Motive

(Includes NEW evidence of an ulterior motive involving the 2 State Star Witnesses and the Victim)

12324946_1668936816705052_37314536_n

I have recently posted a few Newspaper Clippings (Media Coverage) just to give people a general idea of how far this miscarriage of the judicial system was inflicted upon me solely because I was indigent, young, uneducated, black, low ranking gang member. The search for the truth was nor has it ever been investigated. If you have read my website and previous blogs you will already have begun to see the glaringly obvious holes in their (the police) investigation, the lies the prosecutor spoke/told the Jury, the incorrect information supplied to the press about evidence they (the police) claimed to have had to prove my guilt (which we all know was false and this was proved in a court of law). And finally you will know that the testimonies given by the 2 State Star witnesses (and 2 other witnesses) were  inconsistent/contradictory and showed signs that deals (to clear them all of charges involved in this crime) had been made  in exchange for false testimonies to strengthen the prosecuting case against me.

Help needed

Police have always maintained that the motive behind this murder was robbery. The police also maintain that the reason I murdered this innocent man was due to my past connection with him. The police/prosecutor claim that Mr Thomas was my teacher back in Elementary school. They claim I murdered Mr Thomas due to him recognising me. This is UN TRUE. I have learnt (since my trial) that Mr Thomas did in fact teach at the Elementary school that I attended BUT he NEVER taught me directly and I cannot to this day remember him being at that school or our paths crossing at any time. The police/prosecutor went on to claim Mr Thomas as in fact my form/class teacher. This is UN TRUE!  The school was Highlands Elementary School Springfield Ohio. I attended this school for 3 years  (as a very young child) in 1985,1986 and 1987. My teachers at this time were Mrs Norris, Mrs Chilton and Mr Ustaw. I do NOT remember Mr Thomas and he certainly NEVER taught me. I am desperately seeking classroom pictures/form photographs taken of me (along with my fellow classmates and teacher) from the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 to prove to the American Justice System/The Police and YOU (the reader) that Mr Thomas NEVER taught me and he was NEVER my form tutor/teacher like the Police claim. The police/prosecutor told the Jury that the reason I killed Mr Thomas was because he was my teacher (when I was a mere 10 or 11 year old boy). They never gave any evidence (nor could they) to support this claim yet it was believed by the Jury and the Judge even without any evidence to back it. Because Mr Thomas once taught at that school and I once attended that school the Justice System believe this is enough evidence to prove a motive……I beg of you, if you attended that school at that time and were in my class and you have class pictures PLEASE get in contact with me. With copies of these photos I can prove that the police/prosecutors claims were FALSE. Copies of these pictures will dispel their claim that I knew him. If you have these classroom photos or you remember being in my class in those years, this will prove to the authorities that Mr Thomas was NEVER our teacher and you will be helping me prove that the police/prosecutor yet again gave FALSE evidence and lied in a court of law. It seems that the authorities don’t need to supply evidence to prove I’m guilty yet I require to supply evidence to prove I am innocent. I need those photos or people who remember me in those few years at Highlands Elementary School Springfield OH (1985-1987). Unfortunately this school was knocked down some years ago and the local library do not keep records of classroom pictures.

I was sentenced to murder for life because the Jury believed that I killed Mr Thomas during a robbery because he recognised me as a boy he once taught over 10 years previous. There is NO evidence to support this motive yet I know there is evidence out there to prove this ‘motive to murder’ is a LIE!

Unheard Evidence/Motive *NEW EVIDENCE*

UNHEARD MOTIVE

A PI working for Jermanes Defence uncovered some interesting facts about an ongoing dispute between the 2 state star witnesses (Mike/Terry) and the victim Mr Thomas. Police failed to investigate any possibility that anyone else (bar Jermane) had any reason to kill Mr Thomas. The police were focused on Jermane as the guilty party. The PI spoke to Mr Thomas neighbours and friends of Mr Thomas (frequent visitors to him home) and all confirmed they had never seen Jeramne Scott before nor ever at Mr Thomas home BUT they did give information about Mr Thomas having on going disputes with Mike and Terry that had led to a physical assault and 2 occasions of damage to his property by the hands of Mike and Terry.

What if there was another motive? What about if the motive had been a revenge attack for a recent act of violence against one of the States Star Witnesses? In court, evidence was heard that such an act occurred between the victim Mr Thomas and one of the state star witnesses (Terry) only a few weeks prior to his murder. One of Mr Thomas neighbours (Ms P Shephard) and a local young man (also a regular visitor to Mr Thomas house and his friend)  both told the defences PI  that there was an ongoing dispute between Mr Thomas and BOTH the 2 State Star Witnesses (Mike and Terry). Isn’t it at least questionable in a murder investigation to look at ALL possible reasons for murder? So why is that the police chose to ignore the information given to them by this neighbour and local young man and friend of Mr Thomas (and the PI who supplied the police with this information) that there was an ongoing dispute between Mr Thomas and the 2 State Star Witnesses during the time of the Murder? In fact both Ms Shephard and Mr Mendoza claim that the 2 State Star Witnesses were NOT allowed in Mr Thomas home (as per Mr Thomas instructions) at the time of the murder. It was mentioned in trial many times that there were on going disputes between Mike/Terry and Mr Thomas prior to his murder and only weeks leading up to his murder. Yet this information seemed to be deemed ‘not important’. Why?   Both Mrs Shephard, Mr Mendoza and few local boys (frequent visitors to Mr Thomas home) claim Mr Thomas hit Terry round the head with baseball bat in order get Terry to leave his house only weeks prior to Mr Thomas murder. Mr Thomas told his neighbour that he NEVER wanted that boy (terry) in his home again. Both Mike and Terry testified in court that they were ‘great friends’ with Mr Thomas and that they were regular visitors to his home and when questioned about this baseball incident and argument (and subsequent ban from Mr Thomas home) both Mike and Terry either denied it, down played it or acted like it was ‘no big deal’ and Mr Thomas had ‘forgiven them’. Yet both the neighbour and Mr Mendoza claim different. They say both boys had NOT been in Mr Thomas home for weeks prior to the murder because they had been banned from doing so by Mr Thomas.

During trial it became clear that a few months prior to his death Mr Thomas and Terry got into a heated argument at his home which resulted in Mr Thomas hitting Terry round the head with a baseball bat and demanding he left his home never to come back. As far as his neighbour (Mr Shephard) was concerned this ban was still in affect the day of the murder and Mr Thomas still did not want Mike or Terry at his home. During the trial it also came apparent by another witness that Mike and Terry regularly bullied Mr Thomas in his home. Again this witness claims adamantly he never saw Jermane Scott at Mr Thomas home at any stage and in fact had no knowledge of who he was

 

Mr Mendoza  told the PI that only a few weeks prior to this murder (just after the baseball bat incident) the 2 state witnesses (and Mr Mendoza) were in a car together and they drove past Mr Thomas house and both state star witnesses (Mike and Terry) threw bricks at Mr Thomas windows causing damage to Mr Thomas property. During Trial it also came apparent that this may not have been the first time these boys had thrown bricks at Mr Thomas home (another potential separate incident was mentioned where they threw bricks at Mr Thomas property the year prior). Mr Mendoza claims he was driving the car whilst both men threw bricks at Mr Thomas windows. A few weeks later Mr Thomas is murdered. Again NONE of Mr Mendoza’s statement/words or evidence was heard in court. The jury/judge/press were led to believe (and never corrected) that Mr Thomas and the 2 state star witnesses were ‘great firm friends’ because that is what the false testimonies of the 2 state star witnesses claimed. This is NOT true. This is a false picture painted by Mike and Terry yet everyone else who knew Mr Thomas knew this not to be true. That Mr Thomas and Mike and Terry were no longer friends. What was never confirmed and never asked in trial was WHY Mr Thomas and Terry were arguing. What was it that they arguing about that lead to Mr Thomas hitting Terry around the head and banning them both from his home? No one ever bothered to ask.

NB: During trial it also transpired that only the day previous to the trial Mike and Terry had been throwing bricks through Mrs Shepard’s window shouting abuse at her. It also came out at trial that both Mike and Terry and juvenile charges for robbery of another man (who also lived close to Mr Thomas) only the year previously. Mike and Terry were STILL on probation for this crime at the time of this trial. Unfortunately the Judge ruled that Mike and Terrys past crime for robbery of a man in the same neighboured less than 12 months prior to Mr Thomas murder and robbery was not ‘not relevant’ to this case.

Motive 003

 

Here one of the 2 witnesses (Terry) claims that the only problem between him and Mr Thomas in the past was that he threw a brick at Mr Thomas window (please note this witness states this was the ONLY problem between him and Mr Thomas in the past – NO mention of an incident with a baseball bat prior to the brick throwing). However Terry claims that this issue had recently (before the murder) been resolved and they had all become friends again (we know this isn’t true as per the neighbours/Mr Thomas friends statements). Terry also claims that he and Mike were regular visitors to Mr Thomas home prior to the murder. In fact he goes on record to say that both of them (terry and Mike) used to go over to Mr Thomas home almost every day for 6 months before he was killed! This obviously completely contradicts Ms Shephard’s and the local youths claims to the PI that both state witnesses had NOT been seen at Mr Thomas home for months/weeks prior to his murder due to them being banned from entering Mr Thomas home. Mr Thomas told his friends and neighbours both men were ‘not welcome’ in his home. Yet here Terry claims they were all good friends again and had been regular visitors for 6 months prior to his death.  The week prior to his death Mike and Terry asked Jermane to borrow his gun (he refused to give it to them) that same week Mike and Terry threw bricks at Mr Thomas window. The following week they asked Jermane to borrow his gun again. This time Jermane did allow them to have it and then a few days later Mr Thomas is found shot dead.

 

Motive 001

 

 

Mike was then questioned about the brick throwing incident and about any other issues/problems between him and Mr Thomas.

Mike  denies being involved with throwing bricks at Mr Thomas window (even though Mr Thomas neighbour Ms Shephard told police she saw both state witnesses in the car that drove past his house and saw both men throwing bricks). However he claims he was in the car but did not throw the bricks. Remember though that the driver of this car Mr Mendoza told police that both state star witnesses threw the bricks at Mr Thomas house plus the neighbour witnessed this too. More interestingly though here is that this Mike admits that there were further problems between Mr Thomas and Terry (remember that Terry failed to mention in his testimony this other incident when asked about past problems between himself and the victim). Here we see Mike admitting that Mr Thomas had previously (to the throwing bricks at windows incident) hit Terry with a baseballs bat because they had an argument whilst in Mr Thomas home. This backs up Ms Shephard’s story about Mr Thomas telling her that he had argued with Terry and it had led to him threatening him with a baseball bat in order for him to get the youth to leave his home. All of which Terry failed to mention in a court of law when asked about previous problems he had with Mr Thomas. Also you will see Mike admits that in the past Mr Thomas has asked him to leave his property too. In fact Mike admits that Mr Thomas had asked him to leave his house only 2 or 3 months prior to his murder (which again backs up Mrs Shepard and Mr Mendoza story and timeline regarding Mr Thomas banning both witnesses from his home). Unfortunately it seems Mike can’t remember why he was asked to leave Mr Thomas home. Which begs the question why didn’t anyone ask them what this argument was all about? Why (only a few weeks prior to his death) did Mr Thomas go to the extreme of hitting one of these boys with a baseball bat and ban them from his home? It must have been serious to warrant such a severe reaction. What made him so angry with them, what did they (the boys) do/say to make this man who was ‘like an uncle’ to them behave this way? Clearly both boys were very angry about what ever this argument/dispute was about because they saw fit to throw bricks through his window only a few weeks later. NO ONE bothered to ask these 2 State Star Witnesses about what this argument was about. The reason for this dispute has never been discovered and I believe as such crucial evidence and motive to murder has been purposefully ignored by Police

Motive 002

 

This state star witness denies being involved with throwing bricks at Mr Thomas window (even though Mr Thomas neighbour Ms Shephard told police she saw both state witnesses in the car that drove past his house and saw both men throwing bricks). However he claims he was in the car but did not throw the bricks. Remember though that the driver of this car Mr Mendoza told police that both state star witnesses threw the bricks at Mr Thomas house plus the neighbour witnessed this too. More interestingly though here is that this State witness admits that there were further problems between Mr Thomas and the other state star witness (remember that the other witness failed to mention this other incident when asked about past problems between himself and the victim). Here we see this State witness admitting that Mr Thomas had previously (to the throwing bricks at windows incident) hit the other witness with a baseballs bat because they had an argument whilst in Mr Thomas home. This backs up Ms Shephards story about Mr Thomas telling her that he had argued with this state witness and it had  led to him threatening him with a baseball bat in order for him to get the youth to leave his home. All of which that witness failed to mention in a court of law when asked about previous problems he had with Mr Thomas. Also you will see this witness admits that in the past Mr Thomas has asked him to leave his property. In fact the witness admits that Mr Thomas had asked him to leave his house only 2 or 3 months prior to his murder (which again backs up Mrs Shepard and Mr Mendoza story and timeline regarding Mr Thomas banning both witnesses from his home). Unfortunately it seems this State Witness can’t remember why he was asked to leave Mr Thomas home. Which begs the question why didnt anyone ask them what this argument was all about? Why (only a few weeks prior to his death) did Mr Thomas go to the extreme of hitting one of these boys with a baseball bat and ban them from his home? It must have been serious to warrent such a severe reaction. What made him so angry with them, what did they (the boys) do/say to make this man who was ‘like an uncle’ to them behave this way? Clearly both boys were very angry about what ever this argument/dispute was about because they saw fit to throw bricks through his window only a few weeks later. NO ONE bothered to ask these 2 State Star Witnesses about what this argument was about and I believe this may hold the key to the REAL MOTIVE for his murder

More interesting though is how both state witnesses have admitted to two different things here – the first witness states they were BOTH regular visitors to Mr Thomas home right up until the night of his murder. In fact he states BOTH witnesses were round at Mr Thomas home nearly every day up to 6 months prior to his death. Yet the other State Witness admits here that in fact he hadn’t been in Mr Thomas home for a whole year and that 2 or 3 months ago when he was there he was asked to leave (which I believe is when Mr Thomas hit the other witness with the baseball bat). 2 witnesses, one claiming both of them were regular daily visitors, the other claiming he hadn’t been there for over a year and when he had been there last 2 or 3 months ago he was asked to leave. More importantly why were BOTH witnesses fingerprints found all over Mr Thomas home if this witness is correct that he hadn’t been in Mr Thomas home for a year or even 2 or 3 months prior to the murder?

Unfortunately the Jury did NOT hear the statements made by Ms Shephard and Mr Mendoza so did NOT get to hear all this information that you now read. All they heard were 2 witnesses claiming that they had thrown a few bricks at the victims window in the past (they were never questioned why they threw bricks and no reason was ever given). The Jury were led to believe that the victim and the witnesses had all made friends before the murder and were once again ‘good friends’ on ‘good terms’ – as you know this is NOT TRUE. Would the Jury have taken the 2 State Star Witnesses testimonies a lot differently if they had been privy to the WHOLE story and the REAL state of the ‘friendship’ between them and the victim? Would this have been a motive to murder?

I ask you as a reader to ask yourself after reading this which motive sounds more likely, which motive sounds more probable taking into consideration the physical evidence found at the crime scene. NO traces of me were found at the crime scene, in the victims stolen car or on the victim. No traces of the victim, blood spatter or gun powder residue was found on my body or clothes. The 2 State Star Witnesses DNA WAS found at the crime scene and in the victims stolen car. Their clothes were NEVER tested for victim DNA ( I will be writing a future blog about that very fact at a later date because eye witnesses confirmed both boys returned to their Aunts home that night, immediately took of their clothes and put them in the washing machine). I ask you to ask yourself which of these motives sounds more plausible?

Please read Blog ‘The Ringleader’ for further information about Mike and Terry (the 2 State Star Witnesses) being portrayed by the Prosecutor to the Jury as just ‘innocent, young, impressionable boys’ which clearly demonstrated above is NOT the case. A future blog will be written shortly giving SHOCKING NEW EVIDENCE that was never heard in court relating to the State Star Witnesses previous convictions for Robbery (only 12 months prior to this crime). That along with the above facts regarding their on going dispute with the victim and their clear anger towards him (resulting in them both throwing bricks at his windows only 2 weeks prior to his murder and the robbery at his home) shows you that ‘innocent, young and impressionable’ boys they were most certainly NOT.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s