E-mail
PrintCOLUMBIA — Ryan Ferguson’s attorney wrapped up the convicted murderer’s case in his hearing for a retrial with testimony from an expert in police interrogation and false confessions who said he doubted the validity of Charles Erickson's confession.
Ferguson was convicted in 2005 for the 2001 murder of Columbia Daily Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt after Charles “Chuck” Erickson told police that he and Ferguson committed the murder.
In his testimony, Richard Leo, a law professor at the University of San Franscico, said after watching footage of Columbia police interrogating Erickson and reviewing other documents, he thinks Erickson falsely confessed.
He said that after a suspect offers a confession, interrogators should shift the focus of their questioning to try to elicit information that would help prove whether the confession is true.
“The goal of the police should be to get the truth, not to get a confession,” Leo said.
He said police should gather details from the suspect that were not released to the public from the confessor, or the confessor should be able to provide investigators with new clues.
Leo said watching interrogation videos of Erickson showed him that Columbia police told Erickson information the murderer should have already known, such as the weapon used and where Heitholt’s car was parked in a lot behind the Tribune’s offices.
“I do think this reflects improper techniques,” Leo said. He said that giving Erickson information that he doesn’t know could contaminate the evidence, and Erickson could have created a narrative around those facts.
Leo also said one kind of false confession, called a persuaded or internalized false confession, can take place when the confessor begins to believe he or she actually committed the act.
Erickson used speculative language when he was interrogated, such as “maybe,” “probably” and “I must have done it then,” when he was making statements to police, which Leo said can indicate an internalized false confession.
“It has the hallmarks of a persuaded false confession,” he said.
Columbia Police Detective John Short conducted an interview with Erickson earlier in the day, before Erickson was videotaped. Leo pointed out that the police reports regarding the case relied on the memory of police investigators, so the only records he considered truly accurate in the case were the videotapes of the interrogations.
Stephanie Morrell, Boone County assistant prosecutor, pointed out that those police reports indicate Erickson told friends before he spoke to police that he told the cleaning woman to get help, information that was not released to the public.
“That’s the police’s representation,” Leo said.
Shawna Ornt, who worked as a cleaner at the Tribune at the time of Heitholt’s murder, testified in the 2005 trial that she saw two young white males when she found Heitholt’s body and that one of the men told her to get help. She said Wednesday at the hearing that neither of the men she saw was Erickson or Ferguson.
After Leo finished, Morrell called her first witness, Columbia Police Detective Bryan Liebhart.
Liebhart interviewed Dallas Mallory soon after Erickson’s arrest. Erickson told police he and Ferguson saw Mallory shortly after killing Heitholt and that Erickson told him they had “beat someone down.”
Liebhart met with Mallory a week after Mallory was first interviewed. In his report, he said what Mallory told him concurred with what he had previously told investigators.
But there were two previous police reports: one stated that Mallory did not see Erickson downtown that night and the other stated that Mallory said he had.
Liebhart testified that he could not remember what Mallory said when he spoke to Liebhart.
Show Me the Errors 
Comments
At the very least a new trial is in order in the case of Ryan Ferguson.
One of the jurors being interviewed after the conviction said she became convinced Ryan was guilty because of the way Erickson looked at him while on the stand. Based on her interpretation of a look she sent a young man to prison for forty years. It was just that simple. It had to be. There wasn't a shred of physical evidence. In fact there is quite a bit of physical evidence to refute that these boys did this crime.
The entire jury's overall ignorance as to the existence let alone the amazing number of false confessions was astounding. Have they been living in a cave? Each one interviewed later made statements to the effect that Erickson(or anyone for that matter)would never confess to a crime he didn't commit. Yet Ryan, a very young man confronted by police interrogation, pressure and false statements about non-existent evidence for hours didn't remotely crack.(I have no trouble w/ police using these tactics for short periods in order to gauge reaction but obviously it can be abused and lead to false confessions if it goes on for too long w/ a person of low intelligence or the very young as in the case of the Michael Crowe.(Michael was 12 when his sister was murdered. He was separated from his family immediately after her murder was discovered and interrogated for 11 hrs w/ no sleep or food and few bathroom breaks until he cracked.)
The police were no less emotionless in their actions or assessments. They'd have tried to indict Elvis had Erickson claimed him as his co-conspirator. They were the ones who cracked this time. Under the pressure of the embarrassment of the unsolved murder of a popular local sports writer they grasped at the straw held out by a drug addicted mental case.
While our system is about the best in the world it is flawed. The number of death row convictions overturned since DNA has come onto the horizon as a tool is testament to that.
This kid was railroaded by overzealous police, a false confession and 12 mushrooms. Send him HOME.
Hello. I watched a show about this trial last night and just had to look up the story today. I was very much hoping that Ryan's family had been able to get him an appeal and a new trial. The conviction the first time as far as I am concerned was just baseless when it was so obvious from the information provided that the police had just latched onto these two boys because they so desperately wanted the case solved that they couldn't see that the one confessing ( Chuck ) I'm pretty sure had some kind of mental illness. I am a registered nurse, and if you work in the health care field you are aware of the fact that most mental illnesses start presenting in the late teens or early twenties, he seemed to be having delusions. Schizophrenia maybe? I am not sure really, but it at least should have been looked into. The poor guy went to talk to the police in a terrible state of mind, and they told him how he killed someone because he sure didn't seem to know, heck, he didn't even know where he did it. I am just so saddened these kinds of failures take place in our legal system, and that these two young men, one who probably needs some psychiatric help, and one who probably had a very bright future ( we are approximately the same age so that makes it hit home a little more for me I suppose) ahead of him, just ripped away with so little care it seemed to me. Police work needs to be so very diligent. You know, when it comes to health care and policemen, we really can never take our jobs too seriously, because peoples' lives really are in our hands, peoples' everything, the most important people in their world, so you have to really, really, know before you say " I am sure without a doubt", or "Yes, this is what it is". I certainly wouldn't feel of a lump on a womans breast and say, "Ya know, you smoke cigarettes, you're in your 40's, you're not breast-feeding, that's cancer!" I feel like it was kinda rushing it to just take someone's word for it and not have any backing evidence, even if Chuck said he did it, Ryan didn't, so you still have to prove him guilty, and I'm sorry but you really didn't, so do us all a favor and let the innocent man go!!!!