CONVICTION OVERTURNED MO - Kent Heitholt, 48, found murdered, Columbia, 1 Nov 2001

[marlalouise]

I don't know-did anyone report seeing a flying CAT in the area

Lol, I don't know. I live in WVa; we see some strange things around here!

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Madeleine74]

I sure hope they eventually find out the real killer/killers. It for sure isn't either Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson. BTW, Chuck Erickson had drug and mental health issues. He couldn't remember what happened that night. His 'confession' isn't credible because Erickson is not a stable witness. Not only that, but there's no evidence linking him to the crime scene. Nada, nothing. Ditto Ryan. This was a bloody crime scene. There's a finger/palm print in blood! Further, the murder occurred 1 hour AFTER the bar closed and a witness saw Ryan and Chuck drive away from the bar when it closed. Ryan took Chuck home & he went straight home. End of story.

 

[Mitch1]

I sure hope they eventually find out the real killer/killers. It for sure isn't either Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson. BTW, Chuck Erickson had drug and mental health issues. He couldn't remember what happened that night. His 'confession' isn't credible because Erickson is not a stable witness. Not only that, but there's no evidence linking him to the crime scene. Nada, nothing. Ditto Ryan. This was a bloody crime scene. There's a finger/palm print in blood! Further, the murder occurred 1 hour AFTER the bar closed and a witness saw Ryan and Chuck drive away from the bar when it closed. Ryan took Chuck home & he went straight home. End of story.

Just because they didn't recover DNA that linked them, doesn't mean there wasn't DNA that linked them.
There was also a witness that claimed the 2 boys told him they "beat down" someone that night
I'm just glad Ryan did at least a decade behind bars. What makes me sad is the one with a conscience in still behind bars-if anyone should get out its Erickson. I would feel much safer with Erickson released

 

[Madeleine74]

There's no evidence you can point to that proves any involvement by either. You can assume there's some hidden invisible forensic evidence, but that's as real as Chuck's delusions. I'm usually on the side of the DA but in this case these 2 are absolutely not guilty and I believe they are factually innocent.

 

[Mitch1]

There's no evidence you can point to that proves any involvement by either. You can assume there's some hidden invisible forensic evidence, but that's as real as Chuck's delusions. I'm usually on the side of the DA but in this case these 2 are absolutely not guilty and I believe they are factually innocent.

There is all kinds of circumstantial evidence I can point to. The Scott Peterson case was a circumstantial case and those 2 are every bit as "factually" guilty as that guy.

 

[Madeleine74]

Scott Peterson had hair from his dead wife found in a pair of pliers on his boat. He had cement residue in the boat & at his warehouse, his cell phone pinged right by his house at the same time he claimed his wife "disappeared" when he said he left hours before to go fishing, then he placed himself at the very bay and spot where his wife and unborn baby's bodies washed ashore 4 months later. He was caught in multiple lies, told his mistress his wife had died, later attempted to flee, changed his looks, and there's so much more.

Apples & Oranges.

In Ryan's case you have an eye witness who lied and eventually recanted and...a "confession" that is not credible. Those were considered "direct evidence" and neither was true & reliable. There was a bloody crime scene. Where's the circumstantial evidence that points to Ryan? You can't convict based on what's imagined or on your 'feelings." You have to use the evidence presented and use evidence that's not been impeached or proven false. And that leaves nada.

 

[LinasK]

Just because they didn't recover DNA that linked them, doesn't mean there wasn't DNA that linked them.
There was also a witness that claimed the 2 boys told him they "beat down" someone that night
I'm just glad Ryan did at least a decade behind bars. What makes me sad is the one with a conscience in still behind bars-if anyone should get out its Erickson. I would feel much safer with Erickson released

Why??? And why should Ryan have served a decade for a crime he didn't commit??? There wasn't DNA linked to either of them, and the witness lied.

 

[LinasK]

There's no evidence you can point to that proves any involvement by either. You can assume there's some hidden invisible forensic evidence, but that's as real as Chuck's delusions. I'm usually on the side of the DA but in this case these 2 are absolutely not guilty and I believe they are factually innocent.

Me too, but the cops and the DA had a rush to judgement to convict someone in this case and they got the wrong guy(s). LE fed Erickson the details of how the victim was killed, he really didn't know. He imagined it all.

 

[marlalouise]

There is all kinds of circumstantial evidence I can point to. The Scott Peterson case was a circumstantial case and those 2 are every bit as "factually" guilty as that guy.

But I'm probably not a part of the majority here, but I didn't think there was enough hard evidence to convict Peterson. The same as in this case, only I would like to know the circumstantial evidence in the Ferguson case. What is there? A dream and eye witnesses who recanted? Hardly evidence, if you can even call it that.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cappuccino]

Its surprising how much you can learn about the credibility of an individual post by looking at the sig of the poster.

"Moles and trolls, moles and trolls, work, work, work, work, work. We never see the light of day. We plan this thing for weeks and all they want to do is study. I'm disgusted. I'm sorry but it's not like me, I'm depressed" Chris Knight

Ryan Ferguson's conviction has been vacated, he is free and enjoying his life. Charles Erikson will most likely be paroled next year. So please don't get too worked up by moles and trolls, is my advice.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm not sure it qualifies as a "rush" since Erickson had these dreams over 2 years after the murder. I think the police figured no one would claim to have maybe been involved in a murder if they weren't. They thought it was solved and didn't question why there was no forensic link between victim and these guys. They wanted it wrapped up and finished. Tunnel vision and refusal to test the validity of the info.

 

[Madeleine74]

Btw what do people mean by "hard evidence?" There's either enough evidence to convince a jury BARD or there isn't. Circumstantial evidence is as or more powerful than direct evidence; the law treats them equally.

 

[LinasK]

Its surprising how much you can learn about the credibility of an individual post by looking at the sig of the poster.



Ryan Ferguson's conviction has been vacated, he is free and enjoying his life. Charles Erikson will most likely be paroled next year. So please don't get too worked up by moles and trolls, is my advice.

Is Erikson up for parole next year? Hope his lawyers are taking notes from Kathleen Zellner.

 

[LinasK]

OT: Ryan posted on his Facebook page, that he finally got his Dairy Queen!
So happy for him!

 

[marlalouise]

Btw what do people mean by "hard evidence?" There's either enough evidence to convince a jury BARD or there isn't. Circumstantial evidence is as or more powerful than direct evidence; the law treats them equally.

I guess I'm old school. When I think of hard evidence, I think of DNA, fingerprints, photos/videos that directly link a suspect, etc. Circumstantial evidence to me is someone's dream and sometimes even eye witnesses.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Madeleine74]

Just an FYI...

The legal definition is the only valid one to use:

"Direct Evidence" is defined as: eye witness to a crime, a confession to a crime, or a video of the crime.

Everything else including DNA, fingerprints, footprints, blood, fibers, etc is, by definition, "circumstantial evidence." Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. Even the infamous "smoking gun" that people like to refer to is circumstantial evidence, unless there was a witness to the person pulling the trigger and the gun going off and the victim being hit.

They are given equal weight in the eyes of the law and juries are instructed they can treat both types of evidence the same.

Ironically it is often Direct Evidence that causes the problems with unfair or false convictions. Eye witnesses can be mistaken, confessions can be false or coerced. And when people are freed after decades in prison it's often due to circumstantial evidence (like DNA) proving they did not commit the crime and direct evidence (false eye witness testimony) failing.

 

[marlalouise]

Just an FYI...

The legal definition is the only valid one to use:

"Direct Evidence" is defined as: eye witness to a crime, a confession to a crime, or a video of the crime.

Everything else including DNA, fingerprints, footprints, blood, fibers, etc is, by definition, "circumstantial evidence." Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence. Even the infamous "smoking gun" that people like to refer to is circumstantial evidence, unless there was a witness to the person pulling the trigger and the gun going off and the victim being hit.

They are given equal weight in the eyes of the law and juries are instructed they can treat both types of evidence the same.

Ironically it is often Direct Evidence that causes the problems with unfair or false convictions. Eye witnesses can be mistaken, confessions can be false or coerced. And when people are freed after decades in prison it's often due to circumstantial evidence (like DNA) proving they did not commit the crime and direct evidence (false eye witness testimony) failing.

I understand the meaning, I guess I'm just trying to put it into words what people think is "hard evidence." As you said eye witnesses are considered direct evidence, but definitely not always reliable. To me DNA is much more so.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mitch1]

Why??? And why should Ryan have served a decade for a crime he didn't commit??? There wasn't DNA linked to either of them, and the witness lied.

I've already said why.
Where is the proof the witness lied

 

[Mitch1]

But I'm probably not a part of the majority here, but I didn't think there was enough hard evidence to convict Peterson. The same as in this case, only I would like to know the circumstantial evidence in the Ferguson case. What is there? A dream and eye witnesses who recanted? Hardly evidence, if you can even call it that.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

"A dream"-Like I said, it was a confession
A witness recanting doesn't mean he isn't guilty

 

[Mitch1]

Its surprising how much you can learn about the credibility of an individual post by looking at the sig of the poster.



Ryan Ferguson's conviction has been vacated, he is free and enjoying his life. Charles Erikson will most likely be paroled next year. So please don't get too worked up by moles and trolls, is my advice.

For a second I thought you were ignoring your own advice not to get worked up, but then I realized it's just the "cappuccino"

Yep his conviction was vacated-NOT exonerated