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

 Today we take a look at the grand jury testimony of Northwestern Medill Journalism student Syandene Rhodes-Pitts, who was one of the students working with Professor David Protess in investigating the Anthony Porter case.

Her testimony was on February 22, 1999. Here are some points of interest:

* She and other met with Anthony Porter in jail on January 11

* Porter did not furnish them with any helpful information

* Nobody asked Porter any questions about his alibi at trial

* She denied her meeting with Porter was an "interview" 

* Nobody asked Porter about his whereabouts:

Q: While you were there with him for that hour, did anybody ever ask him where he was on the early morning hours of August 15, 1982?

A: No.

* She did not ask Porter if he knew Eugene Beckwith, Michael Woodfork, Kenneth Edwards or Mark Senior

* She did not even know who these people were:

Q: Do you know who those people are?

A: No.

[HOW COULD SHE NOT KNOW THAT? THEY WERE KEY WITNESSES WHO SAID THEY SAW PORTER IN THE PARK THAT NIGHT, AND EDWARDS SAID HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER]

*This was the only time she spoke to Porter prior to his release

* She has had a few conversations with Porter since his release

* She never asked Porter about his alibi on August 15, 1982

* She never discussed with Porter his whereabouts on August 15, 1982

* She never asked Porter whether he was in the pool area of Washington Park at the time that Marilyn Green and Jerry Hillard were shot

* At the time she spoke to Porter in jail, she already believed he was innocent:

GRAND JUROR: You weren't really looking to see if he was guilty or innocent of this crime at that point as much as you were interested in seeing whether he was mentally competent at the time of his trial, to stand trial, or to understand his rights and so on?

A: I actually - I believed he was already innocent at that time, so I wasn't there to make my final decision.

GRAND JUROR: You believe he was innocent at that time?

[THE GRAND JUROR SEEMS SKEPTICAL]

A: Yes.

[BEAR IN MIND, SHE ADMITTED SHE DIDN'T KNOW EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH WERE. PERHAPS SHE THOUGHT PORTER WAS INNOCENT BECAUSE SHE WAS IGNORING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING PORTER. JUST A THOUGHT]

* Again, she admits to not knowing about the key witnesses against Porter:

Q: Did anyone direct you to interview Beckwith, Senior, Woodfork or Edwards?

A: No.

Q: Did you read the police reports?

A: I scanned them early on.

[SCANNED THEM? EARLY ON? WEREN'T THE POLICE REPORTS CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS TO LOOK AT? IF YOU WERE SEEKING THE TRUTH, WOULDN'T THE POLICE REPORTS BE A GOOD STARTING POINT?]

Q: Did those four names that I just mentioned, do they mean anything to you?

A: I really don't recall like where or who - where they might fall in or who they might be.

[REALLY? YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY MIGHT BE? HMM. . . ]

* A Grand Juror expressed concern that perhaps the students were just pawns:

GRAND JUROR: Hearing your story, hearing the Professor's story, hearing other witnesses' stories gives me the impression that it's entirely possible at times that you might be a pawn?

A: Who might be?

GRAND JUROR: You

A: Me, myself?

GRAND JUROR: You and other students possibly a pawn, and so we are trying to find out. It's not a - you know, we need to know the truth. We need to know the facts. All we can know. If there is - is there any television connection to all of this, is there a big story, a book, is there - what is motivating the move towards this direction where there is a lot of evidence that you have admitted that you have seen but passed over blindly perhaps without giving it a second look, it's not being investigated and - 

A: I don't think I understand.

GRAND JUROR: I'm sure you don't, because you don't know - you've been asked and you've indicated that you don't know, and yet you should.

A: Are you saying is there a movie motivating what, like television -

GRAND JUROR: Could be anything. An innocent man being railroaded. A guilty man being let loose. It makes a great story.

[I THINK THIS GRAND JUROR MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING? WHAT DO YOU THINK?]

A: What are you saying?

GRAND JUROR: I am saying it's a lot of money

A: And your question is?

GRAND JUROR: I am saying that you are a part of it and you don't know anything about it.

A: Know anything about?

GRAND JUROR: About what's behind -

A: I know what I've been doing for the past month and that has been investigating Anthony Porter's innocence.

GRAND JUROR: Or guilt. He might be guilty?

[EXCELLENT QUESTION. DID ANY OF THE JOURNALISM STUDENTS LOOK AT THE "GUILTY" SIDE OF THE STORY??]

A: The class I am taking is investigative journalism and we were given the case because there was no evidence linking him -

[WHAT?? WHAT ABOUT THE TESTIMONY OF EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH, THE GUYS SHE DID NOT KNOW??]

GRAND JUROR: You left out

A: - - to the crime.

GRAND JUROR: What would you say is your objective of the assignment you were given?

A: I believe the objective would be to find any evidence, interview anyone you could that would lead to freeing this man.

[NOW WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE! SHE ADMITS HER MISSION WAS NOT THE TRUTH. HER MISSION WAS TO SPARE PORTER FROM THE DEATH PENALTY. SOUNDS LIKE SHE AND THE STUDENTS - AT PROFESSOR PROTESS' INSTRUCTION - WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THE "BAD FACTS" ONLY THE POTENTIALLY GOOD FACTS. THIS IS JOURNALISM???]

GRAND JUROR: Your objective is freeing him not just investigating all of the facts?

[THE GRAND JUROR READ MY MIND]

A: Right, investigating the facts, and as the facts - as we had read the facts, there was no physical crime, physical evidence linking him to the crime, therefore, we proceeded with innocence.

[BUT WHAT ABOUT EDWARDS, SENIOR, WOODFORK AND BECKWITH??? WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT PORTER'S ALIBI DID NOT JIVE? AND WHAT ABOUT THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STOPPED AND FRISKED PORTER AT THE PARK RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING??]

* She was also unaware of key testimony from witness William Taylor:

Q: Are you also aware that William Taylor told Professor Protess on the day this affidavit was signed that he believed he saw Anthony Porter in the pool that night when he passed him, are you aware of that?

A: Are you saying is that in the affidavit?

Q: No, I am not asking you if it's in the affidavit. What I am asking is are you aware that William Taylor said to Professor Protess that he believed Anthony Porter was in the pool that night and ran past him?

A: No, I am not aware of that.

[HOW IS SHE NOT AWARE OF THIS EITHER?]

Q: I think that's what you are getting at.

GRAND JUROR: I guess what I am suggesting is we have different stories about the objective of your course, whether it's about investigative journalism, whether it's about trying to get someone who has in a court of law been found guilty to be - 

A: I am sure you have been provided with a syllabus which would probably outline Professor Protess verbatim, but as far as where I was coming from, that's what I gave you, you know, that was my objective.

[PRETTY INTERESTING STUFF. SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT WAS THE TRUE MISSION OF DAVID PROTESS AND HIS STUDENTS? THE TRUTH? OR THE FIND A WAY, ANY WAY, TO SPARE ANTHONY PORTER FROM THE DEATH PENALTY?]

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

 In our continuing review of the Anthony Porter case - we now look at the grand jury testimony of Northwestern Medill Journalism student Shawn Armbrust, who testified before the grand jury on February 22, 1999. Here are some key points:

* she took David Protess' class "Media and Capital Punishment" and was assigned to the Anthony Porter case. 

* She received an "A" in the class

* As to the class, she said "essentially we are supposed to advance the truth in the case whether or not it means the person is innocent or guilty"

[KEEP THIS MISSION IN MIND AS YOU READ THE REST OF THIS POST AND OUR OTHER POSTS ABOUT THIS CASE AND ASK YOURSELF IF PROTESS AND THE NORTHWESTERN STUDENTS WERE REALLY TRYING TO ADVANCE THE "TRUTH" WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOWED PORTER TO BE GUILTY?]

* she never reviewed the testimony of any of Porter's alleged alibi witnesses

* she went to reenact the crime at Washington Park with fellow students Tom McCann, Cara Rubinsky, Lori D'Angelo and a camera crew from CBS Network

[WHY WAS THE MEDIA INVOLVED IN THIS? DID PROFESSOR PROTESS SET THIS UP?]

* on December 9, she interviewed Alstory Simon at his house in Milwaukee with fellow student Cara Rubinsky while Professor Protess waited in the car

* Simon told her that the night of the murders he had gone out walking with Jerry and Marilyn and they wanted to go into the park and he told them not to because it was dangerous.

* He also said the murders were very painful because he was good friends with Jerry and Marilyn and they all had been planning their weddings together

* Simon said he had left Chicago one year after the murders for job reasons

* She was familiar with William Taylor's affidavit and knew that his affidavit did not mention the fact that he had seen Porter in pool area of Washington Park on the night of the murders

* She and others interviewed Anthony Porter in Cook County Jail on December 16th. She just asked him some basic questions like how his headaches were

* Porter told her that Simon was the guy they had to talk to because he had done the crime. He did not tell them how he knew that.

[IF PORTER REALLY THOUGHT SIMON WAS THE KILLER, WHY WASN'T SIMON'S NAME MENTIONED ONCE DURING PORTER'S CRIMINAL TRIAL??]

* Porter told them he was not in the park that night

[BUT THAT DIDN'T JIVE WITH WHAT EDWARDS, BECKWITH, SENIOR AND WOODFORK TOLD THE POLICE. WHY DIDN'T PROTESS AND THE STUDENTS TALK TO THESE MEN?]

* she never investigated Porter's alibi

* she never read the transcript of the testimony of Porter's alleged alibi witnesses from his criminal trial

* she was part of a group that interviewed Inez Jackson

* Inez Jackson was very sick and in poor health - she was suffering from HIV

* she was not familiar with the name "Edwards"

[THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM A GRAND JUROR. EDWARDS WAS THE PERSON WHO TOLD POLICE THAT HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER. HOW COULD ARMBRUST NOT HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THAT NAME?]

* they bought Inez Jackson some groceries and a gave her a space heater after she signed an affidavit saying Simon was the shooter

* here are some specific questions and answers:

JUROR: At what point did you feel that Anthony Porter was innocent and Alstory Simon was guilty, you or the professor?

A: We were convinced that there was no case against him on December 11th when William Taylor recanted his testimony, but we weren't convinced that he was innocent. I guess when we met him we were convinced that he was innocent.

ASA GAINER: What was it about that meeting that convinced you that he was innocent?

A: Well, the reason we were going to meet with him was to ask him if he had committed the crime, but the first thing he said was that he was innocent, and I've heard people say that before, but he was more convincing.

. . . . . . 

JUROR: It surprises me that you and your girlfriend Cara would be up there talking to Simon, and the professor, as smart as he is, is in the car. Why didn't he have some protection for you going up to see Simon if he had any thought that he might be the killer?

A: First of all, it was our interview. Second of all, we are - we weren't confronting him that he committed the crime. We were just interviewing him and -

JUROR: Two young white girls?

A: Quite frankly, he would be pretty stupid to do anything to us. He knew our professor was in the car. He knew what we were there about. He - he would be pretty stupid to have done anything to us.

JUROR: You're naive to do something like that. If you were my daughter, I'd . . . 

. . . . . .  .

Q: And you were aware that there were 4 other witnesses who the police interviewed, men by the name of Eugene Beckwith, Mark Senior, Kenneth Edwards and Michael Woodfork?

A: Yes.

Q: Right?

A: Right.

Q: Did you take - did you interview any of those people?

A: No, we didn't because they said - they all said it was too dark to see anything anyway. I think. That's what I thought they said.

[NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SAID. WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT THEY SAW PORTER IN THE BLEACHERS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING AND EDWARDS SAID HE SAW PORTER PULL THE TRIGGER]

Q: Did you take any steps to interview those people?

A: No.

Q: Well, you had the police reports, right?

A: Yes.

Q: You were aware that Eugene Beckwith identified Anthony - I am sorry - Kenneth Edwards identified Anthony Porter as the shooter that night, weren't you?

A: No, I guess I didn't see that part of the police report.

[REALLY, HOW COULD SHE NOT HAVE NOTICED SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE? COULD IT BE, PERHAPS, THAT SHE AND HER FELLOW STUDENTS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN BAD FACTS?]

. . . . . 

Q; What steps did you take to locate those 4 individuals [Edwards, Beckwith, Senior and Woodfork]

A: We did not take any steps.

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

STAY TUNED. MORE TO FOLLOW. 

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

On February 22, 1999, NU Journalism student Cara Rubinsky testified before the Grand Jury.

Here are some interesting points of her testimony:

* She interviewed Alstory Simon in Milwaukee along with student Shawn Armbrust  while David Protess waited outside in the car

* Simon told her that the murders were very painful for him and that he had not been in Washington Park that night. He said that he and his wife were walking with Jerry and Marilyn towards the park when he saw a group of men on the other side of the street. He thought it looked like trouble and warned Jerry and Marilyn not to go in the park. He and his wife left and went and bought ice cream and brought it to the kids at home. 

* Here's how Rubinsky described what David Protess did at the end of her Simon interview:

Q: And you were with the professor and Simon the entire time the professor talked to him?

A: I think the professor asked us to walk away at the end for a minute, but I don't think he said anything - I'm not sure if he said anything further or not. 

[Why did Protess ask the students to "walk away"?]

[Was Protess going to say something to Simon that he didn't want to the students to hear?]

[Seems very odd, to say the least]

Q; Well, do you know why he asked you to walk away?

A: I think he wanted to make eye contact - tried to make eye contact with Alstory. We could hear what he was saying, and he didn't say anything else about a book or movie deal.

[She thought Protess asked her to "walk away" so he could make eye contact with Simon? That makes no sense. Why would she have to walk away for Protess to make eye contact?]

[When the ASA asks her why Protess asked her to walk away, why does she deny, at the end of her answer that Protess said anything about a book or movie deal? That wasn't the question. Seems like a very odd response]

Then there was the following discussion about book and movie deals:

Q: Do you know what was said?

A: At the very end I just think that, you know, our professor gave him his card and said please get in touch with me. I don't know the exact words, but it was something to that effect.

Q: Did you professor explain to Alstory Simon that he might be writing a book about this case?

A: I don't think so, no.

Q: Did he say anything to Alstory Simon about the fact that there might be a movie made about this case?

A: No.

Q: Did he ever use the words "book deal" or "movie rights" in your presence?

A: Not that I recall hearing, no.

Q: Did you ever hear your professor say those words to anybody in connection with this case?

A: To anybody?

Q: Anybody in the world, on the planet?

A: Yeah, I mean we talked about it.

Q: Okay. When you say we talked about it, who talked about it?

A: In our group. We had a group meeting. We have gotten calls from a few agents. We personally have. So we sat down and talked about how we would handle those things. This is after Anthony was out of prison already.

[Hmm. . . so they were talking about book or movie deals with agents]

* She was present for the interview of Inez Simon, which started at her home, then continued at a restaurant, then they went to a grocery store and bought her groceries, and then the interview continued at the home of Shawn Armbrust's parents in Brookfield, WI.

* Somebody paid for Inez Simon and her family to stay at a Holiday Inn and for her meals when she came to Chicago to be on TV.

Then there was this discussion about alibi witnesses:

Q: Did you ask Anthony Porter about his alibi witnesses at trial?

A: I did not, no.

Q: Did Shawn Armbrust in your presence?

A: No.

Q; Did Daniel Sanders talk about alibis?

A: No.

Q; Did you ask Anthony Porter whether or not he saw Alstory Simon in the pool the night Jerry Hilliard and Marilyn Green were shot?

A: No, because I think Anthony said he wasn't - he told us that he wasn't in the park that night.

[Hmm. . . . if Porter wasn't in the park, what about all the people who said they saw him in the park that night???]

Q: And you were trying to determine whether or not he had committed the crimes that he was convicted of and almost killed for?

A: We weren't - I mean, that wasn't the purpose of the interview. It was just to meet him.

[Why wasn't that the purpose of the interview?]

As to that alibi issue, again, here's more:

Q: And again, you didn't talk to him about his alibi?

A: No.

Q: Did you read a full set of the police reports that you obtained from Mr. Sanders?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you read the reports that contained interviews with Kenneth Edwards, Michael Woodfork, Mark Senior, and Eugene Beckwith?

A: Yes,

Q: Did you make any attempt to interview any one of those four people?

A: No.

[Really? No attempt to interview the people who had seen Porter in the park, and the guy (Edwards) who said he saw Porter pull the trigger???]

Even a grand juror seemed to pick up on the theme that Protess and the students were not actually seeking the true facts:

GRAND JUROR: Based on the professor's reputation, did you at any time feel that it was in your best interest so that you would be better off finding this man innocent?

A: No. 

GRAND JUROR: So you were never attempting to find innocence, you were trying to find facts?

A: Yes.

[If that were really true, why didn't Protess, Rubinsky and the rest of the group fail to interview all the witnesses who saw Porter in the park at the time of the shooting???]

Hmm. . . what do you think?

Were David Protess and his students seeking all the facts, i.e., the truth, or was their mission trying to establish Porter's innocence as advocates?

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

 On February 11, 1999, Mark Senior testified before the Grand Jury.

Here are the key points from his testimony:

* He knew who Anthony Porter was

* On August 14, 1982, sometime after midnight, he went swimming in the Washington Park pool with his friends Michael Woodfork, Eugene Beckwith, and Kenneth Edwards.

* He saw four or five people in the northwest corner of the bleachers next to the swimming pool

* One of the persons he saw in the bleachers was Anthony Porter

* He heard gunshots and turned around and saw a male standing up and holding a gun. 

* After the shots were fired, a woman staggered down from the bleachers and another person was laying down at the top of the bleachers

* He could not tell which person fired the shots

So, again, another person who puts Anthony Porter in park, in the bleachers, at the time of the shooting

And, again, Porter denies he was in the park that night

Hmm. . . 

Why didn't David Protess or the Northwestern Medill Journalism students interview Mr. Senior?

Were they searching for the truth?

Or did they not want to know the truth? 

Was their goal simply to spare Anthony Porter from the death penalty?

Stay tuned. . . 

• 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

 The Chicago Sun Times reports that Northwestern has decided not to appeal a recent court ruling and, instead, will turn over to prosecutors approximately 500 email messages between former Medill Innocence Project Director David Protess and former journalism students. Stay tuned to this story. More developments are sure to come. . . 

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