Sunday, February 24, 2013

Poll: Ryan Ferguson Interrogation Video

 Please share your thoughts and analysis in the comments section after voting in the Poll below.

 The simplest is: "I didn't kill him" and "I told the truth" during the free editing process. "I am telling the truth" is present tense. We listen carefully for the two, simplest sentences, especially in succession: "I didn't kill him" is strong. Follow up questions could include, "Did you see who did?" and so on, to see if the subject has any knowledge (presence) of the crime, even if he did not inflict fatality. When asked, "Why should I believe you?" after hearing a reliable denial, the answer, "Because I told the truth" is a very strong response.

 The detective does a poor job in the interview and appears amateurishly foolish trying to intimidate him sitting so close and not reflecting back language. This is not how to get a flow of information.

 Did you hear a reliable denial? How would you, based only on this short video, classify this?

 A. Reliable Denial: he did not kill the victim

 B. Unreliable Denial: He still may not have killed the victim, we need to know more, including whether or not he was present for the killing

 C. Unreliable Denial: He likely did it.

What is Your Conclusion? free polls 
If you choose "B", you think he likely did not kill the victim, but may have been present, or has knowledge that has entangled him in the case.


John Mc Gowan said...


I won't work for me..

John Mc Gowan said...

This one is a short 4mins:45seconds..

Statement Analysis Blog said...

It is better now, John.

It is also complicated. Give some thought on this one.

John Mc Gowan said...

It works now Peter.

Geez this is a puzzler?

John Mc Gowan said...

Ok here go's

I DIN'T DO IT.>Unreliable denial,what is it he didn't do?

I DIN'T DO ANYTHING.>Unreliable denial,what is the anything he didn't do?We can't say it for him.

I'M INNOCENT.>Unreliable denial,What is he innocent of.?We can't say it for him.

I'M INNOCENT OF EVEN BEING THERE>Being were?we cant say it for him.EVEN is a unnecessary word,the shortest answer is always the best.

I TOLD THE TRUTH>What did he tell the truth about?We can't say it for him.If it is what he said above it is unreliable.

I WAS NOT THERE.>Unreliable.Where is there?We cant say it for him.

I think he is being deceptive and keeping something back..

I would of liked to of heard..


(I) first person singular.

(didn't)Past tense.

(Murder/kill Him) event specific.

John Mc Gowan said...

A slight amendment.

I TOLD THE TRUTH>What did he tell the truth about?We can't say it for him.If it is what he said above then he did tell the truth,as in the words he used not that he didn't kill him.

Anonymous said...

I think he issued about a thousand reliable denials.

Tania Cadogan said...

WTG John :)

Vita said...

A huge article written of the case. Gives a play by play from the actual eye witnesses who found the victim, Kent Heitholt.

The same video is attached, two video's are posted = he being questioned.

It is a massively long article.
As written the header and intro:

One Murder, Two Victims: The Wrongful Conviction of Ryan Ferguson

July 22, 2007
Updated June 29, 2012

In a case rife with DNA and other physical evidence, not one shred of evidence linked 17-year-old Ryan Ferguson to the murder of Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune sports writer Kent Heitholt in 2001.

Ferguson's conviction in 2005 proved only how far the police and prosecution would go to close Columbia's only unsolved murder. A Boone County (Mo.) Judge, at a three-day-evidentiary hearing in mid-July 2008, heard testimony of how the police and prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Ferguson's trial attorneys and manipulated and threatened witnesses who dared not support their trumped-up case against Ferguson.


Vita said...

Watching the video, Ryan, he is 17 yrs old? as it is written, at the time of the murder he wasn't
yet 17. This was the first that I noted was his size. He is not a full grown man, and is not one of substantial size " muscular" - the article states the stats of the victim.

6'3, 315lbs and was found deceased with the perp/s (?) hair in his hand. The victim was in the parking lot of his work, he was alert and coherent. How would could two 17 yr olds " take him down" and not suffer any injuries themselves is my question. He being choked, he evidently grabbed a hold of someones head, to rip their hair out, for it to be found in his grasp. He fought for his life this man.

The article shares copied:

On a warm Halloween night in 2001, Kent Heitholt, the sports editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune, worked into the night. He logged off his computer at 2:08 a.m., chatted with some colleagues, and made his way out of the Tribune building to his car in the newspaper's parking lot. There he had a conversation with colleague Michael Boyd that lasted until approximately 2:17 a.m. Minutes after that, Heitholt was brutally beaten, hit 11 times over the head with a metal object, and strangled to death with his own belt.

More snipped:

Columbia detectives were not able to link any of the physical evidence at the crime scene to either Ferguson or Erickson. There were bloody footprints leading away from the scene. A match to these was never found. There was a hair in the victim's hand, and fingerprints at the scene, which did not belong to the victim. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory tested the mitochondrial DNA found at the scene, but was not able to link this evidence to Ferguson or Erickson.

Police searched Erickson's home on March 10, 2004, and performed luminol tests (a special liquid chemical that illuminates traces of blood, even after many years, or when cleaned and invisible to the human eye) but there was no evidence found to connect Erickson to the crime. Ferguson's car was similarly luminol tested, and not one trace of blood was found. Ferguson's tire tool was tested, and it was determined that it had no connection to the crime. How is it possible for these two to have committed such a horrific and messy crime, bashed a man who was six-foot three-inches tall and weighed 315 pounds, with a metal object 11 times, which produced pools of blood, yet not get any blood on their clothes, or in the car they drove that night?

Shawna Ornt, the only person able to provide a detailed description of the men she saw, provided information to Det. Nichols in November 2001 to produce a composite drawing of the man she saw behind Heitholt's car. She described him as being in his early 20's, six feet tall, around 200 pounds and with blond hair. Erickson and Ferguson were barely 17 years old at the time, and between five-foot five inches and five-foot six inches tall, and weighed between 140 and 150 pounds. Det. Liebhart stated that Jerry Trump "could not provide a detailed description of either of the individuals."

dadgum said...

Items I have watched and read incline e to believe him not guilty.

However, in the interview, a strong denial is the only thing missing. I would like to see what was said he appears to be referencing a prior conversation (the 'it' he 'did not do' is known to both in the tape).

At one point he begins 'I didn't..', pauses, and changes directions. He is avoiding the word murder or kill.

Would an innocent person avoid the language (especially if being repeated) of murder?

John Mc Gowan said...

dadgum said..

However, in the interview, a strong denial is the only thing missing.


This is whats so puzzling,why wont he just say.

I Didn't Murder/kill him.

Vita said...

The belt
What size belt would a, 6'3, 315lb man wear?

A guy posted a comment/review on Amazon, he purchased " pants".

I'm a big guy (6ft 315lbs) so I was a little worried about the sizing. I wear a 48" blue jeans and these were a little tight (not uncomfortable) around the waist. I could have skipped the belt and they would have stayed up.

The man above, his waistline 48inches - that is a 4foot + adding inches for the belt buckle, A belt that would fit him.

How long would it take to undo and remove the belt from the victim, in a struggle. Was he strangled after he was hit repeatedly? Two? perps were attacking him at the same time? One hitting him, the other going for his belt? ???

Detroit, spring 2012, Pastor Marvin Winans, was car jacked. He stopped at a gas station broad daylight. He pulled into the station and noted there was countless young men inside the building. He questioning where he should enter the building.

He was " taken" down by how many? as he was pumping his gas. All were young males, they came out of the building and attacked him. The result they did take his SUV, his cash and watch. He put up a fight, he is a big man. They ripped his pants off his body! In this video, Detroit reporter interviewing him, she shows what is left of his pants. Listen to him, as he relives the attack. He was very aware, and did not cease to fight off his attackers, knowing he was outnumbered. No one aided him. Countless people watched, no one attempted to intervene.

This is what I do not understand. Did KH remove his own belt to use as a defensive weapon? would this be a reaction of a man being attacked to pull his own belt off?

Photo number 4, shows at the crime scene, the only piece left of his belt was the buckle. The belt was never found.

Kent Heitholt was strangled with his own belt. The leather snapped, leaving the buckle and a fragment of the belt at the crime scene. The rest of the belt was never recovered. The crime scene left police stymied for more than two years before they arrested Charles Erickson and Ryan Ferguson.

Notamuser said...

My thought on this excluding a reliable denial is it is clips. I remember seeing Ryan telling the detective to run fingerprints (or something?) that police claimed to have.

Is this edited to include every single instance where Ryan issued a denial?

Tania Cadogan said...

To really know what happened we would need the complete unedited clip of his denials. I did not hear him make a reliable denial,so we can't do it for him in this clip.

The interviewer sucks.

Lis said...

If the video has been edited, then we can't know if he made a reliable denial or not. Is there access to his complete interview?

Remember, also, that Ryan and Chuck had snuck into the popular college bar where Ryan's sister worked that night, for the Halloween festivities. They felt they had done something very risque. This created some sensitivity.

Kaaryn Gough said...

As many are pointing out, this does not show the complete interrogation and therefore, we must be very careful in our analysis and commenting on whether his denials are "reliable" or "unreliable".

Also, this is not an "open statement" for the subject. From the officer's words, it is likely the subject has already been accused by this point making this more a statement of defense. His language is influenced by what has been said to him previously and by what he has said. It is quite likely he has already answered the question of whether he killed the guy by this point. (He was picked up by police shortly after 12 noon on Mar 10th and it is around 10 pm in this interrogation) I would expect the questioning has been going on for hours.

Recalling the efficiency of language, if the subject says initially, "I didn't kill so-and-so", then one would likely shift to saying, "I didn't kill him", substituting the pronoun "him" for the name in subsequent denials, especially if talking to the same person/group. If a subject is being accused of several actions within a murder scenario, then one might shorten his language to say, "I didn't do it" or "I didn't do anything"--if at some point earlier he had addresses each individual action.

It is true, the subject does not say the exact words, "I didn't kill the guy" in the clips shown. However, we do not know if he didn't say it earlier in the interrogation or during the edited out portions (where screen goes to black and the timecode jumps ahead).

The subject likely did not commit the crime given he is relying on the "truth" as what will set him free...

Q: "but if there's a way that you could help yourself, you'd do it."

A: "I'm doing it. I'm telling the truth. I'm doing what I can."

A truthful person can rely on 'I'm telling the truth.' as their defense because the truth are the facts. The truth is evidence to them.

A deceptive person cannot rely upon the truth and will therefore not put the emphasis on it. They will include other reasons as to why they shouldn't be found guilty. "I'm not that kind of person" "I would never hurt anybody", "I was no where near the place"

On a side note: His body language is very open and more in line with someone who is telling the truth. The crossed leg is his way of defining his space given the close proximity and positioning of the officer.

Vita said...

The audio of the 911 call. Photo of KH is shown on the splash screen, he is a big dude.

What's missing in the 911 call?
@20 seconds, the woman as she says it, she was told to call 911. She is Shawna Ornt, she is relieved from the phone. Her coworker, Jerry Trump, another janitor of the Tribune, takes over speaking to the 911 OP.

911: And what's going on?
Trump: The parking lot, the sports editor Kent, laying in the ground, pool of blood. Looks like he has been shot or something,

Trump who takes over the phone, from the woman " Shawna" who called 911. One of the men she witnessed in the parking lot, her smoke break, engaged to her, someones been hurt call for help.

This is messed up, there is no shock, no urgency nothing.

The 911 op guesses the location and Trump says affirms yes this is the location.

911 OP questions him " Who did you see in the area?" Trump, his response, I saw two guys in the area.

HOW and When? it doesn't flow, within the 911 call, as he never says he was in the parking lot, this gal was, he told the OP.
He is asked White or Black?

JT: White
Not only does he say they were white he proceeds with he knew their age range. Asked what were they wearing?

JT: I, I don't know, this gal, she saw them. She walked out to smoke a cigarette, saw them duck down behind the car,

911: Ok
JT: I looked out and saw them, and I said what's going on?, I knew it was Kent's car, and I said Kent?
and they didn't look up, nobody did anything, someones been hurt man,,

He looked out and saw them, he said to himself or out loud? 'what's going on?' As his exact words are, I knew it was Kent's car, and I said Kent?, and they didn't look up, did he actually speak to them? or was his conscience he is reiterating.

*Why was this to him important, they didn't look up, no one did anything. He obviously didn't do anything, as he does not plea for aid, for the bleeding Kent on the ground. Of the two men, one to tell Shawna get help, they then would have been Samaritans? or Perps have a conscience?? call the police while were standing over the guy we beat to a pulp.

He doesn't say, Kent is unresponsive, needs help. Kent is no longer the subject. The purpose for he to take over the call? had Shawna been the one to remain on the phone, what would she have said differently? There is no urgency, nothing of Kent's welfare. How is it he goes from his work title, to " someone"

Shawna outside to smoke, she in her testimony that Kent's car was parked in the first space, closest to the building. One of the men, standing at the trunk of Kent's car, to her, " Someone's been hurt, get help" Her testimony:

What is missing? KH a employee of the Tribune, he not a stranger to Jerry Trump. Jerry does not demand AID for Kent. Send an Ambulance is not within his 911 call. He was seen alive moments ago, and then witnessed bloody in the parking lot. No pleading by Trump for medical assistance. He knew he was dead? he stood over him? he didn't attempt to aid him, he called in for one purpose and that was to report the " Two" men, he did or didn't see? nothing of Kent, is of his statements other than he looks like he has been shot. The 911 OP does not ask did you hear gun shots?

The call in the press is said, it came in at 2:26am. Found more on another website, will post. This more info of the 911 call. Why does this sound like an Inside Job? like a scheduled HIT upon Kent that took place in his employer's parking lot. That this was not a random attack, assault, killing.

Vita said...

November 1, 2001
2:08 – 2:10 a.m.
The victim, Kent Heitholt, logged off his computer, said his good-byes and walked to his car which was parked in the Tribune’s North parking lot in the space closest to the building.

Michael Boyd, an assistant to the victim and the last person to see him alive, had already walked to his car in the same lot and sat adjusting his car radio. Michael Boyd changed his story several times. Twice the day of the crime 2001. Twice in 2005

Michael Boyd worked for the victim and told detectives he departed the parking lot at 2:20 a.m. just 6 minutes before the 911 call was made. The police and the prosecutor failed to investigate the last person to admit talking to the victim just before his death and just minutes before the 911 call at 2:26 a.m.

2:10 – 2:20 a.m. While sitting in his own car Boyd says he watched the victim walk to his car. Boyd said he drove the few feet over to where the victim was standing and talked to him 3 – 5 minutes through the driver’s side window without getting out of his car.

2:20 a.m. Boyd told Detective Short he departed the parking lot in his car.

2:15 – 2:25 a.m. The victim poured cat food onto the wall next to the brick enclosure.

2:15 – 2:25 a.m. The victim was murdered.
KH, I read on his Obit, was known to feed the stray cats, that hung out in the Tribune parking lot.
Cat food found poured at the crime scene. This then of his routine known, he fed the strays.
2:20 – 2:25 a.m.
Shawna Ornt (the cleaning lady) exited the Tribune building, entered the parking lot for a smoke, saw shadows and returned the few steps back to the Tribune to report what she had seen to her co-worker Jerry Trump. They returned to the dock over-looking the parking lot. At first they saw nothing out of place. Finally after calling out, Ornt observed two suspects.

The person at the rear of the victim’s car came forward into the light, walked towards Ornt and spoke to her saying, “Get help, someone is hurt”! Ornt said she got a good look at the suspect. He then proceeded to walk east up the alley to 4th street.

2:26 a.m. Trump closed the overhead door and directed Ornt to call 911. Ornt made the call. Jerry Trump also got on the phone but was unable to provide a detailed description of the suspects.

Shawna Ornt described the person who spoke to her as:
* wearing a short sleeved T-shirt
* weighing 200 lbs
* had blond hair
* standing 6 foot tall
* was standing at the rear of the car
* and the person who spoke to her was calm and composed
Trying to visualize this
@2:10 KH walks to the lot, he to retrieve the Cat food from his vehicle? he then was not approached by Boyd yet? KH did not get into his vehicle. He walks to the wall and pours the cat food, he to call out for his known stray/s?

Boyd sitting in his car, playing with his radio at 2:10am, Halloween night, witnesses KH standing. He then drives up to him, has a conversation through the window for 3-5 mins.
-He waited for him to come out of the building? he had something to say, privately? as his said he pulled up to a standing KH. He KH did not leave the building right away, he stopped prior to exiting the building and chatted with co-workers.
Eye's for lies Michael Boyd, from Eye's blog: Boyd laughs as he tells us about the night Heitholt was murdered. He tells us he laughed at a stray cat scratching at Kent Heitholt's tires and laughed as he drove out of the parking lot about that silly cat.

He is match for match sized of KH, his photos shown.


Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Vita: Erickson recalled in his original statement attacking Kent with what he described as a tire iron from Furguson car trunk. He said that he beat the back of Kent's head with it, then as Kent Lay on his back dying Furguson removed Kents belt, and used it to strangle him. The two employees appeared and as Erckson recalled he did have a conscience and cried out for help for the man he had just assaulted. The employee had seen a horrific crime scene moments before making the call, he relayed what he saw; two young men standing over a obviously dying Kent (head wounds bleed a lot) and unexpectedly the two men were NOT doing anything to help Kent. The two men seem to be what the 911 call is about.

How often is this case featured on CBS 48 hours Mystery?

Anonymous said...

no reliable denial AND bad questioning by the investigator

Vita said...

Dateline - the video that picks up where the Eyes for Lies posted video leaves off, as Ryan was posed to be said within the murder, by Chuck Erickson being picked up, from a person calling in an Anon tip,

There is 6 parts, the woman's channel all 6 are uploaded on, scroll down, under Dateline " Ransom" - you will see,

" Under a Killing Moon"

Part 2
Dateline Under A Killing Moon,

Dateline Under A Killing Moon, Part 3

Watching part 3 now, this young man on the stand Erickson is extremely animated upon convincing the jury of what " He" did Not do.

His reenacting what Ryan did do, as he was a human video camera? was standing and rolling a camera, his recall mentally capable to provide such a detailed memory? he then did or didn't participate?

He could have stopped Ryan? I am watching as this has not yet tapped anything that I can make sense of.

This is not falling into any place, from reading very little (as there is mass to read), hearing the 911 call, and now the court proceedings, this one Dateline show. Nothing is a clear anything, nothing at all.
Watching/listening to Erickson, part 3,
Nothing to lose comes to mind, watching Erickson. He looks like a kid that has/had nothing to lose. Attention of a lifetime? no matter detention of his life time? being the result. He is a legend in his own mind?, this is what he gains/ed out of it.

This case is a conundrum of spiraling settings. The interrogation interviews, Michael Boyd, the Boys witnessed, the Boys named as individuals accused, and then there is The Truth. Someone violently killed Kent, he didn't kill himself.

Vita said...

A Opinion, written by a Reporter, he defending, the reputation of Michael Boyd. This a local reporter, the local press. He to write he knew both Kent Heitholt and Michael Boyd.

Accusation damages Michael Boyd's reputation, memory of Kent Heitholt

By Joe Walljasper

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 at 2:00 pm Updated: 2:16 pm, Mon Jan 21, 2013.

Over the weekend, I watched the “Dateline NBC” special about the murder of Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt and the controversy about whether Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson actually committed the crime. It was a dramatized — very dramatized — retelling of a story that has haunted Columbia for a decade.

I knew Heitholt for five years, sat through most of Ferguson’s trial and have read and watched almost everything written and said about the case. I don’t know if the right guys are in prison, and my opinion on that is no more important than any other informed observer’s.

This theory would be laughable if it weren’t so damaging to the memory of one and the reputation of the other. Heitholt was no bully, and Boyd is no murderer.

It continues at link,

The comments written, a commenter by the name of Spoon, he signs his name: Respectfully Bill Ferguson

His entries are worth reading

~ABC said...

Several things jump out at me about this interview.

1) He repeatedly tells us what he did not do.

2) He says several times he's told THEM the truth. He never says I'm telling YOU the truth even though he does say "YOU guys" meaning he is seeing them as a group.

3) He refers to the incident as this. "I am not involved in this in any way."

4) He dropped a pronoun. "Can't do or say anything else about it." I think he could say more if only he would.

5) "I'm going to jail for something I didn't do"
I think this may be an embedded confession of sorts. I'm not sure that's what you would call it, but he seems to be saying he knows he's going to jail because he's not going to tell what he really knows.

I think he is holding something back. I don't think he committed the crime, but he knows more.

Baxtie said...

Here's an article on the killing written on Jan 24, 2013, by the same newspaper where the victim worked.

Erickson confessed that he beat the victim and claims that afterwards Ferguson tried to strangle the victim with the belt.

Ferguson denies all of it, including even being at the scene.

It's pretty chilling for a few reasons. First, they did it to supposedly rob someone to get cash to continue drinking, but they never took any money from the victim. Second, Erickson claims not to have remembered it until bits and pieces came to him over time (combination of denial and drunkenness).

mommaklee said...

Could the murderer be one person, and the two young men came upon the dead/dying man and grabbed stuff off of him?

BostonLady said...

I watched the show on Dateline last night. Boyd struck me as odd. He was smiling and laughing at awkward times. I'm not sure how LE cleared him because that really wasn't part of the Dateline story.

I was surprised to learn that it was 2 years after the attack that Erickson spoke with LE. His interview was ridiculous, Erickson did not know details of the case and LE fed him the info. Then they threatened him with the info that they fed to him. Very bad police work. Screaming at him and blocking him into a corner. Very intimidating.

It is difficult to evaluate Ryan based on the clips but he comes across very open and not hostile. I posted this on the other thread but I am appalled that Ryan has not been able to get a new trial based on the fact that there isn't one item tying him to the murder. The only thing that convicted him was the sex offender who has come forward and stated he lied, and his friend Erickson who has also stated he lied. How is it that with many missing child cases, the DA's are unable to bring the cases to trial and they have everything but the body.

Something is wrong with our system !

Layla said...

Oh boy...just watched the video, and he's innocent. So sad. I think his not getting worked up worked against him. He didn't stand up for himself enough. Probably noone in his family gets worked up at all during arguments.
On an energy level, it's like Erickson has a severe guilt/self-punishing complex and Ryan's energy is so calm and passive and was not assertive enough to fend off the events/energy set in motion by the very powerful disturbed energy of Erickson. You could see on the 48 hrs show, Erickson has a very powerful self-punishing energy where he is not even concerned about his own false imprisonment--very masochistic. Ryan's energy is so tranquil. It is just not enough to counteract erickson's very disturbed energy.

Vita said...

I watched the full show, minus the commercials online, 48 hours which aired on 2/23/2013

Watching/listening to this 48 hours, answered some of my questions, and yet provoked more questions. The atty who came on board, to aid in Ryan having another day in court. She is clear, concise and presents what is in the obvious, that was so wrong within his trial.

Searching the net and seeing two photos of Kent Heitholt, he standing head to toe. Being able to see him, as his stats were 6'3 315lbs. His daughter was 15 when her father, Mr. Heitholt was murdered. She described her father as a big teddy bear. My friend, I lived with her parents for almost a year, her father the same in stats. His frame alike Heitholt's. Mr. D, he too labeled teddy bear, was 6'3, possibly 6'4, and yes near or at 300lbs+. He was believe it or not "proportioned" to his scale. He had a belly, he was not obese, nor clinically overweight. I can see his hands in my mind, his hands were massive, could palm another man's face no question. He played college ball was linebacker in size, remained this size in his early 50's. NO one in their right mind would go up to Mr D. and attempt to Mug him. Especially a high drunk 16.5 yr old, he would have wiped the floor with him.

He was giant in stature, as was Kent Heitholt. This is what the ATTY says of Chuck's story, in the 48 hours. You run out of drinking dollars and you come across Kent, he 4 times bigger, and you thought of him as an easy target? His money was not taken, his wallet was left.

Chuck displays in court how he hit Kent with a tire tool. Really? his scrawny high drunk 150lb, 5'6 self was able to strike Kent down, hitting him in the HEAD. Was he standing on top of the Car?

He admits he was on Adderall, using Cocaine and was drinking substantially that night. Adderall to stay awake, it is taken as a street drug. The list goes on what it does to a user, linked below, it doesn't empower you, make you super human. No it turns you into a waif thin, energy-less, weakened person. Nervousness, Paranoia, Restlessness, Uncontrollable shaking of a part of the body, just to name a few symptoms of a user. He drinking is a sedative, the coke would be how affective on him? I don't know.

Adderall as a recreational drug side affects:

Ryan is said to have had 20.00 in cash on him, as he left the bar, to take Chuck home. Not only this, he had a credit card. Money was not involved, nor motive, with the attack/ brutal slaying of Mr. Heitholt.

She the atty says it herself
" this was personal". Who ever attacked, murdered KH, they knew him and hated him. Who was the last person to see him alive, 6 mins before the 911 call placed? Michael Boyd, his understudy, who worked under KH, part time.

With all the mystery of this case unsolved and unproven. I have a hard time with this testimony of BOYD, I exited the parking lot of the Tribune, at exactly 2:20am. He too came back to the scene, LE swarming. He caught on camera. He not standing in the parking lot, no. He entered the Tribune building opened a door that viewed out to the parking lot. It's all in the 48 hours, show, linked below.

I have to commend Mr. Ferguson, Ryan's father. That he has made this his life mission for one purpose, seeking " The Truth".

48 hours Titled: The Accused
It is the entire show, no commercials.

Layla said...

You could also see on 48 hrs that after years in prison, Ryan's energy remains very tranquil. Prison usually gives people a very hard energy and darkens their eyes. Ryan's energy is very water-like and I can't remember the name of the book--it is some Chinese philosophy book where it says water beats stone or rock by wearing away at it slowly. I think Ryan will be victorious and win his freedom but as we can see it is taking a long time because of his water-like energy.

Vita said...

This is not going to fit one post. This written by, Spoon, signed as Ryan's father, Bill Ferguson. He commenting on a local reporter article of opinion, his opinion defending the rep of Michael Boyd.
Two posts as he wrote two very detailed, responses to the reporter.

spoon posted at 7:56 pm on Tue, Aug 9, 2011.

Joe Walljasper I would agree you have written a compelling article. If I had been in your place I would like to think I too would have supported my friend as you have.If you could indulge me for a minute may I explain why we think Michael Boyd should have been considered as a suspect?1. In police report #18 Michael reports at 2:00am he was standing by the Tribune outside door talking with Mike Henry. Michael says the victim walked by them to his car. Boyd says he concluded his conversation and walked to the victim’s car where he engaged in a conversation with the victim. Once he concluded their conversation Boyd says he continued north to his car parked in the same parking lot departing the parking lot around 02:20amDetective Short reported that Boyd said he did not see anybody around the parking lot or anybody who was suspicious.This report was taken via phone about 2 hours after the crime.Detective Short incorrectly listed Boyd’s race as white2. Police Report #25 taken in person by Lloyd Simons at 11:45pm about 21 hours after the Crime.In this report Michael Boyd says he chatted with Mike Henry several minutes before preceded the victim into the parking lot approximately 02:10am walking directly to his car where he fiddled with his radio for 2-3 minutes. At this time Boyd says he sees the victim walk out of the Tribune Building to his car. Boyd says he backs up and drives over to the victim and engaged in a 3 – 5 minute conversation with the victim. Boyd says he departs the parking lot anywhere from 2:15am to 2:20am.Says he did not see anything suspicious.a. Please note there is no mention what car he was driving.b. He did not see anything suspicious in either report.c. In Police Report #7 Mike Henry says nothing about talking to Michael Boyd.d. Each time departs the parking lot driving west down the alley to Providence Road turning North

Vita said...

His continued - Bill Ferguson
spoon posted at 7:57 pm on Tue, Aug 9, 2011.

3. On 2-14-05 our investigator Jim Miller spoke to Michael Boyd. Tells Miller he entered the parking lot 02:00am and walked to his car located in the North Parking lot and west of Heitholt’s car. With the front of his vehicle facing southeast. Michael says he sat in his car listening to music. He could see the Tribune door and watched the victim exit the building and walk to his car. Boyd drove around to the rear of the victim’s car engaging in a conversation between 2:10 am to 2:15am talking for only a minute or two. Boyd says he departed north out of the parking lot.Only time Boyd’s says he exits out the north entrancea. Michael does not mention seeing anyone in the parking lotb. Michael does mention he was driving his Blue Olds.4. On 6-24-05 William Haws Chief investigation for Prosecutor Crane spoke to Michael Boyd. Boyd told Haws he was driving a Red car. Boyd remembered talking to the victim on the parking lot. Exited the parking lot passing two boys as he drove west down the alley towards Providence Road.A. First time Boyd has mentioned seeing anyone in the parking lot other than the victim.B. Says for the first time he was now driving a red car.5. On 6-5-06 Matthew Allen investigator spoke to Michael Boyd. Boyd says he departed the Tribune Building around 2:10am listened to 3 – 4 songs on his car radio. Sat in his car another 10 minutes before encounter the victim close to 2:20amBoyd reported he was driving his blue olds that nightBoyd says as he finished his conversation with the victim and while driving down the alley towards Providence he almost hit two college boys with his car.a. Boyd stated he was driving the blue oldsb. Stated for the first time he almost hit two college boys with his car as he departed the parking lot around 2:24amc. 911 was called at 2:26amJoe if you have taken a few minutes to read these reports I think you will agree Boyd’s statements over the years is rather inconsistent.Michael told a Tribune Reporter Brennan David in February 2011 which was written around 16 February he traded his blue olds for another car with Enterprise Car Rentals. The Department of Revenue has Michael Boyd as the owner of the Blue Olds. When one takes into consideration the various versions and the story of the Blue Olds I think you can see why we believe Michael Boyd should be considered a person who should have been investigated.How does one go from not seeing anyone in the parking lot to almost running over two colleges boys a few years later?May I suggest we walk the crime scene at some point. I think you would find this exercise well worth your time.Respectfully Bill Ferguson

The link I posted prior, today at 4:25pm, it won't fit here.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

mommaklee said...
Could the murderer be one person, and the two young men came upon the dead/dying man and grabbed stuff off of him?
February 24, 2013 at 7:28 PM >>>

I'd like to hear people explore this. Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I have requested transcripts of the entire police interview from the family but have not received them.


Vita said...

Peter, the 48 hours show that aired on 2/23/2013

Michael Boyd is interviewed, and it is shown in snips. He asked of that night, was anything out of the ordinary, paraphrasing the interviewer question.

His response, NORMAL - he uses the the word Normal. As it is that he was the last to see KH alive. 5 mins later KH found brutally murdered. He was on the scene, hours post, and witnessed his body on the ground. Nothing was normal.

" Nothing, it was a normal night"

Vita said...

The written by Ryan's father, Bill Ferguson, on Boyd's testimonies.
I pulling it apart, for reading. A snip of his written, that I did post.

A. First time Boyd has mentioned seeing anyone in the parking lot other than the victim.

B. Says for the first time he was now driving a red car.

5. On 6-5-06 Matthew Allen investigator spoke to Michael Boyd. Boyd says he departed the Tribune Building around 2:10am listened to 3 – 4 songs on his car radio. Sat in his car another 10 minutes before encounter the victim close to 2:20am

Boyd reported he was driving his blue olds that night Boyd says as he finished his conversation with the victim and while driving down the alley towards Providence he almost hit two college boys with his car.

a. Boyd stated he was driving the blue olds

b. Stated for the first time he almost hit two college boys with his car as he departed the parking lot around 2:24am

c. 911 was called at 2:26am
Joe if you have taken a few minutes to read these reports I think you will agree Boyd’s statements over the years is rather inconsistent.

Vita said...

Crime Magazine, which provides a ton of info, on the case.

About five minutes later, Shawna Ornt, a cleaning lady on the night shift, exited the rear of the Tribune building and noticed something amiss near Heitholt's car. She went back inside to alert her supervisor, Jerry Trump. Together, they returned to the loading dock at the rear of the building overlooking the parking lot, and saw Heitholt's body lying on the ground in a pool of blood near his car. They spotted two males near Heitholt's car, one at the back of the car, with blond hair and wearing a short-sleeved t-shirt, and the other at the front of the car, with black hair and described as being six feet tall and weighing approximately 200 pounds. The male at the back of the car called out to Ornt and Trump, "get help, someone's hurt."

Ornt called 911 to raise the alarm at 2:26 a.m. Columbia police officers, detectives, and a K-9 tracking dog responded to the scene. Despite the fact that there was a good deal of evidence at the murder scene – fingerprints, bloody footprints, a hair in the victim's hand, and DNA – the case baffled the police until they had occasion to interview 19-year-old Charles "Chuck" Erickson 860 days later, on March 10, 2004.

Erickson attended a New Year's Eve party in 2003, and while under the influence of alcohol, had been overheard saying he'd had a dream and feelings about possibly being involved in a murder, but had no memory whatsoever of actually being involved for two years, until this time. In February 2004, he mentioned being involved in the murder to a friend, Nick Gilpin, and a week later told another friend, Art Figueroa. Despite telling his friends about being involved in the murder, Erickson was not able to give any actual details, only vague generalizations, and was under the influence of alcohol each time he mentioned the murder.

Another friend, Jonathan Alder, subsequently made a report to the police, which led to Erickson's interrogation.

Erickson, a junior high school classmate of Ryan Ferguson, and a known drug and alcohol abuser, was seen by his friends as a person prone to telling outrageous stories. His story on March 10, 2004 was no exception.
* Anon call is placed to LE, a male teen. I know what happened. Erickson known by all to be a teller of tall tales. He has a dream and this is construed as
" He did it" by another teen? Erickson is picked up by LE, and he is high. In the 48 hours he is said to have been "High" when he was picked up by LE.

He interrogated for how many hours? and in the interim, Ryan is picked up by LE and brought in. Ryan is not allowed to call his parents. My guess is Erickson wasn't allowed a call either. Maybe he had no one to call, he has no support system, attempting him out of prison?

Video of interrogation, Chuck, having an officer tell him that Ryan doesn't care about you, is going to finger him. You better get clear. Isn't it against the law to interrogate, no witness in the room, the person who is not charged with anything, as they are under the influence? * the officers tell him what he saw, as he is clueless. They through the use of coercion, he in compliance to elevate the tension, he says what they want.

They drive him to the crime scene and SHOW him - ???? they have to show him? he doesn't direct them, no. The officer even says, it may have changed since then. Since when?

Layla said...

Peter--it could be that erickson grabbed something off of him. Especially if Erickson is high on coke maybe was hyper running around and left the bar. After seeing police interview of Ryan, I am 100 percent convinced he had no involvement. He's smarter than the cops interrogating him, didn't lose his cool, figured he'd be believed in the end. He made a mistake in not standing up for himself more assertively--these cops were not smart enough to "read him" and see his innocence as maybe teachers in high school could. He looks like he is the principal's office and counting on the vice principal to walk in, ask him a few questions, turn to the principal and say "aw, he's telling the truth. He was naive.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
This is heartbreaking to watch, a senseless murder where there are three victims! Kents murder created a hopelessness in Ryan. After reading a blog posting by his father I'm wondering if it's Ryan, or Ryan's father who is in denial? Ryan would feel better if he made amends to Kents family.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Yikes! Maybe more victims if Ryan's dad gets away with framing Boyt! (With the help of CBS.) Where are the money hungry lawers? They should offer their services to Boyt and to Kents' family who are being attacked by convicted murderers and their families.

Vita said...

Layla, I agree with your comments.
He Ryan is who he is. He doesn't react to the coercion. His own said, is I know where your going with this, I wasn't there.
He doesn't break down. He stays.
He knows the truth. He wasn't there.

--Who did lie

Trump on the stand, Jerry Trump, if you watch the 48 hour show. He points to Ryan, and he begs his forgiveness. Ryan has his hand over his lower face, his finger around his nose. His eyes turn into STUN upon the request of Trump. Ryan's mother is rendered crushed. The trial testimony of Trump to be the crucible of the guilty verdict.

He Trump got something out of this, his testimony, yes he did. Trump a convicted felon, sex offender, he was motivated by the Pros Atty. He to be shown the newspaper with RF and CE on the front page. He wanted to do what was right, he said on the stand, second time around. BS! he wanted to be on the admonished side for once. He felt 10 feet high naming Ryan in that court room, that is who I saw, him. This empowered him to cast upon another he is guilty!
It made him a good boy for who? the PROS Atty.

2012, an Indy film came out to select theaters. The film title: Compliance

This Indy film based upon true stories. The setting, a sleepy all American town. The fast food restaurant in town, where everyone knows everyone to be the stage. The woman who is the manager is no different than Jerry Trump. She not a convict, yet she is the same person. She older, near retirement age is manager over the H.S. students working at the restaurant. A call is placed into the restaurant by a man claiming he is LE. He to tell her that one of the employees, a teen female who is present, stole money from the restaurant. He directs her to become Authority inside the restaurant. She instructed by the voice, to do A-Z to this young lady. She doesn't consider the girl's statements, as she is accused, she to yell, I DID NOT STEAL MONEY!

Another employee questions the Mgr, should you be doing this? and her response is, " it's the right thing to do" as she was directed by the officer on the phone. Watch the preview. This did happen, and the caller was not LE, but a sicko psycho. He getting off on the power of saying I am law enforcement. The woman? she doesn't ask any questions, nor does she question her own actions. She is Compliant. Many comments online of this movie, that many walked out prior to the middle. That NO ONE would be, could be this Stupid. Quid Pro Quo. It happened.

This is a study that was done in the 1960's. Of how far human beings will go, when told to hurt another human. Social and Society Rules. That they who participated are told, just do it, the consequences are not on you, but of us who are in charge of the study. They to be compliant. Even as the study is they are to cause pain, escalated pain unto another.
This is a must watch - a window into Human cruelty, simply by being Compliant to " one in a uniform, with a title".

dadgum said...

Vita..those are two very useful and mind awakening things to watch and read about. They are a look into how we all work when influenced by peers and/or authority. There have been other series in how we think..showing people take cues from those around them, or authority figures they do not know.

dadgum said...

What stunned me about the events 'Compliance' is based on, was how close the police station was, and no one checked, asked why the officer didn't just come next door..or go there themselves.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Or from authority figures they DO know; for example on the Free RyanF. web page there is a video link to a police interview that's been edited with the additional title at the beginning of the clip " Have you ever had the cops in your face?" Great job modeling disrespect!

Anonymous said...

If you only knew how badly botched this whole investigation was. Based only on the interview and going by SA,there was no reliable denial which would lead me to believe there was some culpability. However, living in MO and having read about this case and seen how the "justice" system is here, I believe he is innocent. My husband worked in the DOC for several years and it is corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Karen,what about people like Billie Dunn and Justin DiPietro saying we should just wait for the truth to come out?

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

Although the job is both draining and stimulating, one perk is meeting interesting individuals. One such person is Ryan’s father, Bill Ferguson, who has made it his personal quest to prove his son’s innocence. Bill says Moriarty is professional, experienced and knows what she’s talking about. “She adds that aspect that most people couldn’t even touch,” he says. “When she speaks, people give her a lot of credence because of her experience. I certainly do.”

This is from an article about 48 Hours producer.Lol! They admit to working together!

Jen said...

I also watched the 48hrs on this case last night and it has me a little baffled. Like everyone else I would like to see complete interview footage and the original police interviews for both CE & RF. The clips shown of CE police interview certainly don't seem like HE'S providing detailed info that only the killer or someone on the scene would know, and he actually seems unable to tell them anything accurate (until the details are given by the interviewer). That, combined with the physical evidence which doesn't match either of the accused makes me think they likely weren't involved. But that leaves the question WHY would Chuck Erickson lie implicating HIMSELF & Ryan, when they had nothing to do with it?

In my younger days, I did some partying and drinking, but I never looked at a newspaper article later and wondered if I committed one of the crimes I was reading about! That's one of the strangest things I've ever heard someone say. It makes me wonder if he's pulling a Jodi Arias and reducing his responsibility by saying, 'I don't remember'.

I also find Boyd and his changing account, plus a missing car to be beyond coincidence. If you almost hit two guys leaving the parking lot where your colleague was killed minutes later, that would be the FIRST thing you told the investigators. It wouldn't be an after thought added to your account years later. Plus he 'lost track' of the vehicle he was driving that night! He told different stories about which vehicle he was driving and then he 'lost track' of the vehicle he settled on (one article said he may have traded the vehicle in but doesn't know!?) I've owned many cars in my life...I've bought cars, inherited cars and been gifted cars by family members and if I needed to, I could tell you what happened to every one of don't misplace a car! Very strange, and he should have been looked at, even if only as the last person to see and talk to the victim.

Vita said...

Dadgum, the film Compliance
Read the reviews of who did see it, and or walked out of it mid way. The ones who walked out holding onto no one would be this stupid, to comply upon a phoned in Authority.

That is why it is so bone chilling, this movie. The woman, the manager never says NO to the caller, nor second questions if the person on the phone is real or not. She is awarded in her mind, by completing each task told to her to do. No matter she is terrorizing her young co-worker.

She now is in her mind, I am in Authority, abusing this girl? as she is the manager. Her to believe this is her job? or she felt within her compliance she would be in the end, rewarded and named
" The Hero".

It's very deep psychology here. I sent the preview of this film to my daughter. I did not see the film. She did not see the film. I did ask her if she was in the same situation as the girl, what would she do? She said it would depend on who approached me and what they said to me. Right there it is engrained. That submissiveness is a undeniable trait within humans.

Even posed, it is contemplated dependent upon who. First is not in the equation nor a thought, a flat out, in a ridiculous situation, NO!

Her not said, I am not complying. I didn't do anything wrong! standing up for oneself, this proves the ave person believes they have no power. The power entity is of who is authority even in your work place. I know I did not steal, and I know my rights! and I am not to be subjected to such interrogation by a coworker above me or not. *doesn't enter the equation.

Authority and Compliance are set within the bottom line? as it has to be based upon what? how far the person in Authority would take it? Then a line would be drawn? Her not said, I would leave or exit the building, cut my losses of my employment. What would they do to me fire me? upon what evidence?

Her personal was that it would depend upon who accused her, what they said to her. Wasn't hers to respond and be in control, of being accused. If she was in this situation, her rights were not relevant. Would all depend on who it was that approached/accused her, and what authority they held over her.

Then it is, this person would be in power of her reaction and responses, not guilty or otherwise. Compliance is a discussion all parents need to have with their children young.
Who is and who isn't authoritative over them, their bodies, their minds.

Link to comments of the film

Anonymous said...

Now you are smart. I have often said my problem with the black and white way we analyze statements on this site is that we don't analyze both sides nor completely. Over arching, and imp, over reaching conclusions are made about a person and an all at attack ensues. A person may be guilty but to me if you don't analyze fairly it makes me want to defend, even the guilty, bc I can't rely on folks who are analyzing to be objective. People are praised on here for their SA techniques bc they agree. I just don't see SA as being an objective science if every party in the conversation's words aren't analyzed. It matters what and how you are asked. The limbic system or the survival instinctive area of your brain will lie to survive, automatically. The cerebral cortex is not even active. How do you analysis that? You can't. Not when you are fighting for survival. So thank you for your reasonable methods of SA. And for finally recognizing the interviewers role in all of this.

Anonymous said...

imo, In my opinion, I mean. Yes one must also consider the naivety of his age. He is still young enough to not be jaded and to believe like children do that the truth speaks for itself. After all the burden of truth is on the prosecutor, or so we believe when we are young. We don't have to present facts if we are innocent. The facts speak for themselves.

Kaaryn Gough said...

Anonymous said...
Karen,what about people like Billie Dunn and Justin DiPietro saying we should just wait for the truth to come out?

I didn't follow the Billie Dunn case so I can't comment on her statement.

Justin DiPietro invoked the "truth" when he said,

"The truth is the truth and when the case is solved, it will be out there. Until then, please try to remain positive and hopeful as I remain confident the Ayla will return safely."

Notice he does not say, "I am telling the truth". He does not connect himself with the truth here nor does he say the truth will prove he did not hurt Ayla.

His inclusion of
"Until then" tells us that he knows something will change once the truth comes out. But "until then, "..."remain positive and hopeful". Essentially, when the truth comes out, people will not be positive and hopeful.

If you have more instances where JP used "truth", look to see if he says, "I am telling the truth" and counts on the fact that the truth will prove he did not hurt/kill/dispose of Ayla.

Keep in mind, it is not impossible for someone to say, "I am telling the truth" when, in fact, they are telling a lie. If one is very knowledgable of SA and has the opportunity to plan what they will say, they may be able to say it knowing this is what an analyst will want to read/hear and this might deflect suspicion from them.

Tania Cadogan said...

Addendum if the person was wearing a niqab then the natural assumption is they are female, why does she refer to them as someone which concelas not only the identity but the gender?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I'm asserting or alleging nothing.

I am concerned, however.

It may be that we can't say a reliable denial exists because of all the editing of the video. It was a poor interview and I do have questions about Ryan:

*did he witness anything?
*was he doing something illegal or illicit that night?

These things can influence language.

Was he honest about everything?

Did he take a polygraph?

If we had an unedited version, we would know.

I requested transcripts from the family, but did not receive them.

Had I received transcripts and saw clearly that he was not involved in the murder, nor in accompanying crimes, I would have gladly assisted the family with publicity, including the radio, and contacting journalists that I have worked with. There are many people of good will who will help, but before I am able to throw my energy behind a case, I need the full transcripts.

Does this make sense?

See Kaaryn's comments as well.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Also, I am aware of others who feel Ryan is innocent and I respect their views.

I simply want to be able to say things with certainty when and where the language allows.

I can't look into his eyes and know anything. Does anyone remember that on The Nancy Grace Show? She said she looked into someone's eyes and knew she was truthful when, in fact, she was boldly deceptive? *I wonder if anyone can cite the example?!?

Ivy said...

I only watched this clip once and the other one you posted, but I otherwise don't know anything about this case. I have not read the comments yet, so maybe this is repetitive. He is persistent in saying he is telling the truth and isn't biting on the officers' attempts to talk about how theoretically it might be better to tell his version etc. Which is better than a lot of other statements we analyze. That being said, there is no reliable denial that specifically refers to not killing the victim. It is always "this" or "it" -- not I did not kill Mr. Kent (not sure if that's his name). Also, the crime is often referred to as "this" rather than "that". There is also repeated (in my view too much) emphasis on "the evidence" what "the evidence shows" -- I mean, if you didn't do it, you didn't do it, regardless of how the evidence looks, etc. Red flags often go up for me when the accused are focused on what the evidence shows. Similarly, there is repeated emphasis on Charles lying, which is apparently was, but Charles may have lied and Ryan Ferguson may still have culpability in the murder. Knowing nothing about the evidence or anything else about this guess, I would say that this guy was involved in the murder, even if he didn't actually commit it himself (pull the trigger or whatever the manner) but that his defense was he wasn't there. Maybe he wasn't even there, but he was involved. I'm not so sure he wasn't there though. The witness who turned on him lied, but this guy was still involved. Just opinion. I'm very curious about the evidence/background here. And will read comments etc. I may post again after doing so.

Ivy said...

ok I read all the comments. And now this case does ring a bell. Especially the business about the coworker who last saw him whose account changed. The cat feeding also jogged my memory. Listened to 3 songs on the radio at 2 am on Halloween? This guys seems like a problem, but it's not clear. As for Erikson' fessing up to this years later, I have two thoughts on this. It's unusual and it does seem unlikely that an innocent person would do this, in that kind of detail and finger someone else. On the flipside, I am reminded of Helena Stokley, from the Jeff MacDonald case who on and off said she was and wasn't involved in the murders. She clearly was not, and yet she was crazy enough and drugged out enough to say she was. This situation doesn't seem quite like that, but Stokely is a reminder that things like this do happen in ways that turn the obvious in cases upside down -- in some of her accounts she implicated specific other people too. Like everyone here, I would like to see all the transcripts of everyone, including Erickson and Ferguson.

Tania Cadogan said...

To make a valid conclusion we can only use the words the subject tells us.

If the words are altered in any way such as via editing, mistranslation or quoted by a 3rd party we cannot and should not make a definitive conclusion, tio do so would be erroneous.
Our conclusion would not be based on the true statement rather on a falsehood even if unintentional.

Editing can, and is used to emphasis certain points the editor wants us to see, be they for or against the subject, thus we would be analysing the editor and not the subject.
Words and phrases taken out of context, punctation in places where they weren't or different punctuation can ,ake a whole world of difference to a sentence.
Mistranslation is the same when a word can have multiple meanings based on tone, pronoun, subject even down to the age and gender.

To come to a valid conclusion, we need the full unaltered transcript, if that means full of pauses , nonsense sounds and bad grammar as well as slang so be it. It allows us to learn their personal dictionary, their rhythm of speech so we can then see when the speed and pattern changes or when the language changes.

For example, a well educated person such as a doctor speaks fluently and clearly, there are few pauses or nonsense noises when they are discussing a patient, they are in their comfort zone, if we then talk to the same doctor about their abducted child and we see frequents pauses and nonsense sounds when talking about their role in what happened and yet when asked about a non sensitive event on the self same trip, the changes in rhythm and language indicates sensitivity. the same goes for anyone, they speak a certain way in their safe/comfort zone, when we then take them through the period of sensitivity it changes and it is the changes we are interested in.
It could be they were the victim in the crime, it could be they were the guilty person, it could be they were a witness, each is affected differently and their speech reflects this.
We see the truth and the deception, our job is to seek out why there is deception and to reveal the truth.

When someone is deceptive they have a reason to be deceptive.
it may not be deception about the event we are investigating, it could be guilt for other reasons, parental guilt for not protecting a missing or abused child, guilt about a different crime past or current or it could be financial or family worries, infidelity or any number of things.
As analysts we need to let the subject know it is ok to talk, to be honest with us regardless of why they are being deceptive, if the deception is over something trivial or not related to the investigation, they can be reassured we don't judge, if it is to do with the investigation we can with our words make being honest the best option, that they will feel so much better once the truth is out.
To be a good analyst we have to be good listeners, we have to be patient, we have to be neutral, we have to be calm, we have to be non judgemental so that the subject opens up to us.

Not everyone can be all of the above, not everyone wants to be all of the above especially when children are involved.

At the end of the day we have to be able to turn it down as it can never be turned off and to be able to resist the temptation to use it on family and friends casually.
Statement analysis is a very powerful tool and should be used wisely as misuse can cause irreperable harm to relationships.

Lynn said...

Thank you for the information about the word truth, Karen. That helped clear things up tremendously!

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
One other thing on the Free Ryan web site that was unexpected was a 10,000 dollar reward is being offered for Ryan's release from prison. The site says that Ryan is recieving the probono services of one of the nations top lawyers, so who is the target for the reward? Is there another way to get Ryan out of prison other then through the legal system? Is it aimed at prisoners? Has anyone been "rewarded" yet? It's confusing!
The site removed the written note of Ryans that had embedded statements of guilt.

Jen said...

Hi anon-

On the 48hrs episode the father of Ryan Ferguson said the reward was aimed at the man/men who were actually in the parking lot the night of the murder and who told the cleaning lady to call for help. He (dad) believes that they were guys who just happened by the scene (good samaritans) and them coming forward is the key to Ryan's freedom. He claims the only reason the police believe there were two perpetrators, is because of these guys interaction with the cleaning woman and she said they were NOT bloody, so he believes it may have been one person committing the crime (minutes earlier)...and the two guys came afterward.

I can't make sense of it either way...if they were good Samaritans then why didn't they stay and render aid? Why not call the police and tell them what you saw, and especially why not collect the reward for admitting you were there? If they are the actual killer then I can see why they haven't come forward...but basically, the case is closed as far as the police are concerned. Most importantly, how would they beat this man to death without being covered in blood, and if they did try to kill him..why would they ask for help when that could mean he might later be able to identify them? It kind of makes me wonder if there EVER WAS two guys in the parking lot, in light of the male janitors change of testimony.

Anonymous said...

This is all speculation. I do need to go back and watch the videos since I am not familiar with the case. Here are some questions, though.

It is interesting that Boyd was in his car, listening to music, and stopped to "talk." He certainly could have listened to music while driving home after a late shift. Why wait in the parking lot? Also, he is sitting in his car. Doesn't that act of sitting make it sensitive? And, he almost hit two guys. He was in a hurry to get out of there, IMHO. At night especially, I would drive a bit more slowly out of a parking area to make sure my view was clear. And,the cars??? He got rid of one afterwards? Peter, does his recounting of speaking through a window signify anything?

ken said...

john, you are over-analyzing!

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Jen: Your scenario is a stretch of the imagination, you've got two more witnesses/suspects in the parking lot of the tribune, that happen to be the same race, age, hair coloring and are doing the things Chuck remembers doing and the one that looks like Chuck is saying the things that Chuck remembers saying? And Ryan and Chuck are somewhere else when the crime is commited? That part of the story stays the same, Chuck and Ryan were together. And why, if there is this alternate scenario, is the website and pro bono lawyer only for Ryan?

Ivy said...

I have been reading more about the case. I see 2 pieces in this case suggesting guilt 2. 1) Someone saw those two guys in the parking lot with the victim after he was down and those two guys took off. 2) 2 years after the crime Erikson said he and Ryan did it. The witness who saw the two guys identified one of them as Ryan, but he has recanted now and says he felt pressured to say it was him. As far as I know, the witness is not saying it definitively wasn't Ryan, he just can't say one way or the other. Erikson has recanted too, but he's not saying they weren't there, but that only he (Erikson) is responsible. That is very different than the witness saying he saw someone else at the scene who was NOT Ryan, or Erikson saying the two of them were somewhere else, they have no connection to this crime, and the police got him to falsely confess. People suspect Erikson is not guilty, that he falsely confessed and that the police was feeding him information he didn't seem to know. The interrogation sounds like it was improper -- I haven't read the transcripts so I'm assuming it's as bad as people say. But two years after the crime, Erikson may have forgotten a lot of stuff. More importantly, why would he falsely confess to murder and accuse his friend and still be admitting his guilt years later? He basically has to be a total nutjob, a complete liar and fabricator with attention seeking and other bad incentives to make this up. There are such people (Stokely), but I haven't seen much to convince me that he is such a person. The lack of DNA/presence of DNA/footprints evidence is not conclusive. For the two guys the witness saw not to have been Erikson and Ryan, there needs to have been another pair of guys that came through there, and Erikson needs to have lied about having participated in this repeatedly, when actually he wasn't there at all, including now in the affidavit that is being presented by Ryan as the truth. It's possible, but it seems unlikely. I mean, if the claim that Ryan is innocent is based on the "new evidence" that Erikson alone is responsible, and Ryan was just a bystander, it seems unlikely that that would get overturned. The court would ask what incentive Erikson might have to change his story now, and as Ryan's friend, knowing about all of this effort to get Ryan out and support, he may see an opportunity to do some good. He may feel guilty for having spoken, given that they might have gotten away with it. There are a lot of habeas cases where the "new evidence" is actually a recantation of some kind and the motives/credibility of the person recanting are closely scrutinized. It is also very unlikely given the victim's size that Erikson was a lone perpetrator, so that part of the story would also not seem credible. I haven't read the affidavit or heard his testimony, so I don't know how exactly the story has changed. The standard to overturn a conviction on this basis is very high. It's not like you just start over from scratch years later and say, oh look there's reasonable doubt now that this witness's story isn't so iron clad. Otherwise, criminals who testified against their accomplices who later saw that the case against their accomplices was weak without their testimony (that would be a lot of them) would just change their stories, introduce reasonable doubt, and the accomplices would be let out on appeal. I understand why this sits so badly -- Ryan seems very compelling, having stuck to his story even when so young, little physical evidence of his involvement, and so much hanging on the changing statements of his druggy friend who confessed when improperly pressured by the police. The possibility that the testimony of a someone so lacking credibility is the only real remaining evidence of his involvement, when Ryan himself seems so "water like" and calm and consistent is tough to swallow. This is all opinion.

Lis said...

Jen, in the beginning Chuck only implicated himself. However, the police believed that the crime was committed by two persons, so the interrogator began pressuring Chuck to name a second individual who was with him, threatening him with what would happen to him if he didn't come up with a second person. It was after this that he named Ferguson. Then, under pressure, he began to manufacture what Ferguson supposedly 'did', taking cues from the interrogator.

Lis said...

I finally had a chance to sit down and really carefully listen to this video. I paused and replayed parts several times to try to be sure of what he is saying.

This appears to be well along in the interview process and Ferguson refers several times to having already told "them" the truth. I don't know exactly what his words were or how many people he has already spoken to or for how long, at this point, nor exactly what he has been accused of or what he knows of the details of the crime.

I have been convinced from the start that Ferguson is innocent but I agree that he does not issue a reliable denial in this video. He refers back to what he has already said as being the truth and to having told them 'what happened' and having nothing to add to it, so I would want to see the prior interviews and an uncut version.

Lis said...

"*was he doing something illegal or illicit that night?"

Ryan and Chuck had snuck into a bar, underage, for Halloween festivities that night, and had some drinks. Ryan's sister worked at the bar and had helped them gain admittance. I think they were 17 at the time.

If they were the 2 who came upon Mr. Heitholt's body and shouted to the witness to call 911, I can see why they would have been reluctant to stay around and act as witnesses, since they could have ended up in trouble for drinking underage.

I don't believe that the 2 seen by the witness were the killers because of the fact that they were not bloody and because they tried to get help for Heitholt.

Lis said...

As I think about it, if they had been the 2, it would explain why Chuck might start having dreams of the scene 2 years later and questioning what they meant. He was known to be a drug user and may have been so high that night that he only had disconnected flashbacks of the scene.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Lis: Chuck started admitting to the crime immediately: first to the janitors when he called for help, next he told a friend, that they saw as fleeing, about the crime they had just commited, he admits to asking Ryan about the crime, he told friends at parties (leading to his arrest) and he confessed in court. He wrote a letter of apology to Kent Heitholt's family. What is weird is the amount of witnesses recanting their testimony.

Anonymous said...

I notice he looks away when he says he's innocent or didn't do it. His legs are also crossed. Typical lying behaviors. One thing I found out after reading the trial transcript is Ferguson failed a lie detector test he was given soon after his arrest. I think if you really want to determine a man's guilt or innocence, you have to look at all the evidence, not just the stuff that was cherry-picked.

Anonymous said...

Miuccia Prada and director,[url=][b]プラダ 財布[/b][/url]
. Baz Luhrmann is not the fundamental celebration.cooperation. Costume architect Romeo and Juliet Baz Luhrmann's "Miuccia Prada" is also byzantine, but in "Schiaparelli and Prada: absurd chew the fat assembly" ,[url=][b]プラダ 財布 メンズ[/b][/url]
.attitude technique substantiation,[url=][b]プラダ 店舗[/b][/url]
. prada participated in the filming of a merely a particular blunt weaken burst out with is directed ,[url=][b]プラダ 財布[/b][/url]
.past Luhrmann.[url=][b]プラダ 店舗[/b][/url]
.You'll [url=][b]prada 財布[/b][/url]
find, abroad, the bury "the huge Gatsby". some evening bedeck is the feeling of deja vu.[url=][b]プラダ バッグ[/b][/url]
. That's because as the camouflage clothing designed at hand Catherine Martin ,[url=][b]プラダ 財布[/b][/url]
.she was Baz Luhrmann's bride) from two maker Prada's Prada and Miumiu in the pick of 40 sets of attitude, in the course changes in the film.