Dream Killer

A Young Man Dreams He Murdered A Man

(CBS) 
As the defense laid out its case, Ryan Ferguson testified about the time when Chuck first mentioned the Heitholt murder to him.

"He told me he had a dream about it. I told him he was weird and just to leave me alone. I went back inside and at that point never saw him again," Ryan testified.

Ryan hoped to convince jurors that his story made more sense than Chuck’s.

Asked if he went to the Tribune parking lot or saw Kent Heitholt anywhere, Ryan said no.

"You’re there for a horrible thing. Something that I’ve never even conceived of doing and they’re looking at me like I’m some kind of criminal. And - it’s just the worst feeling in the world," he says.

Asked if he participated in the murder, Ryan said, "No."

Unlike Chuck, Ryan never changed his story, from the day he was pulled in by police for questioning. Even when pressed for four grueling hours, Ryan told police he wasn't at the crime scene.

Ryan’s attorneys pointed out he has always maintained his innocence.

But Crane tried to chip away at Ryan's story.

"You were asked if you ran out of money and your answer was 'I don’t believe so,' " Crane asked.

"Yes," Ryan replied.

Yet under pressure, Ryan stood firm. "I never thought I would be arrested for a crime I did not commit. Would you believe you’d be arrested for a crime you didn’t commit?" he testified.

"I don’t know how he is so strong. But it's just really hard to see. He’s sitting right by us. And we can’t even touch him," says Ryan's sister, Kelly.

When Kelly took the stand in her brother’s defense, Crane reminded jurors how she had sneaked her brother into the bar illegally.

"I feel like its kind of my fault," says Kelly. "He wouldn’t have even been downtown if it wasn’t for me. And then he would never have been a suspect."

But Kelly and other defense witnesses also contradict a crucial part of Chuck’s story. Chuck had claimed that they went back to the bar after killing Heitholt around 2:30 a.m.

Chris Canada, who tended bar that night, says that’s impossible.

"The law of the land is you close by 1:30. And that’s what time our boss always had us close at," he says.

"When the lights came on, and they were, like, pushing people out. It’s pretty aggressive," says Kelly.

[convergingnow]

There is so much reasonable doubt in this case. One part of this documentary that sickened me was when one juror stated that he had made up his mind about the defendant's before he even testified. Anyone who has taken a psychology course on memory (I have a B.S. in Psychology, and did take such a course) would know that false memory is a real phenomenon. That notwithstanding, how could the jury believe the testimony of a disturbed young man with a history of deceit (forgery) is unimpeachable? I cannot say without a doubt that the defendant is innocent, but there is so much evidence to the contrary I believe that this was a case of guilty before proven innocent. My heart goes out to the families of ALL victims in this case; the accuser (a victim of his delusions), the victim, the victim's family, and the family of the defendant. If there is reasonable doubt that the defendant did this (there is MORE than reasonable doubt), this miscarriage of justice inexcusable on the part of the jurors.

[SusieParker]

It was the Janitor. Seriously. They were so focused on convicting two innocent guys they didn't bother to check the credibility of the "eye witness"

Kent left work and was feeding the stray cat. The Janitor hated it. They had words. The janitor lost it and went postal on Kent. When he saw all the blood realized that he killed the guy he decided to make it look like a robbery. Then - probably knowing the ineptitude of the police department - he figured he'd cover his tracks if he pretended to be an eyewitness and report the body.

The jurors admitted that they had already decided Ryan's guilt before hearing the evidence. Bad Jurors!!! Idiots.. I guess that's proof you don't want to live in a town full of imbeciles!

I hope Ryan's Dad reads this and gets a private investigator to look into the Janitor's DNA, and get it compared to the evidence!

[mcgk]

I can't get over the lack of physical evidence. There happens to be one small detail I can't seem to let go of...transfer. If the boys actually did attack this reporter, would they not have blood transfer? I mean you are smashing someone in the head with a tire iron, the scalp bleeds profusely, you would be soaked in blood. Even if it was Halloween they were high school students, would their parents not notice blood soaked clothing in the house? would there not be transfer in the car? As for the witnesses...you cannot honestly expect someone to believe that four years later you would be better equipped to remember details or descriptions than you were the very night you witnessed it. It seems to me there is a ton of blatant ignorance to be shared between the prosecuters office and the jury box. There is way to much reasonable doubt here, that jury convicted a boy to prison based on emotion. I hope they sleep well at night.

[tisane22]

i just watched the program and was wondering if they considered the height of the victim and the attacker. the victim seems to be very tall where as chuck seems to be quite short (though that may just be the camera). does the type and pattern of injuries sustained by the victim match the height of the attacker?

[k-k-k-k-]

the police in the states ar stubed thay think thay got the right boys thay could not find a hooker in awhore house i would never live as a yankey

The essence of any trial is some degree of uncertainty. Here, there is on the one hand the sincere confession of one of the accused and on the other hand the equally sincere denial by the other. Beyond that, no evidence. No reference to bloody clothing. No blood in the car. No link to either at the scene. What is entirely missing from the "48 Hours" report is any reference at all to burden of proof. It''s beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. Apparently, not only did the reporters of this piece forget about that burden, but so did the jurors. As the old legal saying goes, "I wouldn''t convict a yellow dog on that skimpy amount of evidence."

[coolcar51]

When I watch a show like this I usual do not remeber names but this story realy caught my interest. The scale of justice were one sided against the two boys. Where is the over whamming evidence, the prosecuter only has two, the janitor, said he had no description of the 2 men at the crime scene, but two years later in court it all came back to him when he saw Ryan in court, and Chuck who dream all of this hear say evidence.

[safecrack]

usedhorses,

I don''t think Chuck was trying to be malicious. I think something about this case got to him mentally and he had a dream and the dream freaked him out. At that point, he TRIED REALLY HARD TO REMEMBER and actually convinced himself there were memories to be retrieved. Then, armed with details spoon fed by the investigators, he filled in the gaps (errors) in his mind with the details and became utterly convinced the whole thing happened.

I see this for what it was. The sad part is that neither the jury nor the DA/Prosecuter thought anything was amiss and that Chuck was accurate. Chuck didn''t lie (intentionally deceive) he''s just sorely mistaken... to the tune of costing him and his old friend their lives.

[safecrack]

I couldn''t sleep after watching this. First, there''s probably NO WAY Ryan or Chuck committed the crime because there''s actually exculpatory evidence suggesting they didn''t (bar timeline, hair found in victim''s hand does not match either, body found face up-chuck''s testimony suggested face down), let alone reasonable doubt.

Second, the prosecuter had idiot stamped across his forehead throughout the show. He demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of simple investigative techniques and had no understanding of cognition. Further, the jury made me want to vomit. I don''t know where this crime occured, but I''m wondering if the collective IQ of the town is over 100.

I know what I''m talking about. I learned cognition from one of the best in the WORLD, and she appeared on the show (and testified in the trial). In a lecture I attended several years ago, I watched as she planted a false memory into the class and they all believed it was REAL. Memories are far more fragile than the average person realizes.

[debymeza31]

Our system is backwards, your no longer innocent until proven guilty it''s the other way around. My family is going through the same thing; my son was arrested August of 2007. Before the arrest of my son there was some other guy going around town bragging that he himself was the one to do this crime but then he was arrested and he changed his story. He told the authorities that is was my son and not him. Now my son is sitting in a Los Angeles County Jail waiting to prove his innocents. It''s taking a toll on my son and the family but we are going to see this to the end and stand 100% by my son. I would love to some how get intouch with the Ferguson family. I''ll keep them in my prayers......Debbie

[jeafra10]

I just finished watching this show and I had to make a comment because there is no way Ryan is guilty. If he took the belt and strangled the man why wasn''t his DNA on the belt? He needs to get a new trial. Also the other fellow I am not sure about, he says he did it so maybe he did. How about the clothes they were wearing, did they test them for blood? It sure looked like there was a lot of splatter of blood on the crime scene. Also just because a person doesn''t cry when the verdict is read, come on I think he was in shock myself.

[outbackgurl]

My heart breaks for Ryan and his family. I am astounded that the jury found him guilty with absolutely no physical evidence tying him to the crime. Amazing that 12 people would agree on such a verdict. I have yet to actually serve on a jury, but when that time comes, I hope that I will concentrate on the facts and not the emotion of the witnesses. I''m amazed by the one juror who made her decision completely on the "pleading look" of Chuck. Does she sleep at night? I will be praying for the family as his appeal approaches. May justice truly be served this second time around.

[mnnice46]

Since when can someone be convicted of murder based on hearsay and one eyewitness testimony? What is going on with the Missouri legal system? Did you hear of the black man recently released from prison after over 20 years? He was wrongfully convicted of shooting a security guard at a McDonald''s and his conviction was based on eyewitness accounts from 3 people. After 26 years, new evidence was presented and this man was cleared of all charges. I am a native Missourian, and I know people from Columbia, MO, but I''m ashamed of the jurors and of the legal system in that state if they allow such a young man to be convicted based on the hearsay testimony of a person that obviously has some mental issues of his own. I hope they reopen this case and think again.

[usedhorses]

2nd part the one about the janitor....when you ask someone in court to point out the person they saw at the crime scene it is easy to point to the defense table and say it was that person....oh yeah on the 911 tape he said he had no description of the 2 men at the crime scene...but I see it all came back to him when he had but only one person to chose from...talk about someone you should not beleive he would be the one.

[usedhorses]

I have a few questions on this case..(1)who''s hair is it that they found in the victims hand...(2)who''s bloody shoe prints are those at the crime scene...(3)how can you stand on someone back and pull the belt tight around his neck when he is laying on his back

I just can''t belive that this jury found this young man guilty of a crime when there was so much evidence at the scene and none of it was linked to the suspect. I just pray that he gets a new trial and that he is set free on the facts that he wasn''t linked to this crime.

It is hard to believe that someone can say that you did a crime and that a jury of 12 people would believe the word of one person with no other link to you. It really scares me that someone could be so angry at a person that they would give up part of their life just to hurt that person. And it is harder to believe that 12 people would believe that person over the evidence.

This is the first time one of your shows has touched me so much that I needed to post a comment.
God bless Ryan and his family while they seek to justice for himself and their son was a miscarriage of justice.

[yupyup5]

Wasn''t there testimony that Ryan stepped on the victims back while pulling the belt...that is not consistent witht the crime photos...the jury should be ashamed of themselves for not picking up sooo many inconsistencies!

[mrsself]

That was the most ridiculous form of justice I have ever seen! I just could not believe the jury found that kid guilty! I was completely shocked! They found absolutely no evidence at all. There was even evidence of other persons at that scene! That one juror at the end of the show dismissed everything said in court and said what cinched it for her was the other boy''s "pleading look" on his face!I agree with alot of comments here, including the jurors made up their minds before Ryan even took the stand. He even said so much. What an outrage! I also agree with losing faith in the judicial system.

[nickntonymom]

How on earth does this jury sleep at night? The luminol proved there was NO blood in Ryan''s car. The bloody footprint did not match either boys'' and the hair found in the victim''s hand did not belong to either boy! The jury decided their verdict solely on the dream of a troubled boy. They have sent an innocent boy to prison! Apparently chuck wants to be there, so let him go. I have lost all respect and confidence in our judicial system. It is apparent that proof of innocence has no place in the courtroom.

[paladin-ddl]

Unfortunately this type of injustice happens more often than anyone can imagine.

Police and prosecutors don''t always care about facts.
Once you''re indicted there is a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption on innocence. Many defense attorneys and Judges are incompetent. Prosecutors coach their witnesses and have no problem suborning perjury. The testimony of anyone cooperating with the government for a reduced sentence should be discounted greatly. The government often makes a deal with the party who takes a plea in order to punish someone who will not take a plea and who insists on their constitutional right to a jury trial.

After a jury verdict for the prosecution it is not uncommon for the prosecutor to have his tie cut off and hung on a wall like a trophy. "Good Job" it doen''t matter that you''ve destroyed a young mans life for personal gain or caused a respected family untold grief. The prosecutors reward for this victory was a position as a judge and who knows maybe even someday a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Why do I know these things? Because I refused to accept an 18 month plea agreement for a crime I did not commit. My reward was to be convicted by a jury and sentenced to 60 months.

I lost my direct appeal (Harmless Error). The supreme court chose not to hear my case.

I can only hope and pray the Ferguson''s will have better luck.

[mreuss1]

After reading Ryan''s Appeal on freeryanferguson.com, all I can say is INCREDIBLE!!! I hope the prosecutor is brought to justice just like Mike Nifong was charged in the Duke University Lacrosse players'' case. We have to reign in these corrupt, incompetent, egomaniac prosecutors. If we do nothing, it could happen to anyone of us!!