes to a story that should have been recognized at that time as problematic. I don"t fault the investigators for bringing Chuck in or even asking him about it, but as soon as they started seeing where it was going, it should have been a red flag that the interview needed to be handled in a different way.

Bill, that"s why Det Short didn"t testify at the trial. He would have had to perjury himself in order to stay consisent with his deposition statements or else contradict them and have the case cave in on itself. Just juxtapose what he did on the tapes telling Chuckie the inside information, what he said in his deposition and what he would have had to say to reconcile his actions on the tapes and what he said in his deposition. He would have had to commit perjury on the stand.

Bill, you should take all this to the FEDS. What you have on those tapes is someone (Det Short) actually committing a crime (Subornation of Perjury) and your seeing the very beginning of that crime. It"s the same as a cop being caught on tape planting evidence in a drug case or seeing two bank robbers putting masks on in their car just before they put off a bank robbery. As a cop who followed many a criminal and watched them as they got ready to commit a crime I can tell you having these tapes of someone in the early stage a crime is rare, very very rare, almost unheard of. As a matter of fact, you might even have Det Short committing his own perjury or at least fudging his testimony as compared to what he actually did on the tape and how he answered those questions from the defense lawyer.