As a recovering alcoholic who used to have blackouts on a regular basis - I can totally understand how Ericksen was led to believe in his own guilt, manufactured "memories" based on the information fed to him by cops and and the prosecutors. I firmly believe this could just have easily been me back in my drinking days! I would have absolutely no memory of anything that went on during a blackout, and to everyone else I appeared wide awake and functioning. The next morning I would have to piece together what happened based on what my friends told me about my actions and whereabouts from the night before. So I have no doubt that Chuck and Ryan are innocent. This case breaks my heart for the victim's family and both of those convicted boys, who are now men rotting away for nothing in prison. Sadly, neither the prosecutor nor the cops will ever admit that they may have developed this case to end up with an outcome that suited their agendas. I wish I were on that original jury - there is no way you could convince me that Ryan should be in jail. I hope Erin Moriarty keeps us posted on developments - this is a fascinating case but it is a real travesty of justice.
what the hell is the problem with the justice system in that part of the country.What sort of court system is it when the defence team doesn't use evidence from the crime scene and to take the testimonial of a person using drugs as credible.Its unbelievable that some lawyer from northern states wanted to take this trial, due to the incompetent legal team in Misouri.Hats of to his dad for standing up for his son.Corruption is alive and kicking in America.
Questions that I still have:
1) Was the so-called witness, Mr. Trump, offered any sort of deal by the prosecutor to pinpoint to these 2 boys since he was in jail at the time for a "sex crime". 2) Since the prosecutor is now the judge, did he offer a deal and pressure not only Mr. Trump, but any other witnesses for his own personal political gain? Even the young lady security guard stated she was intimidated by the prosecutor.
3) Since apparently Charles aka Chuck had been snorting Addeall and doing other drugs along with alcohol, is it possible he took some sort of hynotic such as Ambien to come down off the Adderall. The reason I ask is because I have taken Ambien myself and will never touch it again for the simple fact that it messes with your memory, especially if you do have dreams while taking it because they can seem so realistic
4) Why did they not take hair samples/shoe print samples from the last person, the co-worker, especially since his story kept chsnging regarding the car he was driving
5) Last but not least..the very first question I had was why these 2 kid would need to "steal drinking money." They both looked pretty well off financially, especially Ryan Ferguson.
I'm sure I will think of more questions as soon as I post this, but that prosecutor just doesn't sit right with me, especially with Mr. Trump deal. Was he offered a deal????????
Questions that I still have:
1) Was the so-called witness, Mr. Trump, offered any sort of deal to pinpoint to these 2 boys since he was in jail at the time for a "sex crime". 2) Since the prosecutor is now the judge, did he offer a deal and pressure witnesses for his own personal gain? Even the young lady security guard stated she was intimidated by the prosecutor.
3) Since apparently Charles aka Chuck had been snorting Addeall and doing other drugs along with alcohol, is it possible he took some sort of hynotic such as Ambien to come down off the Adderall. The reason I ask is because I have taken Ambien myself and will never touch it again for the simple fact that it messes with your memory, especially if you do have dreams while taking it because they can seem so realistic
4) Why did they not take hair samples/shoe print samples from the last person, the co-worker, especially since his story kept chsnging regarding the car he was driving
5) Last but not least..the very first question I had was why these 2 kid would need to "steal drinking money." They both looked pretty well off financially, especially Ryan Ferguson.
I'm sure I will think of more questions as soon as I post this, but that prosecutor just doesn't sit right with me, especially with Mr. Trump deal. Was he offered a deal????????
Does a TV program need to be exciting for you to help you believe in this case? This comment suggests 1) you need to be entertained for anything to be believable, 2) a lack of empathy (meaning, it is difficult to put yourself in Ryan's shoes).
However this case was represented, by CBC's 48 Hours, it was done to bring attention to the North American public in order to facilitate justice. Sorry it did not meet with your approval.
How can I decide not to believe in something if I didn't watch the thing. I expect things I watch to be interesting. This was not. There was nothing interesting presented except one boy's family's understandable attempt to free him and the constant changing of minds of witnesses - pure chaos. 1) I need to be given something credible to be believable 2) I don't need to be in anybody's shoes to evaluate the facts if they were given to me. Your last sentence is just stupid, internet doesn't belong to you
In my mind Ryan has always been an innocent man, Chuck has no conscience, he took alcool, drogs , he get blink in his memory so how can the jury be sure he told them the truth!!!!I m french and I've just watched this story and I AM waiting for the 2nd may to what happen!!!
Ryan I would to tell you that you can be very proud of your father!!!!
Take care of you
I am always facinated by 48 hours mystery!!!!!!!!
Nathalie by FRANCE
It is my hope exposure of this case, by 48 Hours, will light a fire under someone's behind for ALL the evidence to be gathered.
Interrogation techniques, when done correctly and without coercion, are to facilitate an investigation toward the truth. However, in this case and many others, investigators drop the ball.
It should be mandatory for all law enforcement to CARE about doing a job to the best of their ability. To CARE about the truth, obtain all evidence. They failed Ryan.
How can law officers live with themselves when they KNOW deep down the confession they got was not the truth? And I do not ask this question regarding this case but every case where the suspect or person of interest is harassed to the point where they finally break down and confess rather than stick to their innocence without fail. Ryan, inadvertently, succumbed to intense pressure and intimidation.
ANY cop who interrogates in a harassing, bullying, abusive manner resulting in a false confession should be charged with a criminal act (surely there must be one that exists, if not then a there should be a law against a resultant false confession) when the accused is found innocent.
Kevin Crane walked into his position as a judge because there were no opponents. According to my understanding there were many letters received that stated the writer did NOT want Crane on the bench, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there were no opponents and, therefore, there was no election.
It's terrifying to me that a jury could convict this guy; and even more terrifying that the appeal judge could uphold the decision (by the way, what the hell about this case requires a YEAR to review before you can decide that?)
Apparently either the judge was unable to instruct the jury properly on the issue of reasonable doubt, the kid's lawyer was utterly incompetent, the jurors are uneducated bumpkins, or all of the above.
What is the judge's excuse? I have no idea. Maybe there's some political motivation there, but that judge should be soundly thrashed next time she comes up for election.
For @#$%^& sake! "Yeah, the evidence strongly indicates Ryan's not guilty, but golly, why would Chuck say he was involved and why would he look so pleadingly at him unless Ryan was guilty? That's what we're gonna base convicting a man to 40 years in prison on, that makes a lot more sense than the evidence."
1) fingerprints, a shoeprint in the victim's blood, and hair in the victim's hand--who the hell do you think these things belong to, ya effin morons on the jury and ya effin moron appeal judge???? If that right there isn't reasonable doubt then NOTHING is. 2) you never heard of false confessions??? 3) you SAW the footage of his interrogation where he clearly had no effing idea about the murder, and you decided that his court testimony would be closer to the truth than his original, unschooled statements??? 4) how could Ryan's lawyer not know to interview the bar bouncer about whether Ryan and Chuck showed up after the murder? did he not interview the schoolmate that was supposedly seen at a stoplight? or is it possible the lawyer was so stupid that he didn't realize impeaching Chuck's crazy-ass story was important? did the lawyer not bring up the fact that Chuck was an addled drug addict and therefore his memory, not to mention his testimony, was entirely unreliable? did the lawyer not bring up the fact that if Ryan and Chuck robbed the victim, why was his wallet sitting in the victim's car? did the lawyer not draw attention to the fact that Chuck was testifying against Ryan as part of a plea deal? did the lawyer not point out that Trump stated earlier that he could NOT identify the two men he saw? and did the lawyer not point out to the jury that this guy is not a reliable witness, being in jail for a sex crime himself??? did the lawyer not call the other janitor to the stand, who not only clearly stated that at best, she couldn't be sure whether she'd seen Chuck or Ryan, but also described the man she saw as skinny with light hair? Neither one of these accused men are skinny. 5) if you beat someone to death and left them in a pool of blood, would you not have blood all the hell over you? and would this not be obvious to anyone who saw them supposedly at the bar later?
I'm sure if I spent more than 15 minutes thinking about this case I could come up with a lot more obvious problems with this case.
One can only hope that the public exposure from 48 hours will put enough pressure on the next judge that they'll be forced to grant a new trial, or more appropriately, just flat out exonerate and release Ryan.
What a travesty. No one is safe if any effing moron that you're hanging out with can put you in prison for 40 years because they decided to claim you were both involved in a crime. What the hell.
VERY good points! You have a great memory. Also I guess they never heard of false memories. If psychiatrists bring out false memories in their clients, it's clear cops do. This case makes me angry at so many people! It's a good thing I don't act out my violent urges. I've about given up on our criminal (supposed)justice system. This story greatly worsens those feelings.
It is my hope exposure of this case, by 48 Hours, will light a fire under someone's behind for ALL the evidence to be gathered.
Interrogation techniques, when done correctly and without coercion, are to facilitate an investigation toward the truth. However, in this case and many others, investigators drop the ball.
It should be mandatory for all law enforcement to CARE about doing a job to the best of their ability. To CARE about the truth, obtain all evidence. They failed Ryan.
How can law officers live with themselves when they KNOW deep down the confession they got was not the truth? And I do not ask this question regarding this case but every case where the suspect or person of interest is harassed to the point where they finally break down and confess rather than stick to their innocence without fail. Ryan, inadvertently, succumbed to intense pressure and intimidation.
ANY cop who interrogates in a harassing, bullying, abusive manner resulting in a false confession should be charged with a criminal act (surely there must be one that exists, if not then a there should be a law against a resultant false confession) when the accused is found innocent.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=74288928213
http://www.myspace.com/freeryanf
http://www.freeryanferguson.com/
1) Was the so-called witness, Mr. Trump, offered any sort of deal by the prosecutor to pinpoint to these 2 boys since he was in jail at the time for a "sex crime".
2) Since the prosecutor is now the judge, did he offer a deal and pressure not only Mr. Trump, but any other witnesses for his own personal political gain? Even the young lady security guard stated she was intimidated by the prosecutor.
3) Since apparently Charles aka Chuck had been snorting Addeall and doing other drugs along with alcohol, is it possible he took some sort of hynotic such as Ambien to come down off the Adderall. The reason I ask is because I have taken Ambien myself and will never touch it again for the simple fact that it messes with your memory, especially if you do have dreams while taking it because they can seem so realistic
4) Why did they not take hair samples/shoe print samples from the last person, the co-worker, especially since his story kept chsnging regarding the car he was driving
5) Last but not least..the very first question I had was why these 2 kid would need to "steal drinking money." They both looked pretty well off financially, especially Ryan Ferguson.
I'm sure I will think of more questions as soon as I post this, but that prosecutor just doesn't sit right with me, especially with Mr. Trump deal. Was he offered a deal????????
1) Was the so-called witness, Mr. Trump, offered any sort of deal to pinpoint to these 2 boys since he was in jail at the time for a "sex crime".
2) Since the prosecutor is now the judge, did he offer a deal and pressure witnesses for his own personal gain? Even the young lady security guard stated she was intimidated by the prosecutor.
3) Since apparently Charles aka Chuck had been snorting Addeall and doing other drugs along with alcohol, is it possible he took some sort of hynotic such as Ambien to come down off the Adderall. The reason I ask is because I have taken Ambien myself and will never touch it again for the simple fact that it messes with your memory, especially if you do have dreams while taking it because they can seem so realistic
4) Why did they not take hair samples/shoe print samples from the last person, the co-worker, especially since his story kept chsnging regarding the car he was driving
5) Last but not least..the very first question I had was why these 2 kid would need to "steal drinking money." They both looked pretty well off financially, especially Ryan Ferguson.
I'm sure I will think of more questions as soon as I post this, but that prosecutor just doesn't sit right with me, especially with Mr. Trump deal. Was he offered a deal????????
Does a TV program need to be exciting for you to help you believe in this case? This comment suggests 1) you need to be entertained for anything to be believable, 2) a lack of empathy (meaning, it is difficult to put yourself in Ryan's shoes).
However this case was represented, by CBC's 48 Hours, it was done to bring attention to the North American public in order to facilitate justice. Sorry it did not meet with your approval.
Ryan I would to tell you that you can be very proud of your father!!!!
Take care of you
I am always facinated by 48 hours mystery!!!!!!!!
Nathalie by FRANCE
Interrogation techniques, when done correctly and without coercion, are to facilitate an investigation toward the truth. However, in this case and many others, investigators drop the ball.
It should be mandatory for all law enforcement to CARE about doing a job to the best of their ability. To CARE about the truth, obtain all evidence. They failed Ryan.
How can law officers live with themselves when they KNOW deep down the confession they got was not the truth? And I do not ask this question regarding this case but every case where the suspect or person of interest is harassed to the point where they finally break down and confess rather than stick to their innocence without fail. Ryan, inadvertently, succumbed to intense pressure and intimidation.
ANY cop who interrogates in a harassing, bullying, abusive manner resulting in a false confession should be charged with a criminal act (surely there must be one that exists, if not then a there should be a law against a resultant false confession) when the accused is found innocent.
Apparently either the judge was unable to instruct the jury properly on the issue of reasonable doubt, the kid's lawyer was utterly incompetent, the jurors are uneducated bumpkins, or all of the above.
What is the judge's excuse? I have no idea. Maybe there's some political motivation there, but that judge should be soundly thrashed next time she comes up for election.
For @#$%^& sake! "Yeah, the evidence strongly indicates Ryan's not guilty, but golly, why would Chuck say he was involved and why would he look so pleadingly at him unless Ryan was guilty? That's what we're gonna base convicting a man to 40 years in prison on, that makes a lot more sense than the evidence."
1) fingerprints, a shoeprint in the victim's blood, and hair in the victim's hand--who the hell do you think these things belong to, ya effin morons on the jury and ya effin moron appeal judge???? If that right there isn't reasonable doubt then NOTHING is.
2) you never heard of false confessions???
3) you SAW the footage of his interrogation where he clearly had no effing idea about the murder, and you decided that his court testimony would be closer to the truth than his original, unschooled statements???
4) how could Ryan's lawyer not know to interview the bar bouncer about whether Ryan and Chuck showed up after the murder? did he not interview the schoolmate that was supposedly seen at a stoplight? or is it possible the lawyer was so stupid that he didn't realize impeaching Chuck's crazy-ass story was important? did the lawyer not bring up the fact that Chuck was an addled drug addict and therefore his memory, not to mention his testimony, was entirely unreliable? did the lawyer not bring up the fact that if Ryan and Chuck robbed the victim, why was his wallet sitting in the victim's car? did the lawyer not draw attention to the fact that Chuck was testifying against Ryan as part of a plea deal? did the lawyer not point out that Trump stated earlier that he could NOT identify the two men he saw? and did the lawyer not point out to the jury that this guy is not a reliable witness, being in jail for a sex crime himself??? did the lawyer not call the other janitor to the stand, who not only clearly stated that at best, she couldn't be sure whether she'd seen Chuck or Ryan, but also described the man she saw as skinny with light hair? Neither one of these accused men are skinny.
5) if you beat someone to death and left them in a pool of blood, would you not have blood all the hell over you? and would this not be obvious to anyone who saw them supposedly at the bar later?
I'm sure if I spent more than 15 minutes thinking about this case I could come up with a lot more obvious problems with this case.
One can only hope that the public exposure from 48 hours will put enough pressure on the next judge that they'll be forced to grant a new trial, or more appropriately, just flat out exonerate and release Ryan.
What a travesty. No one is safe if any effing moron that you're hanging out with can put you in prison for 40 years because they decided to claim you were both involved in a crime. What the hell.
Interrogation techniques, when done correctly and without coercion, are to facilitate an investigation toward the truth. However, in this case and many others, investigators drop the ball.
It should be mandatory for all law enforcement to CARE about doing a job to the best of their ability. To CARE about the truth, obtain all evidence. They failed Ryan.
How can law officers live with themselves when they KNOW deep down the confession they got was not the truth? And I do not ask this question regarding this case but every case where the suspect or person of interest is harassed to the point where they finally break down and confess rather than stick to their innocence without fail. Ryan, inadvertently, succumbed to intense pressure and intimidation.
ANY cop who interrogates in a harassing, bullying, abusive manner resulting in a false confession should be charged with a criminal act (surely there must be one that exists, if not then a there should be a law against a resultant false confession) when the accused is found innocent.