The Yellow and White Case of Troy Anthony Davis: Part 5

It's another late night / early morning post on the Troy Davis case. I'm so tired I'm not even going to caution you to read the previous posts in this series first, much less provide a link to them. I'm just going to begin abruptly.

I ended the last post by explaining why I would have voted not guilty in the case of Troy Anthony Davis, and by claiming that most of you out there would have voted guilty.

For those of you who took umbrage at my claim, for those of you who think I'm placing myself on morally superior high ground that anyone can easily stand upon, answer just a few questions honestly. Please.

Would you risk letting a cop killer run free? Would you be willing to face the family of the slain officer after the trial and tell them that you were pretty sure the defendant was guilty, but the state didn't quite prove it to you beyond a reasonable doubt.

How about a rapist? Would you turn lose a possible rapist to possibly rape again?

How about a child molester? I've had to deal with accused child molesters. Would you return a possible child molester back into society? We all know they that they can't control themselves, that they will destroy the lives of more innocent children if we do not stop them. Would you turn such a person lose if you were concerned he was guilty but believed the state hadn't quite proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

How about a baby killer? Would you turn lose a baby killer if you were only almost certain of his guilt? I've had to deal with an accused baby killer as well. I'm dealing with the case now, in fact.

So I ask you. Would you stand by your oath and vote guilty if and only if the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt?

I might. I might indeed stand by my oath, and the thought haunts me. I would be livid that the State had put me in such a position, that they would convince me the defendant was probably guilty but did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I would be furious. They would have put me in a position of either defiling the Bill of Rights or allowing a potentially dangerous person to walk free. Would I try to live with the possibility that my Guilty vote would put a possibly innocent person behind bars for eternity, or would I live forever in fear that my Not Guilty vote would lead to terrible harm of yet another innocent bystander? Which would it be?

Here's what I hope I would have the courage to do. I hope I would stand by my oath. I  hope I would stand by the Bill of Rights and accept the consequences, whatever they might be. If the State could not, or carelessly failed to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I would not bail them out. They could tell me they speak for the victim, and they could tell me that the family of the victim deserves the justice that only I can bring them, but I hope I would not waver.

Beware prosecutors everywhere. If you allow me on the jury, I will follow my oath. I will stand by the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights. Far too much blood has been spilled to create and defend those rights. Far too many innocent people are in prison today because my fellow jurors failed to respect and honor them.

Let's do this. Put yourself in the place of one of those jurors deliberating the evidence in the Troy Davis case. You have four eye-witnesses identifying Davis in court as the shooter. You have two additional witnesses saying they saw Davis wearing a white T-shirt around the time of the shooting, and two more saying they saw Coles wearing a yellow shirt. You have three other witnesses testifying under oath that Davis confessed to them. You are told repeatedly that none of these people have any reason to lie to you.

Against that, you have Davis and his mother saying he did not wear a white T-shirt that night.

How are you going to vote?

Honestly, how are you going to vote?

Would you vote Not Guilty simply because one of your fellow jurors wouldn't shut up about Coles and his sister not being able to count shirts, because he goes ballistic when you mention the snitch, or because he actually believes four people could all coincidentally pick the same wrong guy out of photo lineups?

When I was younger, I would have probably voted with most of you out there. I'm no longer younger, though. I've been through four criminal juries. I've reviewed many cases. I've worked directly to free innocent people from prison and to keep innocent people from being imprisoned. I've seen too often how the system goes awry, how it hides its dark side from the jury, how it convicts and consumes while wrapping itself in righteousness.

Now that I'm no longer younger, the snitch and the suborned perjury and the miraculous late stage identifications tell me there is much more going on in the background that the State doesn't want us jurors to know. Now that I'm no longer younger, I'll call them on it. I'll vote Not Guilty if I catch them not playing by the rules.

I realize the State is being inconsistent. It is there their [told you I was tired] privilege. They have the ultimate power, but only if we jurors relinquish it to them.

Dorothy Ferrell
Let's consider first the trial testimony of Dorothy Ferrell. I have not spoken of her before. I saved her for now. She was descending the stairs of the Thunderbird Inn when the shooting took place. According to Judge Moore, here's what she testified to in court.

Ms. Ferrell testified at the trial that, on the night of August 18, 1989, she was a guest at the Thunderbird Motel, located across Oglethorpe Avenue from the Burger King. Around 1:00 a.m. on August 19, 1989, she was descending a stairwell at the motel when she heard screaming from the Burger King parking lot. She ran to the sidewalk to get a better view.

From the sidewalk, she saw three men in the Burger King parking lot. As one of the men started running toward the Trust Company Bank property, a police officer entered the parking lot and told the men to stop. As the officer approached, one of the men, who was wearing a light yellow t-shirt, started moving backwards.  Then the third man, who was wearing a white t-shirt and dark shorts, shot the officer. After the officer fell to the ground, the gunman stepped forward, stood over the officer, and fired more bullets at him. 

Finished, the gunman ran toward the Trust Company Bank. At trial, Ms. Ferrell identified Mr. Davis as the individual who shot the officer. Ms. Ferrell also testified that, two days after the shooting, she recognized a photograph of Mr. Davis and identified him as the gunman. According to Ms. Ferrell, she was speaking with a police officer about matters unrelated to the MacPhail shooting when she noticed a photograph of Mr. Davis on the front passenger seat of the officer's cruiser. She informed the officer that she recognized the man in the photograph as Officer MacPhail's murderer. Ms. Ferrell had not seen any pictures of Mr. Davis prior to that identification. A few days later, Ms. Ferrell was shown a photo spread and asked if she recognized the gunman. Ms. Ferrell again identified Mr. Davis. Ms. Ferrell testified that she was pretty confident in the accuracy of her identification.

On cross-examination, Ms. Ferrell testified that the individual in the yellow t-shirt was looking straight at the gunman when he fired the first shot. Ms. Ferrell stated that the gunman passed in front of the Trust Company Bank building while fleeing. She was then impeached with her police statement, in which she claimed that the gunman ran behind the Trust Company bank building.

Ms. Ferrell was also questioned on variations between her police statement and trial testimony regarding when the individuals in the yellow and white t-shirts started running. Finally, Ms. Ferrell admitted that the portion of her police statement recounting how Officer MacPhail had run the shooter off the Burger King property earlier in the day was incorrect. She explained that she had not seen Officer MacPhail run the shooter off the property, only some individuals dressed like the shooter. Ms. Ferrell opined that the inconsistency was due to a misunderstanding by the officer taking her statement. 

Also on cross-examination, Ms. Ferrell was challenged regarding her prior descriptions of the shooter. In her police statement, Ms. Ferrell recalled that the shooter was six feet tall with a narrow face and slender build, while she described the shooter as slightly taller than her height—five feet—and with a medium build when she testified in Recorder's Court. In Recorder's Court, Ms. Ferrell testified that the shooter had lighter colored skin than her. However, Ms. Ferrell admitted that she and Mr. Davis had about the same skin color, while Mr. Coles' skin color was much lighter that hers. Ms. Ferrell did state that she would not describe Mr. Coles' skin color as light, but rather as "red." Also, Ms. Ferrell admitted that, despite testifying in Recorder's Court that the shooter had a narrow face, she never saw the shooter face-on, seeing only his left and right profiles. Finally, Ms. Ferrell testified that she saw Mr. Davis on television prior to her identification of his photograph.

On redirect-examination, Ms. Ferrell explained a few of the inconsistencies between her various statements. Ms. Ferrell clarified that, in Recorder's Court, she stated the shooter was a little taller than Mr. Davis attorney, not a little taller than herself. Also, Ms. Ferrell explained that she did not see only left and right profiles of the gunman's face. While she never observed his face straight on, Ms. Ferrell saw enough of the shooter's face at various angles to recognize that he had a narrow face.

Ms. Ferrell also admitted during cross-examination that she had a number of prior criminal convictions for shoplifting and trespass.

Now let's consider her recantation affidavit, as presented by Amnesty International.

At the trial, Dorothy Ferrell, who was staying at a hotel near the Burger King at the time of the crime, identified Troy Davis as the person who had shot Officer McPhail, emphasizing "I’m real sure, that that is him and, you know, it’s not a mistaken identity".

After the guilt/innocence phase of the trial had ended, the wife of Troy Davis’ defence lawyer received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as Dorothy Ferrell, and stated that she had lied on the witness stand. The prosecution then revealed that Dorothy Ferrell had written a letter to District Attorney Spencer Lawton requesting "a favor" and his "help" with her own difficulties with the law. She was on parole at the time. She wrote in the letter: "Mr. Lawton if you would please help me, I promise you, you won’t be making a mistake."

After this revelation, Dorothy Ferrell was recalled to the witness stand, outside of the presence of the jury. She denied having made the telephone call, but admitted to having written the letter. The judge then offered the defence the opportunity to cross-examine Dorothy Ferrell in the presence of the jury, but they did not do so, instead calling for a mistrial on the grounds that the prosecution had withheld information from the defence. The trial judge denied their motion for a new trial.

In her affidavit signed in November 2000, Dorothy Ferrell recalled that she had been staying in a hotel opposite the Burger King restaurant on the night of the shooting. She said that she heard a woman scream and gunshots. In her affidavit, she recalls seeing "more than two guys running away", but states that she did not see who the gunman was. After the crime, she was asked to go down to the police station, where she was made to wait until she gave a statement. The affidavit continues:

"I was real tired because it was the middle of the night and I was pregnant too… I was scared that if I didn’t do what the police wanted me to do, then they would try to lock me up again. I was on parole at the time and I had just gotten home from being locked up earlier that year.

When the police were talking to me, it was like they wanted me to say I saw the shooting and to sign a statement. I wanted to be able to leave and so I just said what they wanted me to say. I thought that would be the end of it, but it turned out not to be the end."

Sometime later, a police detective visited Dorothy Ferrell and showed her a photograph of Troy Davis, and told her that other witnesses had identified him as the gunman:

"From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer."

In her affidavit, Dorothy Ferrell recalls her fear that if she did not repeat her statement at the trial, she would be charged with perjury and "sent back to jail". She says that she spoke to two lawyers who said that she could be so charged and could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

"I had four children at that time, and I was taking care of them myself. I couldn’t go back to jail. I felt like I didn’t have any choice but to get up there and testify to what I said in my earlier statements. So that’s what I did."

On the question of the telephone call made to Troy Davis’ defence counsel at the time of the trial, Dorothy Ferrell’s affidavit adds that:

"I didn’t make that call to the house of the attorney but my friend made the call after she and I had talked. I told my friend about how I had testified to things that weren’t the truth and I was feeling bad about it. That’s why she made the call."

Darrell Collins
Darrell Collins was the third of three individuals who followed Larry Young back from the convenience stores. I did not speak of him before because it seems clear that he did not harass or assault Larry Young or shoot Officer MacPhail. I held him back, and I discuss his courtroom testimony now, as I understand it from Judge Moore's decision.

Darrell Collins was the third individual involved in the altercation with Larry Young. At trial, he testified that Mr. Davis was wearing the white shirt and assaulted Larry Young. According to Mr. Davis, Darrell Collins has since recanted the latter portion of that testimony, which was originally secured through police coercion.  In statements that Mr. Collins gave to the police in the days following the shootings, he stated that Mr. Davis was responsible for the Cloverdale shooting, struck Larry Young on the head, and wore a white shirt on the night of the incidents.

At the trial, Mr. Collins reaffirmed that Mr. Davis was wearing the white shirt and assaulted Mr. Young. However, Mr. Collins testified that he lied about Mr. Davis' involvement in the Cloverdale shooting due to police intimidation.  In his recantation affidavit, Mr. Collins claimed a second lie -- that he never saw Mr. Davis strike Larry Young. He averred that he was comfortable revealing the first lie at trial but not the second because he felt the police cared more about whether Mr. Davis assaulted Mr. Young than Mr. Davis' responsibility for the Cloverdale shooting. At the hearing, Mr. Collins again claimed that he lied about both the assault on Larry Young and the Cloverdale incident due to police coercion. Specifically, he claims that he simply parroted what the police told him to say. However, he did not recant his earlier testimony that Mr. Davis was wearing the white shirt on the night of the shootings.

Mr. Collins testimony is neither credible nor a full recantation. First, regardless of the recantation, Mr. Collins' previous testimony, that has never been unequivocally recanted, still provides significant evidence of Mr. Davis' guilt by placing him in the white shirt.

Second, if Mr. Collins' claim that he simply parroted false statements fed to him by police is truthful, query why Mr. Collins never directly identified Mr. Davis as Officer MacPhail's murderer. Surely, this would have been the best available false testimony, and given Mr. Collins' proximity to the murder it would have been as reasonable as any other false testimony.

Third, there was credible testimony from Officer Sweeney and Mr. Lock that Mr. Collins' testimony was not coerced.

Fourth, Mr. Collins generally lacked credibility, testifying to an implausible version of events: that he was less than ten feet from Larry Young when the assault occurred and did not turn away from the confrontation until Officer MacPhail arrived, but saw nothing. Given the close proximity, it would be safe to assume that surely Mr. Collins saw either Mr. Coles or Mr. Davis strike Mr. Young -- not that Mr. Coles simply saw nothing.

Because Mr. Collins continues to provide evidence of Mr. Davis' guilt and his recantation is not credible, his testimony does not diminish the State's case.

Judge Moore does not include in his decision verbatim text from the recantation affidavits. As a public service, I will present some verbatim text from Darrell Collins' affidavit, as provided by Amnesty International.

Darrell Collins was a friend of Troy Davis who was with him on the night of the crime. At the time, he was 16 years old. In his affidavit he said that the day after the shooting, 15 or 20 police officers came to his house, "a lot of them had their guns drawn". They took him in for questioning, and the affidavit continues:

"When I got to the barracks, the police put me in a small room and some detectives came in and started yelling at me, telling me that I knew that Troy Davis…killed that officer by the Burger King. I told them that… I didn’t see Troy do nothing. They got real mad when I said this and started getting in my face. They were telling me that I was an accessory to murder and that I would pay like Troy was gonna pay if I didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear.

They told me that I would go to jail for a long time and I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a police officer got killed… I didn’t want to go to jail because I didn’t do nothing wrong. I was only sixteen and was so scared of going to jail. They kept saying that…[Troy] had messed with that man up at Burger King and killed that officer. I told them that it was Red and not Troy who was messing with that man, but they didn’t want to hear that…

After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told them what they wanted to hear. They would tell me things that they said had happened and I would repeat whatever they said."

Darrell Collins said that he signed a typed statement without reading it, and was then allowed to go home. According to his affidavit, he was questioned again about a week later by the police who gave him another typed statement to sign. He said he again signed the statement without reading it. The affidavit continues:

"I testified against Troy at his trial. I remember that I told the jury that Troy hit the man that Red was arguing with. That is not true. I never saw Troy do anything to the man. I said this at the trial because I was still scared that the police would throw me in jail for being an accessory to murder if I told the truth about what happened…

It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail."

Kevin McQueen
I'm going to wrap up this series up with the snitch, Kevin McQueen. Let's see what Judge Moore had to say about good ol' Kevin McQueen's testimony and recantation.

Kevin McQueen was the "jail house snitch." At trial, his testimony was used to relate Mr. Davis' confession to the MacPhail murder. Mr. Davis contends that Mr. McQueen admits his prior testimony was a "complete fabrication."

At trial, Mr. McQueen claimed that Mr. Davis confessed the following events to him. Mr. Davis began his night by shooting at the group from Yamacraw -- the Cloverdale shooting. Mr. Davis then went to his girlfriend's house for a time, and later to the Burger King to eat breakfast. While at Burger King, Mr. Davis ran into someone who "owed [him] money to buy dope." There was a fight regarding the drug money, and when Officer MacPhail came over, Mr. Davis shot him.

At the hearing before this Court, Mr. McQueen testified that there was "no truth" to his trial testimony. He claimed that he fabricated the testimony to get revenge on Mr. Davis for an altercation in the jail and because he received benefits from the State. Mr. McQueen put the same recantation into an affidavit on December 5, 1996, but stated his only reason for testifying falsely was the altercation between he and Mr. Davis. Other than claiming that Mr. Davis was guilty of both the MacPhail murder and Cloverdale shooting, Mr. McQueen's trial testimony totally contradicts the events of the night as described by numerous other State witnesses. Indeed, while other witnesses described a fight over alcohol, Mr. McQueen described a fight over drugs; and while other witnesses claimed Mr. Davis went to shoot pool immediately prior to the murder, Mr. McQueen claimed Mr. Davis went to get breakfast. These inconsistencies make it clear that Mr. McQueen's trial testimony was false, a fact confirmed by Mr. McQueen's recantation. Given that Mr. McQueen's trial testimony was so clearly fabricated, and was actually contrary to the State's theory of the case, it is unclear why the State persists in trying to support its veracity. Regardless, the recantation is credible, with the exception of the allegation of prosecutorial inducements, but only minimally reduces the State's showing at trial given the obviously false nature of the trial testimony.

I believe that says it all. I'm finally ready to take a position on the impending execution of Troy Anthony Davis.

I oppose it. 

The Yellow and White Case of Troy Anthony Davis: Part 4

To determine whether it was Troy Davis or Sylvester Coles who shot and killed Officer MacPhail, I begin by looking at the timeline. I really like timelines; the more detailed the better. The very act of constructing a thorough timeline almost always brings revealing issues to light.

I'm not suggesting the short timeline segment that follows for the Troy Davis case is anywhere  near worthy of one that would be necessary for a thorough evaluation of his case. However, even the puny, under-researched timeline segment below will be informative. All times will be for August 19th, 1989 unless otherwise noted.

I extracted the timeline items from information I have already provided you in Parts 1, 2 and 3. You should read those posts first if you have already done so.

Buckle up. Here we go.

1:01 AM -- Van passenger Anthony Lolas hears gunshots

1:09 AM -- Savannah PD receives 911 call from employee at Thunderbird Inn reporting shooting

1:16 AM -- Coles arrives at his sister's house, assuming it took him 15 minutes to run there.

1:17 AM -- Coles takes off his yellow shirt and puts on another he kept at his sister's house. Sits on front porch.

1:42 AM -- Davis arrives at Coles' sister's house, without a shirt. Coles gives him the yellow shirt to put on.

1:42 AM -- Coles leaves his sister's house as Davis is putting on the yellow shirt. Coles is heading back to the crime scene.

2:12 AM -- Coles arrives back at crime scene. This assumes he took twice as long to walk back there as it took him to run from there.

2:27 AM -- Harriet Murray gives statement to SPD.

3:10 AM -- Larry Young gives statement to SPD.

3:22 AM -- Antoine Williams gives statement to SPD.

5:15 AM -- Stephen Sanders (van occupant) gives statement to SPD.

5:20 AM -- Anthony Lolas (van occupant) gives statement to SPD. Said shooting took place at 1:01 AM.

5:49 AM -- Matthew Hughes (van occupant) gives statement to SPD.

5:57 AM -- Eric Riggins (van occupant) gives statement to SPD.

6:10 AM -- Steven Hawkins (van occupant) gives statement to SPD.

?:?? PM -- Steven Sylvester Coles visits an attorney sometime in the afternoon.

8:52 PM -- Sylvester Coles goes to SPD, with his attorney, and gives a voluntary statement. He says nothing about changing shirts at his sister's house.

Aug 24, 1989 -- 5 days after the shooting. Coles gives a second statement to the police. He says nothing about changing shirts at his sister's house.

Sep 1, 1989 -- 12 days after the shooting. Coles' sister gives the police a statement about the changing of shirts at her house soon after the shooting.

Sep 8, 1989 -- 19 days after the shooting. Coles testifies at the preliminary hearing about changing shirts at his sister's house.

Aug 10, 1991 -- Two years after the shooting. Both Coles and his sister testify at the trial about Coles' changing his shirt at her house.

This is another case of: "First to talk, walks. Last to lie, dies." Sylvester Coles was the first to talk in this case. He fingered Troy Davis. Coles walked and Davis is going to die.

I came up with the phrase "First to talk, walks. Last to lie, dies." after noting the pattern in case after case of accomplice testimony. The police willfully, eagerly choose to believe the first person who rats out the other or others. The police then get a serious case of tunnel vision. They inflate any evidence that might prove Accomplice #2 guilty. They ignore any evidence that shows Accomplice #1 is lying or might have himself committed the crime. They become far more interested in convicting someone, anyone than in convicting the guilty one.

It's easier that way. Imagine the difficulty they would have had in this case if both Davis and Coles denied shooting Officer MacPhail.

In the Troy Davis case, I consider almost all the evidence the SPD collected after 8:52 PM on the day of the shooting to be tainted. After that time, the witnesses' vision and memory somehow became better and better as time went on. Though such temporal improvements are rare elsewhere, they are unfortunately all too common in police work.

Let's now consider each of the statements regarding the magical changing of the shirts.

1. Valerie Coles Gordon's police statement on September 1, 1989: Ms. Gordon informed the police that, in the early morning of August 19, 1989, she was sitting on her front porch when she heard gunshots. A few minutes later, Mr. Coles ran onto the front porch and sat down in a chair. He then informed his sister that he was not sure what was going on, but that there had been a shooting and he thought someone was trying to kill him. Mr. Coles changed out of his yellow t-shirt and into a red, white, and blue stripped collared shirt that Ms. Gordon retrieved for him. She then observed a shirtless Davis standing next to the porch, talking to her brother.  Her brother gave Davis the yellow t-shirt he had previously been wearing, which Mr. Davis then put on. A few minutes later, she observed Davis take off the yellow t-shirt, lay it just inside her front door, and exit the property.

2. Sylvester Coles' testimony at the preliminary hearing: He ran from the scene to his sister's house. He been sitting on his sister's porch for 20 to 30 minutes when a shirtless Troy Davis approached and asked him for a shirt. He gave Davis the yellow t-shirt that he had been wearing earlier that night -- the only spare shirt he had on hand.

3. Sylvester Coles' trial testimony: He ran from the scene until he reached his sister's house. There he changed out of his yellow t-shirt. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes later, Davis appeared at the house. Davis was not wearing a shirt and asked for one to wear. He gave Davis the only other shirt he had at the house -- the yellow t-shirt he had been wearing earlier. He explained that he often kept clothes at his sister's house because he liked to change after playing basketball in that neighborhood.

4. Valerie Coles Gordon's trial testimony: She was sitting on her porch when she heard some gunshots. Approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, her brother ran onto the porch. He immediately slumped over, gasping for breath, causing her to think that he was hurt. Satisfied that he was uninjured, she went into the house and laid out three shirts for her brother to change into. She recalls her brother changing out of the yellow shirt he had been wearing into a blue, red, and white collared shirt. After changing shirts, her brother left the yellow shirt on the banister. A few minutes later, Davis came up to the porch, wearing dark shorts and no shirt. Her brother stepped outside to speak with Davis, eventually handing him the yellow shirt that Mr. Coles had previously been wearing. After handing the yellow shirt to Davis, her brother left. Davis put the shirt on, but quickly took it off and left it by her front door. She washed the shirt the next day, later giving it to the police.

Had I been a juror, claxons would have been blaring in my head when the first one of them testified about the shirt swap. It's a transparently bogus story. My thought would have been that they feared someone had seen Coles in a white shirt or Davis in a yellow shirt. Any such sighting would be evidence that Coles, not Davis, was the shooter. So they concocted the story about the shirt swap to create plausible deniability. "Sure, my brother wasn't wearing the yellow shirt after the shooting, because I gave him a fresh one."

When the second one of them testified about the shirt swap, I would have hit the ceiling. I would have known then, without doubt, that they were lying. Coles said at trial that he gave the yellow shirt to Davis because that was the only other shirt he had at the house. Well that was certainly unfortunate for Davis. Recall that Coles had just been running for 15 to 20 minutes all the way from the crime scene to his sister's house.

Then it would hit me as odd that Coles kept shirts at his sister's house so that he could change after playing basketball, but the only shirt that was at her house was a red, white, and blue collared shirt. Seems like a limited and odd collection. Perhaps, I might think, he had taken all the others home with him to wash them.

Nope, that wouldn't be it. His sister said she washed the shirts for him. Remember? She washed the yellow shirt the next day, before giving it to the police. One wouldn't any unsightly incriminating evidence left on the shirt. How embarassing!

The testimony that would have really done it for me, however, was when the sister said she laid out three shirts for her brother to change into. That's two more than her brother said were available. Why did Coles give Davis the sweaty, stinky t-shirt when he had just selected from a collection of three clean shirts his sister had laid out for him?

I would have been confident the accomplice was lying about the shirts, as was his sister. I would have been equally confident the prosecutor realized it too. Given that the State also wanted me to believe the snitch, and given that several witnesses had already explained how they got their identifications of Davis right only after several tries, I would have dismissed the prosecution team as untrustworthy. And that is a killer for them. If I don't trust them to be truthful with me, I won't accept that they ever prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would have voted Not Guilty. I am, after all, The Skeptical Juror.

I recognize, however, that I am a member of an exceptionally small community of like-minded individuals. Tomorrow, I'll explain why the actual jurors voted guilty, and why most of you would have as well.

Addendum:
Part 5 is now available

The Yellow and White Case of Troy Anthony Davis: Part 3

For those of you unfamiliar with how multi-part posts work, you're supposed to read them in order. If you haven't read Part 1 and Part 2, do so now. We'll leave bread crumbs so when you get back here you'll be able to follow along.

In this third post in my series of indeterminate length, I'm going to, as I promised you I would, provide you with the information you need to figure out who killed Officer Mark MacPhail. You won't have to wade through the 400,000 documents on line to find the critical information. You won't even have to read Judge Moore's 172 page decision. Heck, you don't even have to read Amnesty International's skimpy 39 page summary. Assuming you've read Part 1 and Part 2 of this august series, you will have everything you need to make your decision when you finish reading this post.

Let's get started. All the referenced material below comes from Judge Moore's decision. I have edited it somewhat to get rid of statements and testimony about the other shootings, the various guns that were floating around, the snitch testimony, and other distractions.

First, I'm going to give you Sylvester "Red" Coles' version of events.

Sylvestor Coles' Initial Statement

At 8:52 p.m. on August 19, 1989, Mr. Sylvester "Red" Coles gave a statement to the police concerning the MacPhail shooting. Mr. Coles was standing outside of Charlie Brown's pool room with Messrs. Troy Davis and Darrell Collins when he started arguing with someone passing through the parking lot. Mr. Coles continued to argue with the individual as he walked toward the Burger King restaurant, followed by Messrs. Davis and Collins. Mr. Coles stated that, when they were near the restaurant's drive-through window, Mr. Davis hit the individual in the head with a pistol. As the individual ran off shouting, a police officer came out of the Burger King restaurant and told Messrs. Coles and Davis to "hold it." Mr. Coles stood in the middle of the parking lot while Mr. Davis ran past him toward the Trust Company Bank building. After the officer, nightstick in hand, ran past Mr. Coles toward Mr. Davis, Mr. Coles heard a gunshot. Upon hearing the shot, Mr. Coles began running toward the Trust Company Bank building.  As he was fleeing, Mr. Coles turned around and saw the police officer falling to the ground. Mr. Coles ran past the pool room to his sister's house in Yamacraw Village.

Sylvester Coles' Preliminary Hearing

At the hearing, Mr. Coles testified that he was playing pool at Charlie Brown's pool room in the early hours of August 19, 1989, when he began arguing with a man coming out of the Time-Saver. The argument started because the man would not give Mr. Coles one of the beers he had just purchased. As the argument continued, Mr. Coles pursued the man as he walked toward the Burger King parking lot. Messrs. Davis and Collins followed the pair by cutting through the Trust Company Bank property. As Mr. Coles and the man he was arguing with neared the Burger King drive-through, the man stopped and the two began trading insults face-to-face. While they were arguing, Mr. Coles observed Mr. Davis take up a position just behind the man and to the man's right, with Mr. Collins remaining somewhere behind Mr. Davis. As the man was looking at Mr. Coles, Mr. Davis hit the man in the head with a small, snub-nose thirty-eight with a black or brown handle. ...

After being struck by Mr. Davis, the individual ran to the drive-through window, pleading for someone to call the police. Both Messrs. Coles and Davis had turned to start running -- Mr. Coles toward the Trust Company Bank building and Mr. Davis closer to Oglethorpe Avenue. Soon after they had started running, a police officer came around the Burger King and told them to "hold it." Upon hearing the officer, Mr. Coles turned and stopped. The officer ran past Mr. Coles' right side, continuing toward Mr. Davis. After the officer had passed him, Mr. Coles heard a single gunshot, which caused him to turn and resume running toward the Trust Company Bank building. As he was running, Mr. Coles heard two more gunshots. Mr. Coles stated that he was wearing a yellow t-shirt and blue shorts the night of the shooting, but could not remember what Mr. Davis was wearing. ...

Mr. Coles stated that he continued running to the Yamacraw neighborhood until he reached the home of his sister, Ms. Valerie Gordon. Mr. Coles had been sitting on his sister's porch for twenty to thirty minutes when a shirtless Mr. Davis approached and asked Mr. Coles for a shirt. Mr. Coles gave Mr. Davis the yellow t-shirt that he had been wearing earlier that night -- the only spare shirt Mr. Coles had on hand.

Sylvester Coles Trial Testimony

Mr. Coles testified at the trial that, in the early hours of August 19, 1989, he was outside of Charlie Brown's pool room when he asked a man passing by for a beer.  Mr. Coles began arguing with the individual when he was refused, following him along Oglethorpe Avenue toward the Burger King parking lot. Messrs. Davis and Collins were trailing the two, coming around the back of the Trust Company Bank building. The three young men converged on the individual with the beer in the Burger King parking lot, Mr. Coles in front of him, Mr. Davis behind the individual to his right, and Mr. Collins in the background. As the individual was looking at Mr. Coles, Mr. Davis hit the man on the side of the head with a black, short-barreled thirty-eight with a brown handle. He recalled seeing Mr. Davis with a gun in the waistline of his pants earlier when they were at the pool room. After the assault the group scattered: the man who was struck ran to the drive-through window, Coles ran toward the back of the Trust Company Bank building, and Mr. Davis ran along Oglethorpe Avenue toward the front of the Trust Company Bank property. As they started to run, a police officer appeared from behind the Burger King and ordered everyone to "hold it."  Mr. Coles stopped and turned, and the officer ran past him toward Oglethorpe Avenue. As the officer ran past him, Mr. Coles heard a single gunshot. After hearing the first gunshot, he turned and resumed running, at which point he heard two more gunshots.  Mr. Coles continued running until he reached his sister's house in the Yamacraw neighborhood.

When Mr. Coles arrived at his sister's house, he changed out of his yellow t-shirt. Approximately twenty to thirty minutes after Mr. Coles arrived, Mr. Davis appeared at the house. Mr. Davis was not wearing a shirt when he arrived and asked for one to wear. Mr. Coles gave Mr. Davis the only other shirt he had at the house -- the yellow t-shirt he had been wearing earlier. As Mr. Coles was leaving, Mr. Davis put on the yellow t-shirt. ... He explained that he often kept clothes at his sister's house because he liked to change after playing basketball in that neighborhood. Mr. Coles admitted that, after leaving his sister's house, he walked back by the Burger King parking lot, then returned to her house.

The afternoon after the shooting, Mr. Coles brother and uncle took him to an attorney, for whom Mr. Coles had occasionally worked. After listening to Mr. Coles, the attorney promptly took Mr. Coles to the police station to provide a voluntary statement.

Valerie Coles Gordon's Initial Statement

At 10:47 a.m. on September 1, 1989, the police obtained a statement from Ms. Valerie Gordon, Mr. Coles' sister. Ms. Gordon informed the police that, in the early morning of August 19, 1989, she was sitting on her front porch when she heard gunshots. A few minutes later, Mr. Coles ran onto the front porch and sat down in a chair. He then informed his sister that he was not sure what was going on, but that there had been a shooting and he thought someone was trying to kill him. Mr. Coles changed out of his yellow t-shirt and into a red, white, and blue stripped collared shirt that Ms. Gordon retrieved for him.

As Ms. Gordon returned to the front door, she observed a shirtless Mr. Davis standing next to the porch, talking to Mr. Coles.  Mr. Coles gave Mr. Davis the yellow t-shirt he had previously been wearing, which Mr. Davis then put on. Ms. Gordon informed the police that, after Mr. Davis put on the yellow t-shirt, Mr. Coles left the property and she went inside the house. A few minutes later, she observed Mr. Davis take off the yellow t-shirt, lay it just inside her front door, and exit the property.

Valerie Coles Gordon's Trial Testimony

Ms. Gordon testified at the trial that, in the early hours of August 19, 1989, she was sitting on the porch of her Yamacraw neighborhood home when she heard some gunshots. Approximately fifteen to twenty minutes later, Ms. Gordon's brother, Mr. Coles, ran onto the porch. Mr. Coles immediately slumped over, gasping for breath, causing Ms. Gordon to think that he was hurt. Satisfied that he was uninjured, Ms. Gordon went into the house and laid out three shirts for Mr. Coles to change into. Ms. Gordon recalls Mr. Coles changing out of the yellow shirt he had been wearing into a blue, red, and white collared shirt. After changing shirts, Mr. Coles left the yellow shirt on the banister.

A few minutes later, Mr. Davis came up to the porch, wearing dark shorts and no shirt. Mr. Coles stepped outside to speak with Mr. Davis, eventually handing him the yellow shirt that Mr. Coles had previously been wearing. After handing the yellow shirt to Mr. Davis, Mr. Coles left. According to Ms. Gordon, Mr. Davis put the shirt on, but quickly took it off and left it by her front door. She washed the shirt the next day, later giving it to the police.

Troy Anthony Davis' Trial Testimony

At trial, Mr. Davis took the stand in his own defense. ... Mr. Davis never stated what color shirt he was wearing ... Mr. Davis was waiting to play a game of pool when Mr. Collins told him that Mr. Coles was outside arguing with someone. After going outside, Mr. Davis decided to follow the arguing pair. As he neared Mr. Coles, Mr. Davis figured out that Mr. Coles wanted the man to give him some of his beer. Mr. Davis told Mr. Coles to just leave the man alone, but Mr. Coles told him to "shut the hell up." Joined by Mr. Collins, Mr. Davis continued following Mr. Coles to see what would happen.

Mr. Davis, along with Mr. Collins, cut through the back of the Trust Company Bank property on their way to the Burger King parking lot. As Mr. Coles was about to cross Fahm Street toward the Burger King parking lot, Mr. Davis overheard Mr. Coles threaten to take the life of the man with whom Mr. Coles was arguing. Mr. Davis caught up with Mr. Coles and the individual in the middle of the Burger King parking lot. According to Mr. Davis, he again pleaded with Mr. Coles to leave the man alone, but was told to shut up.

Mr. Davis testified that the individual turned to Mr. Davis and told him to tell Mr. Coles to back off. While the individual was focused on Mr. Davis, Mr. Coles slapped him in the head. Mr. Davis stated that, after Mr. Coles slapped the individual, Mr. Davis shook his head and started walking away. As he was walking, Mr. Davis observed Mr. Collins running, prompting Mr. Davis to start jogging away from the Burger King. Looking over his shoulder, Mr. Davis saw a police officer entering the Burger King parking lot.

When Mr. Davis was crossing back over Fahm Street, toward the Trust Company Bank property, he heard a single gunshot, which caused him to run even faster. Mr. Davis was running past Charlie Brown's when he heard a few more gunshots. As Mr. Davis was entering the Yamacraw neighborhood, Mr. Coles ran past him. Thinking Mr. Coles had been shot, Mr. Davis asked him if he was alright, but Mr. Coles continued running and did not respond. ...

Mr. Davis testified that, at the time of the shooting, he weighed approximately one-hundred and seventy-five pounds. He denied ever having a fade-away haircut. Comparing himself to Mr. Coles, Mr. Davis stated that he was the same height, a little bigger, and had a darker complexion. ...

... Mr. Davis stated that he approached the Burger King parking lot from behind the Trust Company Bank building because he thought it was faster, not because he wanted to approach the man Mr. Coles was arguing with without being seen.

Also, Mr. Davis reiterated that it was Mr. Coles who slapped Mr. Young. He denied shooting the police officer, [or] seeing Mr. Coles at his sister's house later that evening ...

There you go. That's all you need.

Now you can decide how you would have voted had you been a skeptical juror in this case. It's not good enough to decide how you would have voted. You need to justify your decision.

You have until tomorrow. Then I'll post my answer and we can compare notes.

Addendum:
Part 4 be here.

The Yellow and White Case of Troy Anthony Davis: Part 2

You must read Part 1 before you read this post. It's a rule. The rest of us will wait here patiently.

About time! We've been waiting like forever.

In this post, I'm going to present the eyewitness testimony of the people who had a good look at the shooter. All of these eye-witnesses gave statements immediately after the shooting. None of them had any bias for or against Troy Davis or Sylvester Coles. None of them, for that matter, could identify either person as being at the scene that night, at least initially. They all tell a consistent story. Part of that consistent story is that the shooter wore a white shirt.

Are you ready for some signed statements?

The Homeless Beer Purchaser

We begin our examination of the early, uncorrupted eye-witness evidence by considering the initial statement of Larry Young. As you recall, Larry Young was the homeless gentleman who was harassed over a beer by the man in the yellow shirt. I first provide the summary of his statement from Judge Moore's 2010 decision.

At 3:10 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police obtained a statement from Mr. Young concerning the MacPhail shooting. Mr. Young informed the police that, during the early hours of August 19, 1989, he was sitting in the Burger King parking lot drinking beer with his girlfriend, Ms. Murray. When the couple drank their last beer, Mr. Young went to the Time-Saver convenience store to get more beer.  As Mr. Young was returning, an African-American male wearing a yellow t-shirt began asking him for one of the beers that Mr. Young just purchased. When Mr. Young informed the individual that he could not have a beer, the individual began using foul language toward Mr. Young.

As Mr. Young continued walking back toward the Burger King, the individual in the yellow t-shirt followed him, continuing the verbal altercation. As he approached the Burger King parking lot, Mr. Young noticed a second African-American male slipping through the fence separating the convenience store parking lot from the Trust Company Bank property. Soon, Mr. Young realized that he was being followed by a third individual. [I ignored the third individual in my crime scenes, since he did not participate in the assault or the shooting.]

As Mr. Young entered the Burger King parking lot, he observed Ms. Murray and two gentlemen sitting with her quickly get up and flee the area. Mr. Young now realized that he was cornered and resumed arguing with the individual in the yellow t-shirt. As Mr. Young was focused on the individual in the yellow t-shirt, he was hit in the head by a second person. A stunned and fearful Mr. Young ran toward the Burger King drive-through window, seeking help. When he was at the window, Mr. Young heard one gunshot, which caused him to duck for cover behind a van waiting at the window. Eventually, he ran to the building's front entrance and entered the building.

Mr. Young informed the police that the individual in the yellow t-shirt was around twenty to twenty-one years old, five feet nine inches tall, and one hundred and fifty-eight pounds. The individual had short hair, no facial hair, and lighter brown skin. When describing his clothes, Mr. Young stated that the yellow t-shirt was a tank-top and that the individual was wearing "lam" pants. Mr. Young stated that he definitely recognized the individual in the yellow t-shirt.

Mr. Young described the individual who assaulted him as about twenty-two to twenty-three years old, five feet eleven inches tall, and one hundred and seventy-two pounds. Mr. Young could not remember the individual's facial features or skin color, but believed that he might be able to recognize him if he saw him again He did state that the individual was wearing a white hat and a white t-shirt with "some kind of print on it."

Mr. Young could not remember anything about the third individual because that person was only in the background and was not directly involved in the altercation.

On August 19, 1989, the police showed Mr. Young a photo array of individuals and asked him if he recognized anyone who was involved in his assault. Mr. Young incorrectly identified the individual he was arguing with, but stated that he was not sure. A few days later, however, Mr. Young realized his error when he saw Mr. Coles in person at the police station. After seeing Mr. Coles, Mr. Young identified him as the man he was arguing with.

I distrust Young's identification of Sylvester Coles as the man in the yellow shirt, since that ID was given only after the police decided who would be the winner and who would be the loser in the death-by-needle lottery.

Here's what Amnesty International has to say about Larry Young's testimony.

Larry Young was the homeless man who was accosted and then struck in the face, and whose shouts drew the attention of Officer McPhail. At the trial, he implicated Troy Davis as the man who had assaulted him, but only identifying him by his clothing. His affidavit, signed in 2002, offers further evidence of a coercive police investigation into the murder of their fellow officer, and states that he "couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing".

"After I was assaulted that night, I went into the bathroom at the bus station and tried to wash the blood off my face. I had a big gash on my face and there was blood everywhere. I was in a lot of pain. When I left the bathroom, some police officers grabbed me and threw me down on the hood of the police car and handcuffed me. They treated me like a criminal, like I was the one who killed the officer.

Even though I was homeless at that time and drinking and drugging, I didn’t have nothing to do with killing the officer. I told the officers that, but they just locked me in the back of the police car for the next hour or so. I kept yelling that I needed to be treated but they didn’t pay me no mind. They then took me to the police station and interrogated me for three hours. I kept asking them to treat my head, but they wouldn’t.

They kept asking me what had happened at the bus station, and I kept telling them that I didn’t know. Everything happened so fast down there. I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them.

I never have been able to make sense of what happened that night. It’s as much a blur now as it was then."

I believe that Larry Young was in fact treated roughly by frenzied police, but I'm not compelled by his later claims that he only said what the police wanted him to say. When he gave his initial statement, the police did not have the name of either Troy Davis or Sylvester Coles. They had no story to insist upon.

The Homeless Girlfriend

Recall that Harriet Murray was Larry Young's girlfriend. She waited at the Burger King parking lot as Larry went to get some more beer. She saw the crime unfold and play out, from beginning to end. Here's what Judge Moore had to say about her initial statement.

At 2:27 a.m. on August 19, 1989, Ms. Harriet Murray provided the police with a statement concerning the MacPhail shooting. In the early hours of August 19, 1989, Ms. Murray was sitting in front of the Burger King restaurant with Mr. Larry Young. Mr. Young went to the nearby convenience store to purchase cigarettes and beer. While Mr. Young was returning from the store to the Burger King parking lot, Ms. Murray noticed that he was arguing with another individual, who was following him. Ms. Murray also noticed two other individuals, approaching from the direction of the Trust Company Bank building, who were following Mr. Young.

Walking away from the individuals, Mr. Young repeatedly told the group that he was not going to fight them. Ms. Murray heard one individual tell Mr. Young not to walk away and threaten to shoot him. The individual then started digging down his shirt. As the three individuals converged on Mr. Young, one produced a gun. Unaware of the weapon, Mr. Young continued to walk away from the trio. As Mr. Young approached a van parked at the Burger King drive-through window, the armed individual struck Mr. Young in the head with what Ms. Murray believed was the butt of the weapon. Mr. Young then fled toward the drive-through window, and began beating on the van and the window, asking for someone to call the police.

Next, Ms. Murray observed a police officer approaching the three individuals, who were now fleeing, telling them to 'hold it." As the officer closed to within five feet, the individual with the firearm turned and aimed the weapon at the officer. The weapon did not discharge when the individual first pulled the trigger. As the officer reached for his gun, the individual shot him in the face.

Wounded, the officer fell to the ground, at which point the gunman fired two or three additional rounds at the officer and then continued running. Ms. Murray then found Mr. Young and assisted him in tending to his head wound. Ms. Murray described the gunman as having medium-colored skin with a narrow face, high cheekbones, and a fade-away haircut. She estimated him to be between twenty-four to thirty years old, four inches taller than the officer, and approximately one hundred and thirty pounds. Ms. Murray recalls the gunman as wearing a white shirt and dark colored pants.

Ms. Murray was shown a photo array the night of the shooting, but could not identify the gunman. Several days later, the police showed her a second photo array, from which she identified Mr. Davis as the man who hit Mr. Young and shot the officer.

And here's what Amnesty International had to say about Harriet Murray.

A third witness who has contradicted her trial testimony is Harriet Murray. Murray, who was also homeless at the time, was with her friend Larry Young on the night of the crime. Her various statements given to the police, at the preliminary hearing, at the trial, and in an affidavit signed on 14 October 2002 are inconsistent. According to Troy Davis’s federal appeals, Harriet Murray’s police statement and her testimony at the preliminary hearing appear to implicate Sylvester Coles. At the subsequent trial she identified Troy Davis as the gunman, but was not asked and did not say whether the man who followed Larry Young, harassed him and attacked him was the same person who shot the police officer. In her 2002 affidavit, she did not identify Troy Davis as the shooter. This was consistent with a statement she gave to police after the crime, in which she simply stated that she had witnessed "a black man" accost Larry Young and hit him on side of the face with his gun. She said she saw the same man subsequently shoot the police officer. She said that she had also seen "two other black men" nearby but they were "not right up with Larry and the other man".

Once again, I intend to rely on the statement Harriet Murray gave the police soon after the shooting. Once again, I reject any photo identification made only after the police decided they wanted Davis to die for the murder of their fellow officer.

The Burger King Employee

Antoine Williams had just arrived for work at Burger King. He saw it all go down, albiet through heavily tinted windows. First from Judge Moore's summary.

At 3:22 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police took a statement from Mr. Antoine Williams concerning the MacPhail shooting. At about 1:00 a.m. that morning, Mr. Williams was pulling into the Burger King parking lot to begin his shift at the restaurant. As he was parking, he noticed three men following one individual, who was walking across Fahm Street toward the Burger King parking lot. As they drew closer, Mr. Williams could tell that two of the individuals were arguing. He overheard the individual being followed say that he did not want to fight anyone and that the three others should go back to where they were. As the group came between his car and the drive-through window, one of the individuals ran up and slapped the man being followed in the head with a gun.

When Mr. Williams looked the other way, he saw a police officer coming from behind a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window. The officer was running towards the individual with the firearm. The two unarmed individuals were already running away, and the individual with the gun was trying to stick it back in his pants. According to Mr. Williams, the assailant appeared to panic as the officer was approaching and he was unable to conceal the gun. When the officer closed to within approximately fifteen feet, the assailant turned and shot the officer. After falling to the ground, it appeared that the officer was trying to regain his footing when the gunman shot him three more times. After firing the fourth shot, the gunman fled from the scene.

Mr. Williams described the gunman as approximately twenty to twenty-three years old, six feet two inches to six feet four inches tall, and one hundred and eighty pounds. Mr. Williams believed that the gunman was wearing a blue or white t-shirt, and dark jeans. He explained that the dark shade of tint on his car's windows may have affected his ability to distinguish the exact color of the gunman's t-shirt.  Mr. Williams then described the gun used in the shooting as a rusty, brownish colored revolver.  Mr. Williams did state that he believed he could identify the gunman if he saw him again. When asked to describe the other three individuals, Mr. Williams could not provide any details because he was focused on the gunman.

Now from Amnesty International's report.

Antoine Williams, an employee of Burger King, had just driven into the restaurant’s car park at the time the shooting occurred. At the trial, he identified Troy Davis as the person who had shot Officer McPhail. In 2002 he stated that this was false, and that he had signed a statement for the police which he could not and did not read.

"I couldn’t really tell what was going on because I had the darkest shades of tint you could possibly have on my windows of my car. As soon as I heard the shot and saw the officer go down, I ducked down under the dash of my car. I was scared for my life and I didn’t want to get shot myself… Later that night, some cops asked me what had happened. I told them what is written here [in the affidavit]. They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did not read it because I cannot read. At Troy Davis’ trial, I identified him as the person who shot the officer. Even when I said that, I was totally unsure whether he was the person who shot the officer. I felt pressured to point at him because he was the one who was sitting in the courtroom. I have no idea what the person who shot the officer looks like."

The Van Full of People

After Larry Young was pistol-whipped, he stumbled against a van making its way through the Burger King drive-through. That van was full of witnesses. I'll give just Judge Moore's summary for some of them below.

At 5:20 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police took a statement concerning the MacPhail shooting from United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Lolas.  Lt. Col. Lolas informed the police that at approximately 1:01 a.m. he was lying down in the back seat of a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window when a man started banging on the vehicle, asking for the police. As he was rising from the seat, Lt. Col. Lolas heard one gunshot, quickly followed by two additional shots. Turning toward the direction of the gunshots, Lt. Cal. Lolas saw someone in a striped jumpsuit running toward the front of the Burger King.

Then, Lt. Col. Lolas focused on an individual in a white t-shirt, whose arm was surrounded by smoke. After firing the shots, the gunman fled to the northwest. Lt. Col. Lolas stated that he had no doubt that the individual in the white t-shirt was the shooter. Lt. Col. Lolas never saw the shooter's face, but described him as an African-American male, approximately six feet tall, and around one hundred and seventy pounds. The shooter was wearing a white t-shirt with very dark pants.

At 5:49 a.m. on August 19, 1989, Mr. Matthew Hughes provided the police with a statement concerning the MacPhail shooting. Mr. Hughes was seated directly behind the driver's seat in a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through when an individual came up to the driver's side window. Mr. Hughes could not hear what the man was saying, but noticed a severe cut over his right eye. Next, Mr. Hughes heard a pop from the direction of the parking lot.  He did not think much of it until the other passengers told him there was something going on in the parking lot. As Mr. Hughes turned to look, he heard two more popping sounds. Once he was facing the direction of the sounds, he saw an African-American male in a light colored t-shirt standing over the body of a white individual. After the shooting, the African-American male ran toward the Trust Company Bank building.

Mr. Hughes described the individual in the light colored t-shirt as an African-American male with a slender to medium build, approximately five feet seven inches to five feet nine inches tall. The individual wore dark shorts, a light colored baseball cap, and a light colored t-shirt, with either short or no sleeves. Mr. Hughes also saw a second individual running toward the Trust Company Bank building, who was much closer to that building than the man in the light colored t-shirt. This individual was skinny, dressed in all dark clothes, and appeared to be carrying a gym bag.

At 5:57 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police obtained a statement from Mr. Eric Riggins concerning the MacPhail shooting. Mr. Riggins was seated in the second row, behind the driver's seat, in a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window when an individual came to the driver's side window calling for someone to phone the police. After a few seconds passed, Mr. Riggins heard a single gunshot. Turning toward the direction of the gunshot, Mr. Riggins observed a man falling to the ground. An individual, standing five feet from the man on the ground, raised his hand and fired two more shots.  Mr. Riggins recalls that the gunman never completely stopped running to fire the shots and fled towards the Trust Company Bank building.

Mr. Riggins described the shooter as a slim, African-American male, approximately five feet ten inches tall and one hundred and sixty pounds. The gunman was wearing a light colored shirt, dark shorts, and a baseball cap, the color of which Mr. Riggins could not recall. Beyond the shooter, Mr. Riggins saw a second, taller male running towards the Trust Company Bank building.

At 6:10 a.m. on August 19, 1989, Mr. Steven Hawkins provided the police with a statement concerning the MacPhail shooting.  Mr. Hawkins was seated in the middle of the third row of a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window when an individual came up to the driver's side window asking for someone to call the police. Soon thereafter, Mr. Hawkins heard three popping sounds from the parking lot. Turning to look in the direction of the noise, Mr. Hawkins saw an African-American teenager, who was skinny, approximately six feet tall, and was wearing a white shirt with black shorts or pants, running across the parking lot.

At 5:15 a.m. on August 19, 1989, the police obtained a statement from Mr. Stephen Sanders concerning the MacPhail shooting. Mr. Sanders was seated in a van waiting at the Burger King drive-through window when he observed one African-American male strike another African-American male in the parking lot. The man who had been hit ran to the van, asking for someone to call the police while banging on the hood of the vehicle. It was at this time that Mr. Sanders heard a gunshot. Turning toward the noise, Mr. Sanders observed an African-American male wearing a white shirt and black shorts standing in front of an individual who was falling forward. The male in the white shirt shot at the individual two more times and then start running, with a second individual in a black outfit, toward the Trust Company Bank building. Mr. Sanders informed the police that he would not be able to recognize the two fleeing men, except by their clothing.

To Be Continued

Tomorrow, in Part 3 of X, I'll give you all the info you will need to figure out who the real killer is.

The Yellow and White Case of Troy Anthony Davis: Part 1

Troy Anthony Davis has been on Georgia's death row since 1991. After an extraordinary appellate battle, he sits there now awaiting execution by the people of Georgia on 21 September 2011.

Davis has always maintained his innocence and has long garnered worldwide attention. He has achieved a celebrity status few people would envy. At the heart of his defense is that seven of the ten witnesses responsible for identifying him as the man who killed Officer Mark MacPhail have recanted or contradicted their trial testimony.

This case is, quite bluntly, a mess. When I search for "Troy Anthony Davis" in Google (including the quotes), I get 400,000 hits. When I include the word innocent in my search, I get 169,000 hits. I haven't had time to go through them all.

I have, however, read enough to realize that this case is, quite bluntly, a mess. It has one dead cop, and a lot of live cops eager to get the killer. It has more eyewitnesses, most of them crappy, than you can shake a stick at. It has alleged confessions galore, both by Davis and the man Davis claims is the real killer. It has charges of police coercion and intimidation. These charges can't be proven or disproven because the police didn't record a single interview, as best I can tell. The case has two other shootings in the same area on the same night. The case has a plethora of guns changing hands, moving around and disappearing. The case has more appellate decisions than any other case I am aware of.

The case even has the requisite snitch.

What the case doesn't have is any physical evidence that can put it to rest. This case hinged on (and will always hinge on) eye-witness testimony. The eye-witnesses are a motley collection of people with motive to lie, people with vision problems, people who claim they were intimidated, and people who obviously perjured themselves.

My mission, should I choose to accept it, is two-fold. First, I must present this case in a unique, understandable fashion. (That's redundant. If my presentation is understandable, it will be unique.) Second, I must assess whether Troy Anthony Davis might be factually innocent of the crime for which he is now likely to die.

To fulfill the task before me, I will strip the case to its bones. I will ignore the recantations. I will ignore the testimony from the trial and from the preliminary hearing. I will ignore all statements made (or coerced) after Sylvester "Red" Coles walked into the police station and launched a frenzied manhunt / investigation by telling them that he saw Troy Anthony Davis shoot and kill Officer MacPhail.

I will ignore any eye-witness identification not made on the first opportunity. (That's pretty much all of them.)

I will ignore the other shootings that night, though a casing found at the MacPhail shooting matched casings found at one of the other shootings.

I will ignore all alleged confessions.

I will ignore the statements of people who may have a bias for or against Troy Davis, who may have a bias for or against Sylvester Coles.

I will ignore the snitch.

I will make a few exceptions. I will consider the statements and testimony of Troy Anthony Davis and Sylvester "Red" Coles. One of those two people killed officer MacPhail. I will also consider the statements and testimony of Sylvester's sister. She will be the key to figuring out who the murderer most likely is.

By doing this, I will simplify the case enormously. More importantly, I will be able to consider the evidence the police had to work with when they decided to pin the rap on Davis. We'll see if they got it right.

Sources
I rely primarily on two documents. For the State's case, I rely on the 172 page, August 2010 decision prepared by Judge William T. Moore, Jr. of the United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia, here and here. Judge Moore was instructed by the U.S. Supreme Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider all of Davis' claims of innocence and decide for the people of the United States whether Troy Anthony Davis has established his innocence. Judge Moore concluded his thorough and thoughtful opinion with the following:

Before the Court is Petitioner Troy Anthony Davis's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, this Court has held a hearing and now determines this petition. For the above stated reasons, this Court concludes that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989.

In a footnote, Judge Moore made clear that he did not think it was a difficult decision or a close call.

The Court further notes that whether it adopted the lower burden proposed by Mr. Davis, or even the lowest imaginable burden from Schlup, Mr. Davis's showing would have satisfied neither.

For the defendant's case, I rely on a 39 page summary prepared by Amnesty International in February 2007. From their introduction, I offer:

Troy Anthony Davis has been on death row in Georgia for more than 15 years for the murder of a police officer he maintains he did not commit. Given that all but three of the witnesses who testified against Troy Davis at his trial have since recanted or contradicted their testimony amidst allegations that some of it had been made under police duress, there are serious and as yet unanswered questions surrounding the reliability of his conviction and the state’s conduct in obtaining it. As the case currently stands, the government’s pursuit of the death penalty contravenes international safeguards which prohibit the execution of anyone whose guilt is not based on "clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts".

Amnesty International does not know if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent of the crime for which he is facing execution. As an abolitionist organization, it opposes his death sentence either way. It nevertheless believes that this is one in a long line of cases in the USA that should give even ardent supporters of the death penalty pause for thought.

Crime Scene
The shooting took place on August 19, 1989 in Savannah, Georgia near the intersection of Oglethorpe and Fahm.  Courtesy of Bill Gates and the fine folks at Bing, I present a bird's eye view of the area below.  The annotations are mine. Click on the image to embiggen.

For the anal retentive cartologists out there, north is to the left.

The shooting took place in the Burger King parking lot. The Burger King was in the same building as the bus station. The Burger King had a drive-through window.

Two homeless people, boyfriend / girlfriend, were drinking beer in the Burger King parking lot. I'm not sure exactly where in the parking lot, but it seems as if they were sitting near the front corner of the building near Oglethorpe. They ran out of beer, so the homeless gentleman walked down to the convenience store to buy some more. The trouble began when he left the convenience store and tried to walk back to the Burger King with his beer.

How it Went Down: Scene 1
In the following scenes, I have zoomed in on the crime scene area somewhat, and introduced the key players as colored circles. The red circle is the homeless gentleman. His name is Larry Young. I've colored him red because he will soon be bleeding.

The yellow circle is either Troy Davis or Sylvester Coles. He is colored yellow because he wore a yellow shirt.

The white circle is either Troy Davis or Sylvester Coles. He is colored white because he wore a white shirt.

Once we figure out who was wearing the white shirt, we will know who murdered Officer MacPhail. Though this case seems to consist of nothing but confusion, most everyone who saw the crime agrees that the person in the white shirt shot and killed Officer MacPhail.

Troy Davis and Sylvester Coles were similar in height and weight. Davis had slightly darker skin than did Coles. At night, under stressful conditions, when things were happening quickly, it would be difficult to distinguish between the two of them by their physical attributes. They were distinguished instead by their clothing. One, the killer, wore a white T-shirt with a Batman logo. The other wore a more brightly colored shirt, probably yellow.

In Scene 1, Larry Young is returning to Burger King with his newly purchased beers. Yellow Shirt is close behind. Yellow Shirt asked for one of the beers, but Young declined. Now Yellow Shirt is tailing Young, harassing him, intimidating him.

White Shirt is with Yellow Shirt. He is walking parallel to the other two, cutting through the bank parking lot.

How it Went Down: Scene 2
As Larry Young arrives in the Burger King parking lot, Yellow Shirt is close behind, almost along side, still baggin' on him, now threatening to shoot him.  White Shirt has fallen in behind Young, to his right. He is saying nothing.

Somewhere still out of sight is Savannah Police Officer Mark MacPhail. He is behind the bus depot, unaware that he has but a minute to live. Though he is off duty and working a second job as a security officer, he is in full police uniform. I have therefore colored him blue.

How it Went Down: Scene 3
Suddenly, White Shirt strikes Larry Young from behind, above the right eye, possibly with a gun.  Larry Young screams out for help, and runs for shelter at the drive through window. A van is there, filled with Air Force types.

Officer MacPhail hears the screams and rushes to help, baton in hand, pistol in holster. Yellow Shirt runs away. White Shirt stands his ground.

How it Went Down: Scene 4
Larry Young makes his way to the front of the Burger King. White Shirt shoots Officer MacPhail in the face. Officer MacPhail goes down.

White Shirt steps over to Officer MacPhail and shoots him twice more. White Shirt runs away down Oglethorpe Avenue.

To Be Continued
Tomorrow, in Part 2 of X parts, we'll hear from the witnesses themselves.