Oh My God, I can't believe this guy got convicted....
To cut a long story short.
A guy (Tribune Sports Editor Kent Heitholt) gets murdered early in the morning. The case remains unsolved for two years.
Then one day a boy (chuck) tells his friends he 'dreampt' of killing the guy with his friend. He is reported to the police and is taken in for questioning.
During Chucks questioning he deosn't know hardly any details of the murder, police tell him the answers, he then blames his friend Ryan actually killing Kent, but initially Chuck doesn't even know how Ryan killed him!?!?!
The whole case is based on Chucks 'dream'. There are so many holes in this bloody case. There was finger prints, shoe prints and hair found at the scene of the crime, yet NONE of these things were form either of the two boys. Yet Ryan still got convicted and sentenced to 40 years jail.
Check out this case, you will be amazed at how the jurers could possible find this guy guilty.
I want to know if you guys think he is innocent.
Some links:
www.freeryanferguson.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/...in1322783.shtml
Full Version: Ryan Ferguson - Is he guilty? I think NOT
Sounds like Salem all over again. "It all came down to which witness was the most believable." No forensics or murder weapon at all linking either Chuck or Ryan to the crime scene. The 'janitor' who witnessed two men running away from the scene but couldn't identify them in the investigation, then points the finger at Ryan during the trial on the basis that the newspapers jogged his memory of something that happened two years before? According to the article, Chuck had a dream about killing Heitholt two years after the event, then told police he had done it, but no, it was Ryan that finished the job? The article doesn't mention what the actual cause of death was, the blow or the strangulation. The evidence at the freeryanferguson site points more to Chuck having an easily led infatuation with guilt than actual involvement. In any case, there's too many holes for a conviction. What instructions did the judge give the jury? Believe him, or him, don't worry about reasonable doubt.
Injustice can be as blind as justice.
Crap! That cuts down on the dreams I've had that I can tell people.
The videos of Chuck being interrogated show the investigator telling Chuck Mr. Heitholtz was hit 11 times, not one; that he had been strangled not by Chuck's answers, (shirt, rope or bungee cord), but surprised him with the fact that Mr. Heitholtz was stragled by Mr. Heitholtz' own belt, to which Chuck responded . . . "Really???" His own belt??? . . . naw I don't remember that!.
The reason for the attack supposedly committed by these two kids to be for obtaining more drinking money.
The bar was already closed (1:30 a.m.) at the time Mr. Heitholtz was murdered (2:20 a.m.) and his wallet, with the money, was on the dashboard of his car. The only thing missing from the crime scene was a Timex watch.
Chuck's stories changed at different times throughout the trial preparation, even to the point of two different statements about the direction they ran after the murder. Not to mention the fact that he remembers talking to another friend stopped at a yellow light 5 seconds or so after the murder?? Said he puked in the parking lot of the Tribune . . . no puke was found at the crime scene. Also different stories here.
The Judge in this case gave Ryan a TWENTY MILLION DOLLAR BAIL. How often do you hear that? And, how do you think press of that would affect the feeble little minds of the country folk to be gathered for a jury.
She could have just said "NO BAIL" and no eyebrows would have been raised at all, just that the court was concerned that Ryan would flee. Same effect, just no prejudice.
THIS CASE MUST BE REVERSED (has appealed with no answer yet as to the likelihood of a new trial).
The reason for the attack supposedly committed by these two kids to be for obtaining more drinking money.
The bar was already closed (1:30 a.m.) at the time Mr. Heitholtz was murdered (2:20 a.m.) and his wallet, with the money, was on the dashboard of his car. The only thing missing from the crime scene was a Timex watch.
Chuck's stories changed at different times throughout the trial preparation, even to the point of two different statements about the direction they ran after the murder. Not to mention the fact that he remembers talking to another friend stopped at a yellow light 5 seconds or so after the murder?? Said he puked in the parking lot of the Tribune . . . no puke was found at the crime scene. Also different stories here.
The Judge in this case gave Ryan a TWENTY MILLION DOLLAR BAIL. How often do you hear that? And, how do you think press of that would affect the feeble little minds of the country folk to be gathered for a jury.
She could have just said "NO BAIL" and no eyebrows would have been raised at all, just that the court was concerned that Ryan would flee. Same effect, just no prejudice.
THIS CASE MUST BE REVERSED (has appealed with no answer yet as to the likelihood of a new trial).
QUOTE(abby @ Jan 4 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]1486653[/snapback]
And, how do you think press of that would affect the feeble little minds of the country folk to be gathered for a jury.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, this sort of insulting stereotyping is uncalled for and against the rules of this forum. As this is your first post may I suggest that you read the rules of this forum (LINK) before posting again.
Thank you.
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Jan 4 2007, 08:10 PM) [snapback]1486676[/snapback]
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, this sort of insulting stereotyping is uncalled for and against the rules of this forum. As this is your first post may I suggest that you read the rules of this forum (LINK) before posting again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Whether you like it or not, he is right.
Also..did you just compare racism with stereotyping. The rules say racism...not stereotyping. He isn't trying to antagonize other members to fight with hatred either.
And again..he IS right. "Country folk" can be stupid, if not stupid, then lazy. They fail to care for technological advances when it doesn't make sense to them. They fail to care about another human life...they're also unhappy(on top of probably being poor) over them having jury duty.
I just find this whole case unbelievable.
QUOTE
This sort of insulting stereotyping is uncalled for and against the rules of this forum. As this is your first post may I suggest that you read the rules of this forum before posting again.
Waspie_Dwarf Isnt that severe repremand a bit disproportionate for abby's offence? everybodys entitled to have an opinion even if we think its a bit insulting
In my honest opinion it would appear that the police have arrested somebody on circumstantial evidence and got a conviction from a confession obtained under duress.
QUOTE(Sadonis @ Jan 6 2007, 10:23 AM) [snapback]1489514[/snapback]
Whether you like it or not, he is right.
Also..did you just compare racism with stereotyping. The rules say racism...not stereotyping. He isn't trying to antagonize other members to fight with hatred either.
And again..he IS right. "Country folk" can be stupid, if not stupid, then lazy. They fail to care for technological advances when it doesn't make sense to them. They fail to care about another human life...they're also unhappy(on top of probably being poor) over them having jury duty.
Also..did you just compare racism with stereotyping. The rules say racism...not stereotyping. He isn't trying to antagonize other members to fight with hatred either.
And again..he IS right. "Country folk" can be stupid, if not stupid, then lazy. They fail to care for technological advances when it doesn't make sense to them. They fail to care about another human life...they're also unhappy(on top of probably being poor) over them having jury duty.
QUOTE(zimbob @ Jan 10 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]1495714[/snapback]
Waspie_Dwarf Isnt that severe repremand a bit disproportionate for abby's offence? everybodys entitled to have an opinion even if we think its a bit insulting
As some posters seem to be having a big problem understanding the rules so I will try again:
QUOTE
4. No racism, threats, personal attacks, harassment or hate related posts
We have little tolerance for members who attack or harass other members. The community consists of members from all over the world, and each member's beliefs and views need to be respected. Anyone who exhibits racism, hatred or who persistently attacks or insults other members will be removed from the forum. Members are encouraged to set a good example by treating newcomers to the boards in the way that they would want to be treated themselves, respect other members and act responsibly in threads.
We have little tolerance for members who attack or harass other members. The community consists of members from all over the world, and each member's beliefs and views need to be respected. Anyone who exhibits racism, hatred or who persistently attacks or insults other members will be removed from the forum. Members are encouraged to set a good example by treating newcomers to the boards in the way that they would want to be treated themselves, respect other members and act responsibly in threads.
Hate related covers the rather nasty stereotyping of a section of the community and it will not be tolerated.
QUOTE
13. Please respect the decisions of the moderators
Topics and posts questioning or criticising a moderator's decision will be removed, these decisions are not up for public debate. If you wish to appeal a decision then you have the right to contact a moderator or administrator about any action that has been taken on your account. Attempts to circumvent a restriction imposed on your account by registering another account will be met with further action taken against both accounts
Topics and posts questioning or criticising a moderator's decision will be removed, these decisions are not up for public debate. If you wish to appeal a decision then you have the right to contact a moderator or administrator about any action that has been taken on your account. Attempts to circumvent a restriction imposed on your account by registering another account will be met with further action taken against both accounts
I hope this is clear.
I just read through everything on the CBS site and watched the vids. Repressed memories, false memories, recovered memories, whatever you want to call them, are very disputable. To convict somebody of a murder charge on this alone (in addition to a fuzzy memory of a security guard, who first says he can't identify who was running and later says, "oh yes, that's them!") seems more than ridiculous. The video of the interrogation of Chuck should have shown the jurors that these "memories" were fed to the boy, and before hand he had absolutely no recollection of the details... had he come up with them later on his own accord it would be an entirely different story. For the police to not release the information about the belt to the general public then frivolously feed it to the boy during the interrogation was careless, to say the least.
I look forward to seeing how the appeal goes. I hope Ryan doesn't just get off, but that he can somehow get some sort of reparations for this mess.
I look forward to seeing how the appeal goes. I hope Ryan doesn't just get off, but that he can somehow get some sort of reparations for this mess.
Maybe he needs to hire a dream team...... 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.