Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

 In 1999, after Anthony Porter was released from prison, grand jury proceedings were conducted to investigate the claim set forth by David Protess and his journalism students that Porter was innocent and that Alstory Simon was the real killer. The grand jury testimony that Mr. Protess gave under oath on February 22, 1999 is surprising, to say the least:

Grand Juror: There seems to be at least eight witnesses or so that testified in the original trial and there is at least four  of them that did  put Porter at the scene but none of them were interviewed by any of your students. Can you explain why?

Protess: Why we didn't interview the alibi witnesses?

Grand Juror: Why you didn't interview the witnesses that saw Porter at the scene of the shooting?

Protess: Well, we -  - one of the witnesses - - there were two key witnesses as far as we were concerned from reading the testimony. One of those witnesses is dead and the other was William Taylor.

Grand Juror: Those were the only two that were key that you found?

Protess: That's correct.

ASA Gainer: Let me ask you a follow-up question, professor. You at some point read the police reports that were obtained from Mr. Sanders?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: You were aware that there were four other young men who were interviewed by the police, were you not, in connection with the shooting the same night that Taylor and Williams were interviewed?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Those people being Beckwith, Senior, Woodfork, and Edwards, correct?

Protess: I don't recall the names, but I do remember what you are saying.

ASA Gainer: Those four people gave the police an account of what happened that night that appeared to be more consistent with Alstory Simon's account, did they not?

Protess: I can't remember.

ASA Gainer: That is to say those four people put four people up in the bleachers that night?

Protess: Yes, I remember reading one of the witnesses' statements that they - -  but they weren't able to discern who they were.

ASA Gainer: Mr. Edwards identified Anthony Porter as the shooter that night, did he not?

Protess: I would have to go back over the report.

ASA Gainer: Please do so. I direct your attention to page 4 of the August 16, 1982 Supplementary Report under RD 290330 authored by Salvatore and Gray?

Protess: Unfortunately, I don't have my reading glasses, but I'd ask you to read it to me.

ASA Gainer: I will be happy to read it. "Kenneth Edwards was interviewed and he related he and three of his friends, Woodfork, Beckwith and Senior went to the Washington Park swimming pool about midnight on the day in question, 16, August '82, Sunday. Kenneth related that he and friends entered the pool area on the north side fence. He observed four people in the gallery area in the uppermost northwest section (victims and offender, unknown male black). They were sitting and talking to each other. Kenneth and his group proceeded further down the pool area and he and Eugene Beckwith began to swim. Approximately 15 minutes later Kenneth had come out of the pool. He heard a shot and looked up and saw a muzzle flash from a handgun. He then observed the offender Tony Porter standing over one of the victims and fired two more shots at the victim at point blank range." Do you remember reading that?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: Do you remember reading anything about those four men?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Okay.

Protess: I don't remember reading anything that specifically identifying Anthony Porter. It's the last part I don't recall. I would have to go back and look at other documents to see how it was that he came to identify Tony Porter as the shooter.

ASA Gainer: As you sit here today, do you have any recollection of these police reports?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: Well, are you aware that this is the only place that Kenneth Edwards' name appears in these reports?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: That is the only summary of any interview with him?

Protess: Okay.

ASA Gainer: Are you aware of that?

Protess: Am I aware of whether or not there is another report -  - 

ASA Gainer:  Yeah.

Protess: - -  that mentions the witness? I don't know.

ASA Gainer: Okay. But you are aware Edwards, Woodfork, Senior and Beckwith gave an account that is more similar to the Alstory Simon account?

Protess: Yes.

ASA Gainer: And your students didn't investigate these four men, did they?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't ask Paul Ciolino to find those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't go out yourself and look for those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: None of your group ever conducted any interview of those four men?

Protess: That's correct.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Really???

We thought David Protess was a professor at the Medill School of "Journalism."

Were Protess and his students interested in the truth?

Or were they simply interested in finding a way - any way - for Porter to avoid the death penalty?

Did Protess teach his students to ignore key witnesses to a story?

Did Protess teach his students to focus only on those witnesses who may be helpful and to ignore witnesses who could implicate Porter?

Was this journalism?

Or was this one-sided advocacy for Porter?

What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 During the grand jury proceedings, a grand juror noted that at least four other witnesses said Anthony Porter was at the scene of the shootings. Yet, David Protess and his students failed to interview any of these witnesses. Here's a portion of Protess' sworn grand jury testimony:

ASA Gainer: And your students didn't investigate those four men, did they?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't ask Paul Ciolino to find those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: You didn't go out yourself and look for those four men?

Protess: No.

ASA Gainer: None of your group ever conducted any interview of those four men?

Protess: That's correct.

How can this be?

We thought David Protess and his journalism students were seeking the truth?

Were they not interested in all the facts? 

Were they really not interested in the truth?

What kind of journalists seek only one side of a story?

Why did David Protess and his journalism students show no interest in interviewing these four witnesses?

This question has never been answered.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 One of the eyewitnesses who identified Anthony Porter as the person who shot and killed Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green was then thirty-nine year old William Taylor. At Porter's criminal trial, Taylor testified that he went for a late night swim at Washington Park and as he was climbing out of the pool he saw Porter shoot and kill Hillard and Green. As you recall from our earlier blog posts, Porter denied being in Washington Park at the time of the shootings and claimed to be drinking with some of his buddies.

Once David Protess and the Medill Journalism students got involved in Porter's case, they turned their attention to Taylor. On November 14, 1998, journalism student Tom McCann placed a telephone call to Taylor. Taylor told McCann that "There is no doubt in my mind that this man (Porter) is guilty. I will not be happy until Porter is finally executed." Taylor also told McCann he "didn't want to talk about this case anymore."

Not satisfied, on December 11, 1998, McCann and private investigator Paul Ciolino made an unannounced visit to Taylor's house and the two are alleged to have played good cop bad cop with Taylor. After meeting with Taylor Ciolino wrote out an "affidavit" for Taylor to sign that stated Taylor: (1) was in Washington Park on the night of the shootings, (2) did not see Porter shoot anyone, (3) never saw Porter with a gun and (4) did not see who shot the victims."

What is puzzling is what McCann and Ciolino failed to put in the affidavit. What they left out is that Taylor also told them that he had seen Porter in the pool area of Washington Park the night of the shootings. McCann admitted this key omission during subsequent grand jury testimony:

ASA Gainer: That was not included in the affidavit, that he (Taylor) saw Anthony Porter in the park that night, right?

McCann: Right

This omission was obviously very significant and very intentional, as Porter had denied being in Washington Park near the time of the shootings. If Porter really was in the park at the time of the shootings, that pretty much killed his whole alibi story.

We thought Medill Journalism students were seeking the truth, the facts, whatever they may be.

Isn't that what a journalist does?

Does a journalist advocate for one side, and slant the facts for one side in a misleading way? 

Why did David Protess let his journalism students submit the Taylor affidavit with this key omission?

This question has never been answered. . . 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In our last post, we discussed Anthony Porter's alleged alibi and how he denied being in Washington Park at the time of the shootings. Instead, he claimed he was drinking with his friends. We also noted how Chicago Police Officer Anthony Liace, responding to a 911 call, arrived at Washington Park moments after the shooting and stopped and frisked Porter who was fleeing the park (making it seem impossible that Porter was really drinking with his friends at the time of the shooting).

Once David Protess and the Northwestern journalism students commenced their "investigation," did they investigate Porter's alleged alibi?

According to grand jury testimony, David Protess, despite "investigating" the case for months, did not know what Porter's specific alibi was.

Northwestern journalism student Shawn Armbrust, testified, in part, to the grand jury as follows:

ASA Gainer: Did you discuss with him (Porter) his alibi for that night?

Armbrust: My professor asked him if he had been in the park that night, and he said no, I was with my family.

ASA Gainer: Is that the total of your conversations that you either personally had or overheard on that occasion concerning his alibi?

Armbrust: Yes

. . . . . . 

ASA Gainer: Did you investigate his alibi?

Armbrust: No.

ASA Gainer: Did you ever read the transcript of the testimony of his alibi that the witness (Doyle) gave at his trial?

Armbrust: No.

. . . . . .

If David Protess and the Northwestern Medill School of Journalism students were seeking the truth, as true journalists, why didn't they investigate the merits of Anthony Porter's alleged alibi?

This question has never been answered. . . 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Starting today, The Whole Truth Project will be examining and discussing the Anthony Porter case and asking the following questions: "Is Anthony Porter really innocent?" "And "Is Alstory Simon really guilty?"

Part 1 - The Alleged Alibi

On August 15, 1982, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green were shot and killed while sitting in the bleachers next to a swimming pool in Chicago's Washington Park. Anthony Porter was arrested and charged with the murders.

Porter told police they had the wrong guy and insisted that he was never in Washington Park on the night of the murders. Instead, Porter claimed that he was with two friends, "Fat Luke" and Tyrone Horton at a tavern called "The Hole" and that after leaving the tavern the group returned to Porter's apartment and continued to drink there for the rest of the evening.

At the criminal trial, Porter elected not to testify. The defense called Kenneth Doyle ("Fat Luke") as an alibi witness. Doyle testified that on the night of the murders he visited Porter at his mother's apartment around 10:00 p.m. and that he and Porter and a few other friends hung out there and drank Wild Irish Rose until about 2:00 a.m. when the group walked to a playground at the Robert Taylor Homes and continued to drink and get high until 9:00 a.m.

However, another supposed alibi witness, Georgia Moody, the common law wife of one of Porter's brothers, contradicted Doyle and testified that to her knowledge, Porter and Doyle were not drinking at Porter's mother's apartment and that Doyle returned home around 10:00 p.m.

So, was Porter really drinking with his buddies that night, as opposed shooting Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green in Washington Park?

Perhaps that question can be answered by Chicago Police Officer Anthony Liace. On the night of the murder, Officer Liace responded to a 911 call about a man shot in Washington Park. Officer Liace arrived quickly and saw Porter fleeing the park. Officer Liace stopped Porter and frisked him but, upon finding no weapon, let Porter go. If Porter was drinking with "Fat Luke" and his other buddies that night, why did Officer Liace see him in Washington Park just minutes after the shooting? 

This question has never been answered.

Thank you to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist William Crawford for sharing his 100-page article on the Anthony Porter case entitled "Chimera" with us. Mr. Crawford reviewed the entire underlying factual record in the Porter case in preparing his article and we have relied on that record for our recitation of the facts above. We will be posting that entire article in the near future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link