(Includes NEW evidence of an ulterior motive involving the 2 State Star Witnesses and the Victim)
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, low ranking street gang member. The search for the truth was never investigated nor has it ever been investigated. In fact the murder of Mr Bertram Thomas has never been solved. It remains unsolved to this day. If you have read my website and taken the time to read the trial transcripts and police files (drop box link https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yjb4o8xtaeiizmy/AAB7CiBTXG05tlipVkIAnedSa?dl=0) 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.
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. And one witness (Stevens) testified I told him I had killed him as he was my ex teacher. This is UN TRUE. I have learned (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 was 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. The police nor prosecutor 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. In fact during trial an education board representative testified in court that Mr Thomas had NEVER taught me. This proved in trial their made up motive was utter garbage. This then should have thrown this allegation of motive out of trial yet it didn’t. The prosecutor carried on throughout trial and during his closing speech reminding the Jury and Judge that I killed Mr Thomas because I feared he recognised me from teaching me at school. The prosecutor clearly refused to accept the evidence provided in court by the official school board that this accusation was totally untrue. Unfortunately the Jury seemed to agree with the prosecutor and ignored the evidence and so be it that a fabricated motive for me killing Mr Thomas was made. Factually and by following the evidence there is absolutely no motive for me killing Mr Thomas. This did not stop the local press either even after this fact (that Mr Thomas was never my teacher) was made in court, reporting in their paper that Mr Thomas was my teacher and that I killed him because he recognised me. It seems any evidence that proved the police/prosecutor wrong and me right was ignored and dismissed as irrelevant.
There is no evidence to support I had any motive to kill or even know where Mr Thomas lived. I have never met Mr Bertram Thomas and there is no evidence to prove I have. There is no physical evidence I was ever at his home, in his car or near his person at any time before or during his murder. Even his close friends, family and neighbors testified that they didnt know me nor had ever seen me with Mr Thomas at any time.
Unheard Evidence/Motive *NEW EVIDENCE*
A PI working for Jermanes Defence uncovered some interesting facts about an ongoing dispute between the 2 state star witnesses (Mike Enis and Terry Portman) 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 and refused to look at any other line of enquiry. Yet throughout the police investigation the police were aware of many potential other suspects or lines of motive. Yet on looking at the police file its clear they didn’t bother following any of these leads or enquiries. The PI spoke to Mr Thomas neighbours and friends of Mr Thomas (frequent visitors to his 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 months prior to his murder. One of Mr Thomas neighbours (Ms Pat Shephard) and a local young man (also a regular visitor to Mr Thomas house and his friend) Mr Juan Mendoza 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 it 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 Juan 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. Both Mrs Shephard, Mr Mendoza and a few local boys (frequent visitors to Mr Thomas home) claim Mr Thomas hit Terry round the head with baseball bat in order to 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 that 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 Mr Thomas daughters gave evidence in testimony that they too knew of the trouble Mike and Terry were causing their father at his home. They too testified their father was tired of all the local boys hanging round his home and causing trouble and that he had tried to stop them coming over. In fact one daughter testified that she knew Terry to be trouble and ‘a rascal’. Both daughters also testified they had never seen Jermane at their fathers home and knew nothing of him. Their father had never mentioned Jermanes name yet both daughters could give full names of all the boys who did hang out at their fathers home and who were causing their father concern and worry. Jermane was not one of those names mentioned.
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 (Ms 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 Juan 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. For reasons unknown Mr Juan Mendoza was never allowed to testify nor called to testify by Jermanes defence nor questioned by police for a statement – yet what we do know is all the information this PI learned was passed to the police to investigate. It wasn’t. It was ignored. 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. The truth was thar 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. During Mr Hasheem Stevens testimony it is mentioned that Bridgette Johnson (Terrys Aunt) threw him out of her home (he lived with her) due to her finding stolen goods belonging to Mr Thomas (a watch was mentioned). This too was NEVER looked into by police. Was this possibly why Mr Thomas and Terry had such a heated argument months prior to his death because Terry had been stealing from him?
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 (the neighbor and a prime witness in this trial) window shouting abuse at her. This too was played down by the prosecutor and dismissed as irrelevant. Should it not have been treated as harassment of a key witness? Or threatening behaviour?
Below Terry Portman claims that the only problem between him and Mr Thomas in the past was that he threw a brick at Mr Thomas window (no mention of the baseball bat incident) Terry also 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 went on to claim 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. The week prior to his death Mike and Terry asked Jermane to borrow his gun (he refused to give it to them – read ‘My Timeline of Events for further info) 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.
Mike Enis 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 also told the PI that both state star witnesses threw the bricks at Mr Thomas house. More interestingly though here is that Mike admits that there were further problems between Mr Thomas and Terry. Here we see Mike admitting that Mr Thomas had previously hit Terry with a baseball bat because they had an argument whilst in Mr Thomas 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. And the defence don’t seem bothered to push him further on the issue. Which begs the question why didn’t anyone ask them what this argument was all about? Why (only a few months 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 (was it due to them stealing his possessions?) 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
More interesting though is how both state witnesses have admitted to two different things here – Terry 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 Mike 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 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 nor gunshot residue. 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. Mike Enis and Terry Portman were far from innocent youths. They had at the time of this murder previous convictions for assault and robbery. Read to find out more.
The Ringleader or The Scapegoat
To strengthen the Prosecutors case against me he devised a story that I was some kind of Ringleader over Mike and Terry. The truth is they were just two young guys that I hung out with from time to time (and very rarely at that). They weren’t my friends, I wasn’t their friend but we knew of each other by passing, through mutual acquaintances (my step brother Reggie being one of them). In fact one such mutual acquaintance was Mike/Terrys Aunt (Bridgette Johnson) who plays an important role throughout my trial. Bridgette lied under oath throughout the trial I can only guess to save her own skin and that of her nephews making out all sorts of lies to incriminate me and to clear herself, Mike and Terry of any wrong doings. I knew Mike/Terry through her. Bridgette(an adult may I add) and I regularly smoked weed together, she even on occasion purchased weed from me (via the street gang) and she regularly opened her home up to the neighbourhood kids as a place they could go to smoke weed (the only reason I went round there was on nights the weather was bad and her home was a place I could smoke in comfort). Bridgette was an adult who happily opened her home up for others to use as a ‘smoke house’. All information the prosecutor very handily forgot to mention to the Jury when portraying this Aunt as a ‘reliable and trustworthy’ witness. It is via Bridgette that I occasionally came into contact with Mike and Terry. That is as far as our ‘friendship’ my involvement with Mike and Terry went. I certainly was no ‘ringleader’ and I certainly didn’t ‘hang out’ with them on a frequent basis like the prosecutor/Aunt made out to the Jury that I did. The prosecutor/Aunt made out to the Jury I was the 2 State Star Witnesses Leader and they were both heavily influenced by ME (in fact he made them both sound like innocent bystanders). Supposedly they took my direction because I was the oldest. Now to back this theory up the prosecutor needed proof. He clearly hadn’t asked all the neighbourhood kids who frequented Mr Thomas home (and Mike and Terry themselves) about my lead over Mike and Terry because if he had he would have known none of the neighbourhood boys who hung out at Mr Thomas had ever seen me at Mr Thomas home before alone OR with Mike and Terry and would have no doubt told him that Mike and Terry had NO LEADER. So how could the prosecutor get his theory to stand? He asked the Aunt (who has previously been mentioned in this website because it was SHE who previously told the courts she was frightened of me after I had supposedly told her I had killed Mr Thomas – the same Aunt who supposedly was so frightened of me the next day she leant me the use her car to take her nephew to the mall to use the stolen credit card and asked us both to purchase goods on it for her children’s Christmas presents – not actions of a woman who is supposedly frightened of me. The same Aunt who escaped charges of fraud even though she herself happily and eagerly wanted to use the stolen credit card for her own benefit). The prosecutor asked Bridgette to testify in court that Mike and Terry regularly hung out with me (was this coerced testimony in exchange for no further charges to be made against the Aunt due to her involvement with that credit card or maybe even her own use of drugs and allowing children to smoke drugs in her home?). In fact as far as Bridgette is concerned (and I have included a copy of her testimony below as proof) she goes on record under oath as claiming ‘yes Jermane was like the leader and they (Mike and Terry) were like the followers…..’ This as she well knows is rubbish. And to prove this lady lied under oath, that she lied by saying I regularly hung out with Mike and Terry and that I was their ‘leader’ Mike himself contradicts everything his Aunt has just said in court by telling the court the following about what type of friend I was to Mike and Terry. I have included actual court transcript below.
In the first section of transcript Mike is being questioned about how often he saw Terry after the murder took place. He goes on to say he and Terry didn’t speak that much after the murder even though only moments before he told the Jury he and Terry were together ‘all the time’. He tells the court that after the murder he and Terry didn’t talk about the murder at all. He put it out of his mind to ‘try and forget it’ Now this strikes me as very odd because for the ones of you who have read my website in full will know that Mike and Terry have made it their mission during this trial to portray to the Jury and Judge that Mr Thomas was their ‘very dear friend’ and that they were such good friends with him and were very sad about his death. Now if you had been witness to your ‘good friends’ murder (as they claim to have been) could you just put it out of your mind and ‘try and forget about it’ and not talk to your best/close friend who also witnessed such a ‘frightening’ ordeal? I find their behaviour and response to being witnesses to a violent murder of a man who was ‘like an uncle’ to them as very odd. Also you will see that Mike is questioned regarding how often I ‘hung out’ with him and Terry too. Here Mike confirms that after I went to the Mall with them on the 4th December (which I admit to doing and have always admitted to doing) we never hung out again because we had no need too. The truth actually is Mike went to the Mall with me TWICE that day to use his ‘good friends’ stolen credit card – Mike even goes so far as to admit that after he witnessed Mr Thomas murder (supposedly me murdering his very dear friend) he was very frightened of me (he had testified to this previously) yet here is admitting he wasn’t too frightened that it didn’t stop him coming to the Mall with me TWICE, using (his ‘good friend’) Mr Thomas credit card (TWICE) and purchasing stolen goods on it TWICE (only 24 hours previously supposedly being witness to his murder and being frightened and scared of me). In fact Mike goes on to admit that he went to work straight after this shopping spree. We went to that Mall (unbeknown to me at the time) less than 24 hours after they had witnessed their dear friend Mr Thomas being murdered, yet Mike can calmly go to the Mall less than 24 hours later TWICE and use his ‘dear friends’ credit card knowing at that time his dear friend was lying dead on the floor both times AND go to work like nothing had happened? On the 1st trip to the Mall it was just me, Mike and Keith (see website for further details relating to Keith). On the 2nd trip to the Mall (which we only did due to the Aunt wanting us to go for her benefit) me, Mike, Terry and Hasheem went to the Mall – neither Mike OR Terry showed any remorse, fear or sadness in their behaviour and happily and eagerly used that credit card. I wasnt aware at that time anyone had died but I remember their behaviour in that car and at that Mall was nothing but normal. In fact they very happy with their new clothes and sneakers they had just purchased using their dead ‘dear friends’ credit card. Lets not forget at that Mall they were the only 2 amongst us that knew that credit card belonged to an innocent murdered man. These were boys who told the court they were sad and frightened about their ‘good friend’ Mr Thomas’s death and what they had both witnessed. Mikes past testimony of being frightened, scared of me and so sad about the loss of his friend Mr Thomas doesn’t match his story or actions here. Also Mike/Terry failed to mention that I saw both of them the very next day on the 5th (after the Mall) briefly in a car. At that point too neither boys looked/acted frightened/sad or remorseful. They looked to me bearing in mind I had NO IDEA at this point that Mr Thomas was dead (I didn’t even know who Mr Thomas was at this point) or that they had been witness to such a horrific event to be acting like their normal selves. We exchanged a quick ‘Whats Up’ and I carried on my business as did they. Nothing unusual, nothing out the ordinary in their behaviour and nothing to alert me to the life changing, complete chaos and nightmare which was about to come crashing down on me that ended my life forever.
TO completely contradict his Aunts early statement that I was their ‘leader’ Mike goes on to admit that before this trip to the Mall with me we ‘kicked it before this happened but NOT A LOT’. Then it goes onto mention an incident involving Mike and Terry in 1995. This incident in 1995 has absolutely nothing to do with me but all to do with Mike and Terry and their previous convictions for robbery (may I remind you I have NO prior convictions or criminal record). And finally the last comment made regarding my friendship with Mike and Terry. Here Mike completely contradicts everything his Aunt has earlier testified. He is asked out right by the Defence counsel ‘who hangs with you besides terry and Jermane’? And Mikes replies ‘Its Just me and Terry’ and the defence asked him to clarify that ‘who are you tight with, you just tight with Terry’? And Mike answers truthfully and says ‘Yeah only person I hang around’! And THAT proves the Aunt lied under oath and the prosecutor allowed it to happen knowing full well it was a complete lie. I was NOT their ring leader. They were NOT my followers and I had NO influence over either of them.
To further prove that Mike and Terry had no ring leader nor did they need one because they were both very capable even at that age to have previous juvenile convictions of robbery (a crime they committed together with no help from a third party). Evidence of such my defence counsel tried to get heard in court as proof that these 2 State Star Witnesses were unreliable witnesses and should never have been allowed to testify due to their own past history of criminal activity (involving a crime very similar to this one only 12 months prior this murder) and to prove the Prosecutors theory that I was their ‘ringleader’ to be utter nonsense however the Judge decided (like all the defence evidence I had) NOT to allow this evidence to be heard, why? Who knows. These 2 boys had previous, they were tight, they had NO ring leader and they already had a reputation amongst their neighbourhood friends as ‘trouble makers’ and ‘untrustworthy’. These were 2 boys the prosecutor made out to the Jury were scared and vulnerable boys who befriended a troublesome older boy (me) who led them astray and they were innocent bystanders whilst I murdered and robbed their dear friend. They have an Aunt (who the prosecutor has presented to the court as a ‘reliable’ law abiding citizen) who informs the Jury I am nothing but trouble, I admitted to her supposedly I murdered him and she and her nephews were so scared of me (we now know that is ALL untrue). The truth about the 2 State Star Witnesses is A LOT more shocking and they were no nothing like the Prosecutor (or their Aunt) portrayed them as being. And if the Judge had allowed my Defence Counsel to present evidence to prove the Prosecutors witnesses to be nothing but trouble makers and criminals themselves I firmly believe I would not be sitting here today in this cell.
NB: Please note that Mike and Terry received NO charges (of any kind) for their obvious involvement in using that stolen credit card (which they both admitted to in court). They received NO fraud charges (I did). The Aunt received NO charges (of any kind) for her obvious involvement in the use of that credit card (she did willingly know about it, willingly asked her nephew and myself to purchase goods on it for her benefit/use and willingly allowed us to use her car to get to the Mall in exchange for us to ‘fill up the tank’ using that credit card). She too received NO Fraud charges (I did).
In 1995 (12 months prior to the murder of Mr Thomas both Mike Enis and Terry Portman were found guilty of robbery and assault on a man (Mr Abernathy) in the same neighbourhood as Mr Thomas. Both boys at the time of this crime and trial were still on probation for this crime. They both have history of theft/robbery and violence. I do not! During trial we heard many stories from witnesses giving evidence that Mike and Terry gave Mr Thomas cause for concern, we hear a witnesses telling a PI both boys had history of ‘bullying’ Mr Thomas. We hear Mr Thomas own daughters admitting their father had issues of concern with both boys. Witnesses described them as ‘rascals’, ‘troublemakers’ and their own criminal records proved this. Innocent reliable vulnerable bystanders they are most certainly not. Yet thats what the prosecutor told the Jury they were and that is all the Jury heard.
The judge over ruled my defence request that information about Mike/Terrys prior criminal activities be heard in court by the Jury. Even though this was to prove to the jury Mike and Terry were far from the innocent vulnerable reliable bystanders the prosecutor told the Jury they were. The prosecutor was allowed to make such wild inaccurate statements without evidence to back them up. Yet my defence was not allowed to prove any of the prosecutors statements wrong even when there was evidence available to do so. Fair? I think not.