Comments on: 48 Hours Mystery: The Lost Night
Add a Comment
- Obviously, these two young men were railroaded, first by the prosecution, then by the jurors. It is a very scary thing that people are still being convicted with iffy eyewitness accounts, nonexistent evidence, or evidence that does not tie them to the crime. Even worse, now that there is more evidence to prove they could not have committed the crime, the people who are supposed to right these types of wrongs and make sure justice is served will NOT listen! Also, the fact that a prosecutor would convict someone while knowing all the facts of the case should be cause for alarm in that county-ANY of you people who live there could be next. Finally, what about Ryan's attorneys? Why did his father have to go out and dig all the other information up himself? If this information had been brought up during the trial, surely, not even the jurors in this case could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a doubt, the real murderers are still out there, and the fact that two innocent people are in prison for what they did and those in "power" know it, is unconscionable!!!
- Reply to this comment
- This is a terrible story and confusing. I would lead towards these two men being innocent. The druggie one who experienced blackouts just had a nightmare he committed this crime. He didn't even know any details. The cops who interviewed him should have dropped the case against him because he obviously didn't know what happened.
- Reply to this comment
- Just as an FYI, the hair tested that was in Kent's hand did not belong to Kent either ... that makes it more clear that another was present aside from Kent, Ryan or Chuck.
I'm sure that if the hair had been identified as feline (he was feeding cats at the time of the attack) or something that may have come from Kent's automobile (like the hair of a family member), notes to that effect would have been made public. My personal belief is that the hair that was in Kent's hand is one that he pulled from the attacker. It is odd that the tests did not spread around to all that could have been in the parking lot that night. The FBI tested the hair. Why were no other individuals tested for DNA? - Reply to this comment
- It's so scary that any of us could go to jail with no evidence against us. And the juror who found in convincing because what would Chuck Erickson gain out of the testimony? Maybe Chuck is unstable or for whatever reason his mind isn't working properly. There was hair in the victim's hand that didn't belong to either of the boys? Any system is a disgrace to democracy that allows this to happen. The DA now judge that created this tragedy on top of the first tragedy (the murder) should be dismissed and really should be in jail.
- Reply to this comment
- I'm not surprised, given the corrupt judicial system in Missouri. The prosecutor is now a judge, meaning that he is politically connected. That is why Ryan has been turned away by the court system at every turn. Hopefully, he can pursue habeas relief in Federal court if the Missouri Supreme Court does not provide relief.
- Reply to this comment
- The thing that should the most enraging to the American public is the obvious (and you can see this by watching the videos of the interrogators working with Chuck) that they used tricks to make him say things that were way beyond his comprehension ... or at least agree to whatever the officer was saying.
Chuck was very confused, obviously, during the police interrogation. The slipping of any factual evidence by the police should have made this case be thrown out immediately.
This means it could happen to any American, anywhere, and because of it you or your children could end up with a 40 year (or worse) sentence. The prosecutor used this information, added his own trickery and ended up with a jury that (if they could have afforded it), paid to do something else on those days. They could have paid the county and worked some community service to keep from appearing as a juror. This, in fact, narrows the jury pool to a group of people that is not a representative slice of the entire community.
And then the prosecutor becomes a judge. God help us all. - Reply to this comment
- I've benn following this case since the first time it aired on 48 hours years ago....I could not fathom then as I cannot fathom now how in any of the jurors right monds they were able convict on all of the non-evidence brought into this case. It just doesn't make sense and I don't know how these people sleep at night. All I can think is that the jury consisted of a bunch of noneducated hillbillies with no teeth sucking on hay.
I live in Boston and am in no way associated with this case nor did I have any knowledge of it until it was aired a few yrs ago....it has haunted me ever since - Reply to this comment
- momsmom: I'll try to answer some of your questions as I've been following this case since 2004.
1. Ryan stated that the bar closed at 1:30 and testimony of the bouncer and others confirms this. He stated that he and Chuck got into his car, Ryan dropped Chuck off at his own home, then Ryan, himself went home and sat on the curb in front of his house talking to friends on his cell phone. The family has obtained records from the cellphone company which identifies the location of the caller (Ryan) when these phone calls were made. They show that Ryan was, indeed, at the location testified to. (This information is technical and relates to signals between cellphone towers and is used by police to locate a cellphone user due to the dings between cellphone towers while a phone is in use). According to my understanding thus far, the records obtained by Bill Ferguson showing the location of Ryan Ferguson at the specified times, are not admissible into evidence and have not yet been rendered to the courts as evidence.
2. Testimony of the bouncer at "By George", the bar was closed at 1:30 a.m. on November 1. There have never been violations against "By George" for closing late. According to this testimony and the statements of other patrons, the bar was closed at 1:30 and not re-opened. Therefore, Chuck's testimony that he and Ryan returned to the bar at 2:45 to join other patrons and continue drinking was incorrect. No one has been able to disprove the bouncer's testimony.
3. Unknown.
4. Unknown for sure, but according to blogs going on for years and certain opinions, it is believed that Chuck's childhood was difficult, but I know nothing specific other than the fact that he was a known drug and alcohol user since the age of 14 (his own testimony).
5. DNA testing has been done on the hair in Mr. Heitholt's hand and it does not match either Ryan or Chuck, nor does any of the blood, fingerprints, shoeprints or other testing done on the crime scene point to Ryan or Chuck. Chuck testified (originally) that the victim was struck once on his head with a tire tool (which supposedly came from Ryan's car----this was disproven by luminol testing on Ryan's car and the original tire tool that came with the car. There was no blood found in the car or on Ryan's tire tool). The police offered information to Chuck during his interrogation that Mr. Heitholt was struck over the head many times (I believe at least 11 times) with a blunt instrument --- could not be proven to be a tire tool. After Mr. Heitholt fell to the ground, the police offered Chuck the information concerning the removal of Mr. Heitholt's belt and strangluation with it. Chuck did not know what he was strangled with or that he was even strangled. At the point Chuck was interrogated, he believed that Mr. Heitholt was struck once with the tire tool and knew nothing of the belt strangulation or whether Mr. Heitholt was face down on the pavement or face up ... which information was also given to him by the police department. Chuck had been told (during his interrogation) that Ryan was going to turn evidence against Chuck for the murder, so he may as well admit to all he knew. Obviously, this scared Chuck. Ryan has never admitted to nor stated he would cop a plea by admitting anything ... therefore, the police lied to Chuck to get him to talk, whether correct or not. Please see: www.freeryanferguson.com for any further information you need. There's plenty there to read. - Reply to this comment
- momsmom: I'll try to answer some of your questions as I've been following this case since 2004.
1. Ryan stated that the bar closed at 1:30 and testimony of the bouncer and others confirms this. He stated that he and Chuck got into his car, Ryan dropped Chuck off at his own home, then Ryan, himself went home and sat on the curb in front of his house talking to friends on his cell phone. The family has obtained records from the cellphone company which identifies the location of the caller (Ryan) when these phone calls were made. They show that Ryan was, indeed, at the location testified to. (This information is technical and relates to signals between cellphone towers and is used by police to locate a cellphone user due to the dings between cellphone towers while a phone is in use). According to my understanding thus far, the records obtained by Bill Ferguson showing the location of Ryan Ferguson at the specified times, are not admissible into evidence and have not yet been rendered to the courts as evidence.
2. Testimony of the bouncer at "By George", the bar was closed at 1:30 a.m. on November 1. There have never been violations against "By George" for closing late. According to this testimony and the statements of other patrons, the bar was closed at 1:30 and not re-opened. Therefore, Chuck's testimony that he and Ryan returned to the bar at 2:45 to join other patrons and continue drinking was incorrect. No one has been able to disprove the bouncer's testimony.
3. Unknown.
4. Unknown for sure, but according to blogs going on for years and certain opinions, it is believed that Chuck's childhood was difficult, but I know nothing specific other than the fact that he was a known drug and alcohol user since the age of 14 (his own testimony).
5. DNA testing has been done on the hair in Mr. Heithold't hand and it does not match either Ryan or Chuck, nor does any of the blood, fingerprints or other testing done on the crime scene point to Ryan or Chuck. Chuck testified (originally) that the victim was struck on his head with a tire tool (which supposedly came from Ryan's car----this was disproven by luminol testing on Ryan's car and the original tire tool that came with the car. There was no blood found in the car or on Ryan's tire tool). The police offered information to Chuck during his interrogation that Mr. Heitholt was struck over the head many times (I believe at least 11 times) with a blunt instrument --- could not be proven to be a tire tool. After Mr. Heitholt fell to the ground, the police offered Chuck the information concerning the removal of Mr. Heitholt's belt and strangluation with it. Chuck did not know what he was strangled with or that he was even strangled. Please see: www.freeryanferguson.com for any further information you need. There's plenty there to read. - Reply to this comment
- my heart goes out to ryan and his family. it made me sick at my stomach seeing this episode. law enforcement is there to help protect not to talk someone into guilt. my prayers are with your family. hope this case turns into true justice.
- Reply to this comment
