Thanks Richard

Excerpts from Detective Short’s Deposition statement June 2005

Page 38 – 39

Detective Short: My goal was to obtain a truthful statement from him (Charles Erickson)

Defense Attorney: And so based upon your training and experience, you knew that you were going to have to test what he told you against other facts in the case, the physical scene, things that other witnesses had said, stuff like that?

Detective Short: That"s correct

Defense Attorney: Okay. And would you agree that it’s important for the investigator not to suggest answers to a witness or suspect?

Detective Short: Do you mean by leading them? Is that what you’re referring to?

Defense Attorney: Yes

Detective Short: I would agree with that.

Defense Attorney: And so you were trying to avoid that; is that right?

Detective Short: If it was something that he had already said, I would remind him of what he had said. But as far as – I don’t feel like I led him into anything.

==========
Let’s look at what was actually said on the video tape starting at 10:05 am the morning of Charles Erickson’s arrest.

Erickson didn"t know anything about a belt being used in the crime. He never said anything about a belt!

You can see Erickson was very surprised to learn about the belt.

Detective Short was the first person to mention anything about a belt. This can be seen during the video taped interview on March 10, 2004 @ 10:42:50 to 10:43:35

Erickson never said anything about striking the victim more than once.

This is information that Detective Short spoon-fed Charles Erickson.

These are two very specific pieces of information that Short gave to Erickson:
1) the use of the belt and 2) the number of strikes

This can be clearly seen by watching the video . It is documented in the interrogation video.

YouTube I Have You Ever Had A Cop In Your Face?

Detective Short says, in his deposition “I would remind him (Erickson) of what he had said.”

This sounds good but this is NOT what Detective Short actually did during the interrogation.

Detective Short did NOT remind Charles Erickson what he had said. But instead he introduced new evidence to Erickson that was otherwise not known by the public or Erickson.

Well there is hope for Ryan just look at the Tankleff case. The DA is dropping all the charges and won"t go to a new trial and he"s even asking the gov"t for a special prosecutor for the ongoing investigation of the police and the real perps. The detective in the Tankleff case, as did the detective in Ryans case, engaged in criminal activity during the investigation of each respective case. In the Tankleff case it appears that the detective might have financially enriched himself with the "hit" money using it to pay the now DA his legal fees back than for defense in a perjury case from another murder investigation the detective had conducted. While Det. short might not have enriched himself financially (promotions not withstanding) he did supply Chuckie with sufficient inside information on Heilholt"s murder to allow Chuckie to perjury himself and make his testimony seem truthful to the judge and jury when it fact it was a lie from beginning to end. Just as the detective in the Tankleff case had done when he wrote out Tankleff confession himself. Both when the easy route for a conviction

Ferguson family...Hope you had happy holidays despite being unable to spend them with Ryan. I got a Christmas card from him which really made my day! I just wanted to send you best wishes for 2008. I think of your family and Ryan often and frequently check this site for updates. I can"t wait until the day I click on announcements and hear that Ryan"s innocence has been proven and that he is finally free. May God bless your family in 2008 and may this be the year of justice for you all.

Some interesting points on the Columbia Tribune News Blog

2345 What amazes me the most is that the current asst. DA Lato who will be retrying the case if it should go that way actually believes that Tankleff did it even with all the new evidence and witnesses. I can"t believe he"s that nieve. With the evidence that"s now coming out he"s going look like a real ???. That why Spota ain"t going to try it himself if the county does retry him.

Granted I"m no expert on these things but I can see only a case being made potentially against Detective Mccready not against ADA John Collins who tried the case. There are allegations that Mccready was associated with Steurman the business partner the defense accuses of being the real killer and that the detective lied about not knowing Steurman until the murders occurred. If that can be proven Richard I think we both agree that charges can and should be pursued against Mccready. Collins on the other hand is more difficult. They"d have to be able to prove that Collins knew Mccready or any of his witnesses lied and that Collins suppressed evidence from the defense. Obviously you never know what witnesses the SIC investigators might uncover but I would imagine it"s hard to prove intentional misconduct by a prosecutor. Remember Nifong got caught suppressing evidence only because one of his own people, a lab tech turned him in. Jay Salpter has been very thorough which is why he found people making accusations against Mccready. I"m skeptical that any such potential evidence of wrongdoing by Collins exists but we shall see.

Richard
I think finally the light has come on and shown that some police and prosecutors are cutting corners without anyone in the past providing oversite.
In view of resent events and new trials being scheduled it would seem this period of time where prosecutors and police could do what ever they wanted is started to come to an end.
Nifong was just the first case that reached national attention there will be more.
The prosecutors have served unchecked and each years it gets a little worse. Sad for the prosecutors and police that are doing a good job. Always a few that will cheat the system and over step their power at the expense of innocent people for self promotion.

To all The Tankleff Case! The NY State Investigation Council is now going to investigate the police and the prosecutor from the original investigation and trial. The detective and all might wind up in jail themselves. Just think what would happen if an independent authority looked at Ryan"s case. They could actually see the detective committing a crime, its on video tape, giving chuckie the inside info on what and how it happened so he (Chuckie) could perjure himself.

If you are interested in some great discussions and different points of view try the link below.

The is from the Columbia Tribune Newspaper news blog.

http://board.columbiatribune.com/index.php?showforum=7