Michael Ledford's Petition for Absolute Pardon: Chapter 1

DRAFT 

(Current as of 8 Aug 12)

1. THE APARTMENT

Michael, Elise, and one-year-old Zachary Ledford lived in Apartment 17A of the Highland Hills Apartments complex in Stuarts Draft, Virginia. An overhead view of the complex is presented below. Building 17 is circled in red. North is towards the top of the image, as per convention.

As shown in the photo below, the Ledford apartment was located on the first floor, to the left as you enter Building 17. The orientation of the building will prove to be of some significance. North is to the right in the image below; south is to the left. West is into the image, and east is behind the reader. The front of the building is the east side.

Though the fire did not spread beyond the apartment living room, there was no need to actually enter the apartment to realize it had burned. The smoke streaks around the door testify to a serious fire within.

Similar streaks around an electrical outlet in the living room testify to a fire within the outlet, behind the faceplate.

Similar streaks beneath the circuit breaker panel in the master bedroom testify to a fire within the panel. When the panel door is opened, the heavy smoke deposition within is obvious.

Furthermore, two side-by-side images of the circuit breaker box, shown below, provide irrefutable evidence that either or both of the insurance investigators substantially altered and/or removed a circuit breaker.

1.1 The Floor Plan

The locations of the wall outlet and the circuit breaker panel are shown in the floor plan below.

The area around the entry door (at the upper right corner of the floor plan) is critical to this story. That area was captured in a photograph taken shortly before the fire, while the Ledford family and friends were celebrating Zachary's first birthday. 

<< PHOTO NOT SHOWN>>

That is Zachary in the photograph. He is sitting on the lap of a family friend.

The upholstered chair and ottoman are obvious in the photograph. The quilt rack is visible behind the chair. The rack is covered with quilts and Afghans. The quilt rack and the chair would, soon after this picture was taken, provide the primary fuel load for the fire.

The end table, which is integral to the couch, is visible at the left. On top of the end table is a lamp. That lamp may have provided the ignition source for the fire.

The lamp is plugged into an electrical outlet located behind the couch, beyond the left edge of the photograph. The wall switch visible near the entry door controls the outlet. You have already seen the electrical outlet in a photograph presented earlier in this petition. You have seen that smoke was being ejected from behind its faceplate.

One of the guests at the birthday party, the daughter of the woman sitting in the chair, experienced trouble while attempting to turn on the lamp. She had to try repeatedly, using both the lamp and the wall switches, before she was successful. The woman in the chair witnessed the trouble.

When Michael Ledford left the apartment that night, shortly before the fire broke out, he flipped the wall switch to the ON position.

The Case of Preston Hughes III: The Searchers Part 5 and Last

This post will be quick, at least by my standards. I want to end this mini series within a series and I want to get on to the next post, which I consider pretty cool. So times a wasting. No need to buckle up. We'll live dangerously.

In addition the other items already discussed, the police recovered a maroon pullover shirt and a plastic bag containing (ahem) a green leafy substance. Here's the pic. Click to enlarge.

The most disturbing news here is that Preston smokes, or at least he did back then.

I understand that the green leafy substance (henceforth GLF) belonged to Preston. I am attempting to confirm that, but our interaction is necessarily slow and awkward. I am also attempting also to learn from whom and from whence such GLF was obtained.

Regarding the plastic bag, they did not (as far as can be determined from the police reports) attempt to lift fingerprints from it. Officer Hale did not even try by himself to lift them, as he personally tired to lift prints from the beer can. Neither the plastic bag nor the beer can were sent to the lab for printing. Only the glasses were sent to the lab for printing.

The maroon pullover shirt constitutes the third shirt that the police took from Preston's apartment. The two others were almost identical blue work shirts. That simple fact adds to the weight of evidence that no blood was visible on the shirts. It's unlikely Preston wore two work shirts plus a the pullover maroon shirt when he allegedly stabbed Shandra and Marcell. It's very likely he would have ended up with lots of blood on one of the shirts, possibly two, but no way three.

If blood was visible on any one, or even two, of the shirts, the police could have taken that one shirt or those two shirts. One might argue the police were just being thorough, but they were not. They didn't take any of the shirts from Preston's closet.

They tested all three shirts with a Luminol like substance to identify possible areas where they might find blood. They did that because they could not see any blood. They could not see any blood, I suggest, because none existed.

The End

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

The Re-Impending Execution of Daniel Cook

Daniel Wayne Cook now sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Arizona. He is scheduled to be executed tomorrow, 8 August 2012. I suspect he will not survive the day.

Cook did survive his previous execution date, more than a year ago. That impending execution prompted me to write about him then. I simply repeat my previous post below, in its entirety. It seems as if I was in a bitter mood when I wrote it.

---

This post almost writes itself. The pattern is now too common.

A murderer is on the verge of execution. The murders are particularly grusome. (It seems as if the murders are always particularly grusome.) There is no chance the person sitting on death row did not at least participate in the crime that led to the murders. There is some dispute, however, over who did the actual killing or killings. The prosecutor rewards the first person to rat out the other with life, early out, or even freedom. The prosecutor charges the other with capital murder. Death penalty proponents compete among themselves with insightful commentary such as "good riddance" and "rot in hell." Death penalty opponents point to an abusive and disasterous childhood. I simply excerpt an appellate decision, stand mute rather than take a position, and the world goes on without a bother.

Daniel Wayne Cook (see Too Many Waynes) is scheduled to be executed by the people of Arizona on 5 April 2011 for the murders of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. There is no viable evidence that Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture of the victims. The mutilated bodies were found in his closet, for Pete's sake, while he was still in the room.

From the appellate decision in State v. Cook I offer the lurid details.

Shortly after 4:00 a.m. on July 21, 1987, John Matzke and Byron Watkins arrived at the Lake Havasu City Police Department, where Matzke reported his involvement in two murders committed at his apartment during the evening of July 19 and early morning of July 20. Matzke told officers about the crimes and granted the police consent to enter the apartment. Investigating officers went to the apartment that Matzke shared with Cook. After arresting Cook, officers searched the apartment and discovered the bodies of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. Autopsies revealed that both victims had been strangled.

Cook and Matzke were each indicted on two counts of first degree murder. In return for the state's dismissal of all other charges, Matzke agreed to plead guilty to one count of second degree murder and to testify against Cook. Cook was not offered a plea agreement. At trial Matzke related the following sordid story of bondage, torture, and sodomy, in which Cook was the principal protagonist. 

Carlos Cruz Ramos was a Guatemalan national employed at the same restaurant where Cook and Matzke worked. He had recently moved into their apartment. According to Matzke, Cook devised a plan to steal Cruz Ramos' money. While Matzke distracted Cruz Ramos, Cook stole  approximately $90 from Cruz Ramos' money pouch. Shortly afterward, Cruz Ramos noticed his money was missing, and asked Cook and Matzke whether they knew anything about it. The two then lured Cruz Ramos into Cook's upstairs bedroom. They pushed Cruz Ramos down on the bed and, using strips torn from Cook's sheets, gagged him and tied him to a chair. 

Over the course of the next six or seven hours, Cruz Ramos was cut with a knife, beaten with fists, a metal pipe and a wooden stick, burned with cigarettes, sodomized, and had a staple driven through his foreskin. Matzke suggested that they kill Cruz Ramos because they could not let him go. Cook replied that Cruz Ramos should be killed at midnight, "the witching hour." When midnight arrived, Matzke first tried to strangle Cruz Ramos with a sheet. Matzke then took Cruz Ramos out of the chair, put him on the floor, and pushed down on his throat with a metal pipe. According to Matzke, because Cruz Ramos still would not die, Cook pressed down on one end of the pipe while Matzke pressed on the other. Finally, Matzke stood on the pipe as it lay across Cruz Ramos' throat and killed him. 

Matzke and Cook later dressed Cruz Ramos and put him in the closet of Matzke's bedroom. The autopsy revealed that Cruz Ramos had suffered severe lacerations and contusions as a result of his beating, that he had been cut on the chest, and that his stomach and genitals had been burned. The autopsy also revealed that Cruz Ramos had two puncture holes in his foreskin and that his anus was dilated, although no semen was detected. 

Kevin Swaney was a sixteen-year-old runaway and sometime guest at the apartment. He was a dishwasher at the restaurant where the others worked. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., approximately two hours after Cruz Ramos' death, Swaney stopped by the apartment. Cook initially told Swaney to leave, but subsequently invited him inside. Cook and Matzke told Swaney they had a dead body upstairs and, according to Matzke, Cook took Swaney upstairs and showed him Cruz Ramos' body. Swaney was crying when he and Cook returned downstairs. Cook reportedly told Swaney to undress, and Swaney complied, and Cook and Matzke then gagged him and tied him to a chair in the kitchen. Matzke said he told Cook that he would not witness or participate in Swaney's torture. Matzke then went into the living room and fell asleep in a chair. 

Cook later woke Matzke, who said he saw Swaney bound and gagged, sitting on the couch, crying. Cook told Matzke he had sodomized Swaney and that they had to kill him. Matzke said they tried to strangle Swaney with a sheet, but Matzke's end kept slipping out of his hands. Cook then reportedly stated "this one's mine," placed Swaney on the floor, and strangled him. He carried Swaney's body upstairs and put him in the closet with Cruz Ramos. 

The autopsy revealed that Swaney's anus was dilated and semen was present, although the identity of the donor could not be ascertained. Matzke's fingerprints were found on the knife used to cut Cruz Ramos' chest, but no identifiable fingerprints were found on the metal pipe or wooden stick. Cook's fingerprints were found on the chair to which Cruz Ramos had been tied, the closet door, and the stapler. His semen was found on the strips that had been torn from his bedsheets. There was no other physical evidence of Cook's participation. 

After Swaney's murder, Cook and Matzke fell asleep downstairs. Later in the day, Matzke went to work, but returned a few hours later after quitting his job at the restaurant. Late that evening, some friends came over to the apartment. Early in the morning of July 21, 1987, Matzke took one of the friends, Byron Watkins, outside of the apartment and told him about the murders. Watkins convinced Matzke to go to the police. 

When Cook was arrested and brought to the station, he was questioned by Detective David Eaton of the Lake Havasu City Police Department. According to Eaton, he advised Cook of his Miranda rights, then asked him how the two bodies found in the apartment had gotten there. Cook replied that "we got to partying; things got out of hand; now two people are dead." When asked how they died, Cook said "my roommate killed one and I killed the other."

Now, with the appellate court excerpt cleverly pasted into my post, I add my boilerplate conclusion.

I oppose the execution of people who might be factually innocent of the crime for which they are to die. I suspect that to prevent the execution of the factually innocent, we might have to ban the death penalty entirely.

I find no evidence that Daniel Wayne Cook did not participate in the kidnapping and torture that led to the deaths of Carlos Cruz Ramos and Kevin Swaney. Since I limit my efforts to people who are in all respects factually innocent, I stand mute with regard to the execution of Daniel Wayne Cook.

[Perhaps I'm still bummed about the execution of Eric King, who was likely innocent.]

ADDENDUM (9 August 2012):
Daniel Wayne Cook was executed by the people of Arizona on 8 August 2012.

Arson Science Questioned in Two Convictions

The title to this post is less flamboyant than usual. That's because it's not mine. It belongs to the The Richmond Times-Dispatch, the newspaper of record for Richmond and much of Virginia. Written by Frank Green, the article discusses wrongful arson convictions in general and two possible cases in particular: those of Davey James Reedy and Michael Ledford. Since I represent Michael Ledford as an advocate for the wrongfully convicted, I may have brought his case to the attention of Reporter Green.

Please read the article in its totality. I offer only a few brief and non-sequential excerpts below.

Two men who claim they are innocent of arsons that killed their children are hoping scientific advancements in fire investigation in recent decades will clear their names. ... Prosecutors remain convinced the two are guilty as found by juries beyond reasonable doubt. ... 

"When you can prove some other dude done it you're in much better shape. With fires, it's not 'some other dude done it,' it's 'nobody done it,' and that's very difficult to prove once you're convicted," said John J. Lentini, a fire investigation expert and consultant. ..

Ledford, 36, is in his 12th year behind bars for the Oct. 10, 1999, fire that started a few hours after the family celebrated his son's first birthday. The fire was contained to an area surrounding an upholstered chair in the living room of their two-bedroom apartment in Augusta County. It broke out after Ledford left the apartment to run errands and to stop by the fire station where he was a volunteer firefighter. His son, Zachary, was killed by smoke inhalation and his wife, Elise, was severely burned but lived. ... 

In the Roanoke arson case, shortly after 6 a.m. on Aug. 10, 1987, a fire broke out in the kitchen of Reedy's home occupied by Reedy, who was asleep on a couch, and his 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son. Reedy said he discovered the fire and attempted to save his children, but was overcome by heat and smoke and jumped through a window to escape. He was hospitalized for smoke inhalation, burns and lacerations. His children died from smoke inhalation.

For the remainder of this post, the information regarding Davey Reedy comes from the article. The information regarding Michael Ledford comes my two-year involvement and knowledge of the case, a portion of which was reflected in the article.

Reedy was convicted because of well-intended arson investigators who applied now-discredited rules of thumb, and because of sloppy lab work that somehow detected gasoline residue where none may have existed. Reedy was sentenced to two life terms. Ledford was convicted because of a lackadaisical investigation by the Commonwealth investigator who effectively relinquished the investigation to a less-than-impartial insurance company. Though the Commonwealth sought his death, Ledford was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Reedy was paroled in 2009 after serving more than 20 years. "The Virginia Parole Board, (which) paroles nobody, let him out," said Reedy's attorney.

That claim seems to be accurate, at least according to an article by CorrectionOne.com. The title alone tells much of the story. "At 6%, Virginia's parole rate is among the nation's lowest: Virginia Parole Board denies 94% of requests."

The possibility of parole is even more bleak for Michael Ledford. In fact, it is non-existent. In 1994, parole was abolished by the Virginia Legislature. The abolition was not retroactive so Reedy (convicted in 1987) was eligible and Ledford (convicted in 1999) is not.

Though paroled, Reedy is seeking a pardon from Governor Robert McDonnell to clear his name and restore his rights. More than a decade ago, then state delegate McDonnell expressed concern about Reedy's conviction. From the Times-Dispatch article:

In 1999, while a state delegate representing Virginia Beach, McDonnell wrote then-Gov. Jim Gilmore about Reedy's case telling him there was "a substantial amount of evidence to warrant further investigation."

Those of us who advocate for Michael Ledford's release are encouraged by Governor McDonnell's concern that justice be pursued even post-conviction. We have prepared what we believe to be a comprehensive and compelling petition for absolute pardon, and we will be submitting it soon to the governor. I have posted the executive summary of that petition here. The entire petition is 160 pages, or thereabouts. I will be posting it on a chapter-by-chapter basis over the course of the next month or so.

I invite you to follow the story as I post the chapters so that you can better understand how an innocent person can be prosecuted by the State and convicted by a jury of his peers.

Michael Ledford's Petition for Absolute Pardon: Executive Summary

DRAFT 

August 6, 2012

The Honorable Robert F. McDonnell

Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia

In the Matter of Michael J. Ledford, Petitioner

Petition for an Absolute Pardon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Michael Ledford is serving the twelfth year of a fifty-year sentence for arson and the first-degree murder of his one-year-old son. He pleaded not guilty and has maintained his innocence ever since. He has expended all his appeals, including his one appeal based on actual innocence. A recent independent re-examination of the evidence in his case has determined that the fire resulted not from arson, but from a seriously overheated electrical circuit. Since Michael Ledford's only remaining avenue for relief is executive clemency, he asks that you carefully consider this petition for absolute pardon.

On October 10, 1999, Petitioner Michael Ledford left his apartment to run errands. His wife and his one-year-old son were asleep in separate bedrooms at the rear of the apartment. As he departed, Michael turned on a nearby table lamp using the wall switch near the entry door. That simple, innocent act triggered an electrical fire within the deteriorating electrical system.

Other residents of the Highland Hills Apartments had recently been having problems with their electrical systems. In an adjacent building, a sewing machine motor dragged and a nightlight refused to work. The tenant noticed that the electrical outlet was "very warm." The tenant notified the management. The management had the outlet replaced.

In another apartment, another outlet had become hot to the touch. The tenant notified the management. The management had the outlet replaced.

In one of the two apartments directly above the Ledford apartment, the tenant experienced problems with a kitchen outlet. Being young and self-confident, he replaced the outlet himself. 

At least one of the outlets in the Ledford apartment had been deteriorating for a while. That outlet, however, was located behind the sofa, and no one noticed that it was overheating. The Ledford family and friends did notice that a table lamp had started acting up. Its switch seemingly worked only intermittently. Everyone learned to use the wall switch to control the lamp. It was that wall switch Michael flipped to the ON position as he left to run his errands.

A wall outlet is shown below. It is the outlet that powered the bothersome table lamp. It is the outlet controlled by the wall switch near the door.

There is no doubt that the wiring inside that outlet had burned. The smoke streaks radiating from the perimeter of the outlet and its faceplate provide evidence of a fire within. Even the insurance investigator, an adverse party to Michael's defense and the only person to actually examine the wiring, conceded that it had burned. The insurance investigator, however, assured the jury that the wiring had been a victim of the fire rather than its cause. The insurance investigator assured them that the wiring inside burned only when the fire outside swept over the outlet.

While there is no doubt that the wiring inside the outlet was burned, it could only have burned because it overheated itself from within. The only possible alternative, that it burned as fire swept past, is impossible. No fire did sweep past that outlet. The area behind the couch was spared by the fire, as shown in the image below. 

The composite image shows the relative positions of the couch and the wall outlet. The wall outlet would have, of course, been facing the back of the couch, rather than facing away from it as shown. It is the relative positions of the couch and outlet that are of importance.

The composite image shows clearly that the front of the couch was seriously burned and charred. The image shows with even greater clarity that the area of the couch nearest to the electrical outlet was unburned. There was no fire behind the couch. Fire did not sweep across the face of the outlet. The burned wiring within the outlet did not result from an external heat source.

Though the composite image is compelling by itself, one does not need to rely on it alone. The same conclusion is unavoidable by looking just at the faceplate. It is not melted. It is covered with soot from the fire within, but it is not in any way melted. An external heat source powerful enough to burn the internal wiring would certainly have melted the plastic faceplate.

The burned wiring within the outlet was hardly the only evidence of an overheated electrical circuit. Both the lamp cord and the extension cord lost their prongs when they were unplugged by the investigators. Neither plug showed any substantial damage from external heating. Instead they heated from within sufficiently that they softened, their connections failed, and their prongs separated as the plugs were pulled free.

The light bulb in the table lamp exploded. This is exceedingly rare. Light bulbs are surprisingly durable, designed as they are to withstand the several thousand-degree temperature of their white-hot filaments. Even when heated by a raging fire, light bulbs merely soften and sometimes bulge towards the heat source. Light bulbs can burst if cooled too quickly when firefighters hit them with water, but the fire in the Ledford living room self-extinguished. Not a drop of water was used to extinguish it. Nor did anyone bump or bang the bulb, at least not with sufficient authority to knock the lamp over; the investigators' photos show the lamp still standing in its original position.

Normally, one would expect an overheating circuit to be interrupted by a circuit breaker. The evidence of an overheated, unprotected circuit unfortunately extends all the way to the circuit breaker box. Smoke streaks around the service panel and heavy sooting inside indicate that a fire burned or smoldered within that breaker box.

One breaker actually showed a burn mark on its handle.

The same breaker shows startling evidence of an egregiously unsafe repair. Rather than replacing the breaker after a presumed earlier problem, maintenance personnel merely glued plastic strips over the top of it.

A sooted spider web connects the plastic strip and its oozing adhesive. The spider web is evidence that the improperly repaired breaker had been deteriorating for some time. The spider web is evidence also that a cheap, improper repair eventually cost an infant child his life and the father his freedom.

The crudely patched circuit breaker is not the only egregious code violation revealed by the investigators' photos. Shockingly, the smoke detector was installed without an electrical box. It was supported only by a couple of plastic anchors and (later) its wires, which also are burned.

Of even greater concern than the missing electrical box is what appears to be a severed electrical cable visible in the overhead. Given the ragged end of the exposed cable, and given the equally ragged edge of the hole, it seems as if the electrical cable may have been severed when someone carelessly cut the hole to install the smoke detector.

The missing electrical box, the crudely cut hole, and the apparently severed cable suggest that the box was installed during a retrofit program, one that focused on minimizing cost rather than insuring safety.

The evidence of an electrical fire inside the Ledford apartment is substantial and compelling. Michael was not convicted because the investigators found no evidence of an electrical fire. They found plenty. Nor was Michael convicted because the investigators found some evidence of arson. They found none, none whatsoever. Michael was convicted instead because he confessed.

Though Michael quickly recanted his confession, and though his confession shows the classic hallmarks of being false, Michael did confess. Juries find confessions compelling, even if the confession has been recanted, even if the confession stands in stark contrast to all evidence at the scene.

Juries simply do not understand that false confessions are common.

The Innocence Project explains that in approximately 25% of all DNA exonerations, the person exonerated had either confessed or provided an incriminating statement. Studies conducted since Michael's conviction show that most people, more than 50%, will falsely confess when subjected to interrogation techniques similar to those used on Michael Ledford.

Virginia Governors have a noble history of granting clemency when a person has been proven innocent and when no other relief is available. 

In 1989, Governor Gerald Baliles pardoned David Vasquez, though Vasquez had falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Carolyn Jean Hamm. Governor Baliles believed Vasquez to be innocent, so he set Vasquez free.

In 2000, Governor James Gilmore granted Earl Washington, Jr. an absolute pardon, though Washington had falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Rebecca Lynn Williams. Governor Gilmore believed Earl Washington was innocent, so he set Washington free.

In 2009, Governor Tim Kaine granted conditional pardons to three of the Norfolk Four, though they had each falsely confessed to the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko. Governor Kaine suspected the three were likely innocent, so he set them free.

Because Michael Ledford was in no way responsible for the fire that took the life of his one-year-old son, and because he has no alternative avenue for relief, he prays that you will grant him an absolute pardon.