Lets start by asking ‘Where were the star witnesses when the victim was murdered’? The answer to that is ‘no one really knows for sure’ as the Police failed to investigate their (the witnesses) movements on the night of 3rd December 1996. Both Witnesses were very eager to tell police that I shot and killed the victim in his home while they themselves were also present. However their movements have NEVER been investigated by police (see ‘Evidence’ section of website for further details). They both gave statements to the police with various inconsistencies and contradictions. However both their testimonies never wavered in court – both have always maintained that it was I who pulled the trigger thus murdering the victim. Their claims of where they were/what they were doing (whilst in the victims home) has NEVER been confirmed, investigated or proved to be true. The police quite clearly didn’t warrant this side of the investigation as important or relevant. They quite clearly took the words of these 2 Witnesses as the truth/fact and at ‘face value’ and didn’t feel the need to clarify if they was any truth/fact in their claims that they were just innocent bystanders (read blog ‘The Ringleader’ for more info). Here are the exact words of where these 2 State Star Witnesses claim to have been (in the victims home) moments before and during the killing of the victim. Please remember that both witnesses have always maintained they were present at the murder scene whilst the murder took place and that they knew the victim extremely well (and also admit to having been in the victims home many times previously so are knowledgeable of the layout of the victims home)
According to the 2 State Star Witnesses on the evening of 3rd December 1996 all 3 of us visited the victims home (remember NO DNA evidence of me being at that house was found or exists). They claim the victim took us out to buy cigarettes and beer (for himself) and we returned to his home. They claim we then went to the victims basement where the 2 witnesses claim to have played pool. listened to music and drank pop. Whilst I and the victim were in the other room watching TV. After a time they claim I entered the room and told them both I was going to shoot the victim. They claim they did not take me seriously and carried on ‘relaxing’. A few minutes later they heard a gun shot and ran out of the room where they had been ‘relaxing’. Witness #1 testified that when he came out of the room he saw me standing over the victim as the victim fell to the floor then saw me reach into the victims pockets for the victims car keys (the car keys to the car that had NO DNA evidence to prove I was in it ever). Witness #2 testified that when he ran out of the room he had seen me by the steps leading out of the basement. Both witnesses then ran from the house up the street half a block away. When they looked back they saw me in the victims car (which has NO DNA of me in or on it) coming towards them.
So both witnesses claim that when they heard that shot they both ran out of that room (where they had been playing pool/listening to music and drinking pop) at the same time. Yet witness #1 claims he saw me standing over the victim within seconds of the gun being fired and he saw the victim crumple to the floor, then he saw me search the victims pockets for his car keys. Yet witness #2 claims when he left the room he saw me already by the steps leading out of the basement….2 men claiming to have left the same room at the same time saw me in 2 different places doing 2 different things, how can that be?
Witness #1 story seems to directly contradict Witness #2 version of events. It also makes no sense. Witness #1 (under questioning) did not seem to remember the part of the events where witness #2 claims he saw Jermane being on the steps already when he and witness #2 both fled the victims home.
Here is Witness #2 (Terry) being questioned in court about his statement that when he ran out of the room in the basement and heard the shot being fired he saw me on the steps leading out of the basement (and not in the room with the victim like Witness #1 Mike claimed in his testimony)
Both witnesses claim they heard that gun shot and immediately left the room they were in, together. Mike claims he saw me standing over the victim moments after the shooting took place yet clearly here Terry speaks of an entirely different scene. In this scene he claims in the very short time that he heard the shot and immediately left the room he claims that I would have already shot the victim, ransacked the house, stolen the wallet/car keys and gun of the victim and be making his way down the basement steps towards both Mike and Terry in what would have been a 2 minute maximum time period. And remember Mike maintained throughout questioning (and testimony) that he does not remember me being on those stairs when he heard that shot and immediately left the room. Both witnesses left that room together on hearing that shot! This story by Terry even puzzled Detective Graeber (the Police Detective in charge of this investigation) and here are the court transcripts giving quotes/statements of Detective Graeber’s views on Witness #2 Terrys absurd claims
So here it is. Here is Detective Sergeant Graeber (the head of this investigation) clearly saying on tape and it being heard in court by the Jury that he himself clearly admitted that he found Terry (the State Star witness) statement/testimony to ‘seem unlikely’ that I could have done all the things that Terry swore under oath in testimony that he believed I had done in such a small window of opportunity. Terry claimed in 2 minutes I had killed, ransacked the house, left the house, put the garage door up, got in the victims car and caught up with the witnesses half a block away IN JUST 2 MINUTES. Sergeant Graeber saw that this was unlikely so why was an ‘UNLIKELY’ FALSE testimony allowed to stand up in court and be presented to a Jury as evidence to prove someone guilty of murder? Even the head Detective in this investigation admitted that this part of the story (the most crucial part of the story) SEEMED UNLIKELY. This was told by a ‘witness’ who swore to tell the truth under oath. If the police didn’t believe this witnesses testimony completely how did it ever stand up in court and play such a pivotal role in finding me guilty of murder? And why if he thought it seemed unlikely did Graeber not investigate Terrys claims, why didnt he question him further or make any attempt to prove or disprove Terrys version of events? Yet again this witness and his testimony should have been thrown out of court
Missed Physical Evidence/Uninvestigated Crime Scene
Lets now focus on the Witnesses claims that they were both playing pool. Here is Witness#1 (Mike) being questioned about what he did after I supposedly came into the room and told both of the young men that I was going to shoot the victim.
So even here Mike hasn’t confirmed to the Jury what either of them (the witnesses) did do after I supposedly came in and told them I was going to shot the victim. All he has confirmed (even after being asked numerous times) is what they were both doing before I came into the room (before Mr Thomas died) – he never confirmed fully if he continued playing pool or not. All he confirmed is that both he and the other witness didn’t pay me any attention. And may I remind you that Mr Thomas was supposedly Mike and Terrys ‘good friend’ who they classed as ‘an Uncle’ – so IF I had ran into that room claiming I was about to shoot their ‘good friend’ they ignored it and carried ‘relaxing’. That is what Mike and Terry are suggesting is what happened. That they ignored and left me to go ahead and shoot a man they claim is like and Uncle to them and they didn’t even try and stop me. They by their own admission carried on ‘relaxing’. Does that make sense to you?
None of the witnesses claims of them being in that basement where they claim they were/what they claim they were doing (playing pool/listening to music/drinking pop) ‘relaxing’ has EVER been verified or investigated by Police (read website section EVIDENCE for more info). All of the witnesses words above are merely claims and no proof to back their side of events has ever been produced or investigated. Below are actual quotes/statements from court transcripts relating to the defence counsel questioning Detective Sergeant Graeber on exactly this point – where is the proof that verifies the 2 State Star Witnesses claims of their whereabouts during the murder?
Sergeant Graeber is clearly heard here stating on tape that he had already made his mind up that I was guilty even before the investigation had properly begun (just from getting 2 first hand statements off these 2 witnesses only. Read EVIDENCE section of website for details of how Sergeant Graeber thought it adequate to only interview both these witnesses for 35 minutes once during his whole investigation – after 35 minutes of gentle questioning he let them go home facing no charges and no further questioning or investigation to be had relating to their 35 minute statement of events). He is also heard on tape admitting he believed that the 2 witnesses were also ‘jammed up in this’ yet I ask you to refer to the Charges section of my website were it clearly shows that NO other persons involved in this crime were EVER charged with ANY charges (even for credit card misuse). That includes the 2 state star witnesses (both of which willingly handled stolen goods and used a stolen credit card) and also the other man (Keith) who willingly participated in the use of the victim’s credit card and handled stolen goods.
The main point of the above statement by Sergeant Graeber is that at no point has any evidence or investigation been undertaken to verify the witnesses claims of their whereabouts at the time of the shooting. Does this sound like a proper thorough competent police investigation? These 2 witnesses both testified that they fled from the victims home as soon as they heard that gun shot. They fled scared, running away from the house. So that being said there would be evidence of their ‘relaxing’ apparent in the house. They did not have time to stop and tidy up, put away pool balls/cue sticks, tidy up pop cans and turn off the music. They claim to have fled the scene. Evidence of their ‘relaxing’ activities would have been apparent for all the police to have seen when entering the basement (or are they insinuating I tidied up the house as well as all the other things they are accusing me of doing in just 2 whole minutes?!) . The question is did the police NEVER enter the basement to check the validity of the witnesses story or to thoroughly investigate a crime scene? Or did the police think it was absolutely irrelevant to their investigation to verify the witnesses statements/claims because they were purely focused (even at that early stage of their investigations) that I was the ONLY guilty person involved? Either answer equals sloppy incomplete detective work. ALL statements given by ALL people present at a crime scene should be investigated thoroughly to prove validity of claims. These statements appeared in court and these testimonies were presented to the Jury as being ‘truthful fact’ – how can these statements and testimonies by the witnesses be classed as ‘truthful fact’ when there is NO evidence to back up their stories and no attempt by Police to prove their stories to be truthful or fact? The Jury were either lied to or were led to believe that the police had followed all correct investigative procedures?
NB: Please also read Media Coverage section of my website for details of new evidence that has come to light that has also not been investigated by police which would indeed show my innocence had it been tested for DNA (cigarette butts in ashtray found next to the victims body). Or had they been tested for DNA and the results (that my DNA was not found) did not seem ‘relevant’ to the investigation? This piece of physical evidence had it been tested would clearly show I was NOT at the crime scene
Here is Mike telling the court that ALL OF US went straight back to his Aunts house after leaving the victims car (the car that has no DNA traces of me in it) Mike maintains we ALL went straight to his Aunts home. Yet Terry being questioned in court claims a completely different story. Terry claims it was only he and Mike who ran to his Aunts home in fear of me and I went to my home to dispose of the murder weapon, stolen goods and bullets. 2 different witnesses, 1 question, 2 different answers?!
Below is Terry’s testimony of the same event. Which as you will see is completely different. Please bear in mind these boys are suggesting we ALL were in that car together and all got out of it at the same time yet their versions of where I was and what I did don’t match. Terry cant quite get his ‘story’ straight. Each time he has been interviewed and questioned he gives a different answer regarding what I supposedly did after exiting that car (which DNA proves I was never in). 1 witness, 1 question yet multiple answers. Below is the original story/statement (that he gave police during that 1st 35 minute interview) on December 9th 1996. This doesn’t match either of their testimonies in court and it seems Terry has now totally changed his version of events to match Mikes.
As you can see Terry’s testimony in court clearly showing that all his statements to the Police regarding this part of his ‘story’ were inconsistent and had completely changed months later once he testified and now pretty much matched Mikes ‘story’ word for word. The first statement was taken during his interview by police days after Mr Thomas was found dead. It claims I ran to my house when I got out of the car (to hide the gun and bullets at my house – neither of which have ever been found). And then here months later in court he states I ran with him to his Aunts home (suddenly matching Mikes version of events). Also we see in his statement to the police he claimed I had told him and the other witness that I had put the guns in my attic along with lots of bullets. Then under questioning here in court he admits I never said that to him. In fact under questioning he admits he probably would have said anything ‘somebody could say anything’ in his shoes (being questioned by police for murder). Ponder on what Terry has just said here in court after being questioned why one of his statements says one thing but then he caught out saying a completely different version of events – he says in a court of law ‘I think somebody could say anything. I think practically anybody in my shoes. Id say anything’! Does this statement hold a lot of clues as to the truth? Does this little statement which was completely ignored in court quite clearly show that this witness would say ‘anything’ in his predicament (that being he is involved with a murder) that he would say anything to deflect all charges away from him? To me this little flippant comment (that was so quickly dismissed and deemed irrelevant) was in fact extremely important and clearly showed this witness had said anything he could to avoid the blame for this crime. I think also this comment he made may also be an indication that he would say anything he was asked to say . Do the words ‘I would say anything’ in this situation show to you (the reader) that he is 100% sure/confident with his story/version of events?
2 inconsistent statements of events from the same witness. And the Judge/Jury and Police didn’t think this was suspicious or cause for concern. He has just openly admitted to the Judge he would ‘say anything’ when giving his statement/testimony yet the Judge allowed this witnesses words and testimonies to stand as evidence to prove me guilty. This witnesses words cost me my life. And here he admits he would say anything presumably to avoid being charged himself. His statements don’t match, they change throughout the investigation and trial and the Judge isn’t bothered or concerned at all – no one seems to find this suspicious or even a cause of concern. Why is it that a State Star Witnesses weak and inconsistent ‘story’ is believed and taken at face value yet my consistent statements/claims of innocence which are backed up by physical evidence are not?
To conclude both witnesses claim that they were both extremely close friends with the victim. They have claimed that he was their ‘best friend’ and ‘like an Uncle’ to them. So why did both witnesses fail to report the crime immediately after it took place? If they claim to have cared for the victim as much as they claimed then why did they not report the incident immediately? Both witnesses did not talk to the police until 6 days after the murder (and then they did not go to the Police of their own free will). Both witnesses have always maintained that not only was the victim their close friend but also that they were there whilst he was murdered. Why would they wait 6 days before talking to the police or alerting any type of authority about his death/shooting? For all they knew if they had called 911 as soon as they had fled the house (or got home to their Aunts house) they could have saved their close friends life. And if their claim is true that they told their Aunt everything as soon as they got home (and they also claim I told her I had killed Mr Thomas when I supposedly arrived home with them) why is it an adult (the Aunt) didn’t bother raising the alarm? Why (as an adult) did she not call the police, call 911 for an ambulance? Why is it she just ignored it all knowing full well a man was dying or had just died? If neither witness had been in that room when the victim was shot how did they know he was dead? So why didn’t they call for help? Both Witnesses have never been able to explain why they chose to continue to hang out with me after I had supposedly murdered their friend and they were ‘frightened’ of me (as they claim to have been in their statements/testimony). Remember that both these boys accompanied Jermane the next day to the Mall to use the victims credit card – not actions of someone who is ‘frightened and scared’ of a person. Please see relevant sections of website for further details regarding these claims
It is clear that the State of Ohio would NOT have had a case without the testimonies of these 2 State Witnesses. It is clear that the testimonies of both witnesses differ and are inconsistent in many areas. It is also clear that the Detective in charge of the investigation admits he found some of their claims in one of their testimonies ‘unlikely’. A reasonable Jury should NOT have overlooked the major discrepancies in the witnesses statements/testimonies. A reasonable Jury should NOT have overlooked the incomplete/rushed and sloppy police investigation. A reasonable Jury should NOT have overlooked the most important fact of all – that there was NO DNA or Physical evidence linking Jermane to this crime. No DNA of Jermanes was found in the victims home, in or on his car or on the victim himself. The Jury ONLY relied on the FALSE accusations of 2 Witnesses.