Last night's episode on LRW featured a segment about Johnny Lee Wilson, who spent more than nine years in prison for the murder of an elderly woman. Wilson was mildly ********, and he confessed after hours of intense interrogation by the police. Even at his trial he admitted to the judge that he did not know why he was there or for what crime he was being charged, showing his lack of understanding, yet the judge accepted an Alford Plea (that is, the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that there is sufficient evidence that could possibly result in a conviction) and he was sent to prison. Later another man admitted to robbing and killing the elderly woman, yet Wilson remained in prison and it took a pardon from the Governor of Missouri nine years later before he was released.

This story was truly disturbing to me as it shows just how often people are convicted and sent to prison or worse, even executed for crimes that they did not commit. People say that they would never confess to a crime, but no one can really say exactly what they would do if something like this happened to them. It's incredibly sad that this young man spent years in prison and will probably have a hard time the rest of his life because of the reputation he acquired from this incident.

Unsolved Mysteries has aired many cases like this over the years, but this one struck me as one of the more appalling examples of what investigators and prosecutors will do to get a conviction. I'm not saying that they had malicious intent, but every piece of evidence they had linking Wilson to the crime was easily explained away. It really seemed to me like they were just trying every crazy angle they could to link him to the crime. Add that to the fact that another man confessed and had great knowledge of the crime, including details that were not released to the public. It just left me wondering, "Why does this happen?" Are the police so corrupt that they would treat a suspect with such hostility, even violence, so as to get him to confess, even though they have absolutely no evidence linking him to the crime? Do prosecutors really want to see justice done, or do they want to find a scapegoat, or an easy way to get another conviction under their belts? It just amazes me that these people could look at the clues, see that there was nothing there to link Wilson, yet still send him to prison, and allow him to remain there after another man confessed. That is incredibly frightening, because it could happen to anybody.

I wonder if Wilson or his family ever tried to sue the police department or anyone else involved in his conviction. I'm not a big fan of our litigious society, but I do think that Wilson is owed more than just an apology. Some people definitely should have lost their jobs or at the very least been suspended and severely reprimanded for their actions.

This case brought to mind another case that has been big news in my area recently, the Darryl Hunt case, which I'm sure you've all heard about. Hunt was convicted of the rape and murder of a newspaper reporter in North Carolina and spent twenty years in prison before DNA evidence cleared him of all involvement. The city of Winston-Salem recently settled with Hunt for $1.65 million. A documentary called The Trials of Darryl Hunt was made about the case and in fact was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and the local RiverRun International Film Festival. Hunt is now involved with The Innocence Project and his own group called The Darryl Hunt Project for Freedom and Justice. If anyone would like to read more about this case, the Winston-Salem Journal has a website at http://darrylhunt.journalnow.com/.

I have seen many of the "Final Plea" segments on Unsolved Mysteries, but Johnny Lee Wilson's was one of the few where I felt that he really was innocent. Anyone else care to share their opinions on these Final Pleas, i.e. who they felt was truly innocent, or truly guilty?

I don't think corruption is the cause in every case like this. In some instances, I think it is fair to say that the police develop a "tunnel vision" of sorts - that is they zero in on one suspect and exclude virtually every other possibility. I tend to think this is what happened in the Johnny Lee Wilson case. I would like to think that the police here had good intentions going in but went too far in building a case against a man who simply could not speak for himself.

The Michael Lloyd Self case is very similar, but I think Self's conviction can be chalked up to corruption. Self was also mildly ******** and confessed three times to the murders of two teenage girls in a small town in Texas circa 1971. According to Self, his interrogators beat him with a billy club and threatened him at gunpoint, basically telling him that he WOULD confess to this crime. The officers in question were themselves arrested and later convicted for their involvement in a series of bank robberies. Another man also confessed to killing the two teenagers. Like Brownfield's confession in the Wilson case, the man's confession included details that were not known publicly. Regardless, Self was already serving time for the murders and the man's confession was dismissed.

There have been a few instances of Unsolved Mysteries "Final Appeal" cases that did pan out and lead to early release for the appealees. Patty Stallings, Tony Miller, Rick McCue, Larry Race, Dr. John Branion, Rolando Cruz and John Purvis come to mind.

Bunny,

It could indeed happen to anyone, however, in Wilson's case, he didn't even have a chance because he was mentally ********. As his defense lawyer said, most people would have gotten up and left after the interrogation got out of hand and then would have demanded their attorney. This would have probably stopped this injustice from happening to intellectually competent people; or at least gave a competent person a fighting chance in court. Wilson simply did not have the faculty to do this, and this just expediated his railroad.

I am not aware of what happened after Wilson was finally released, but I do think that department should have to pay a large settlement to the family. There is no excuse for this type of behavior from police officers. It wasn't just a case of them being over-zealous, but they intentionally framed this boy. The fact that they found the gas can at the scene that was used by the perps and then took a gas can from Wilson's house and claimed that it was the can that was used for an accelerant (when they knew damn well it wasn't) proves this point. They did not even enter the real gas can into evidence.

As justin said, this case is very similar to the Self case, but I think the Wilson case is much more clear cut.

I don't think corruption is the cause in every case like this. In some instances, I think it is fair to say that the police develop a "tunnel vision" of sorts - that is they zero in on one suspect and exclude virtually every other possibility. I tend to think this is what happened in the Johnny Lee Wilson case. I would like to think that the police here had good intentions going in but went too far in building a case against a man who simply could not speak for himself.

The Michael Lloyd Self case is very similar, but I think Self's conviction can be chalked up to corruption. Self was also mildly ******** and confessed three times to the murders of two teenage girls in a small town in Texas circa 1971. According to Self, his interrogators beat him with a billy club and threatened him at gunpoint, basically telling him that he WOULD confess to this crime. The officers in question were themselves arrested and later convicted for their involvement in a series of bank robberies. Another man also confessed to killing the two teenagers. Like Brownfield's confession in the Wilson case, the man's confession included details that were not known publicly. Regardless, Self was already serving time for the murders and the man's confession was dismissed.

There have been a few instances of Unsolved Mysteries "Final Appeal" cases that did pan out and lead to early release for the appealees. Patty Stallings, Tony Miller, Rick McCue, Larry Race, Dr. John Branion, Rolando Cruz and John Purvis come to mind.

I had thought about the "tunnel vision" idea, but forgot to mention it. It does make sense in this case, though. And I do agree that police corruption did play a major role in the Self case. I'm glad that they were punished for what they did.

Thanks for sharing your opinions! :)

Bunny,

It could indeed happen to anyone, however, in Wilson's case, he didn't even have a chance because he was mentally ********. As his defense lawyer said, most people would have gotten up and left after the interrogation got out of hand and then would have demanded their attorney. This would have probably stopped this injustice from happening to intellectually competent people; or at least gave a competent person a fighting chance in court. Wilson simply did not have the faculty to do this, and this just expediated his railroad.

I am not aware of what happened after Wilson was finally released, but I do think that department should have to pay a large settlement to the family. There is no excuse for this type of behavior from police officers. It wasn't just a case of them being over-zealous, but they intentionally framed this boy. The fact that they found the gas can at the scene that was used by the perps and then took a gas can from Wilson's house and claimed that it was the can that was used for an accelerant (when they knew damn well it wasn't) proves this point. They did not even enter the real gas can into evidence.

As justin said, this case is very similar to the Self case, but I think the Wilson case is much more clear cut.

Like I said, nobody can say with complete certainty what they would do in that situation, but I'm not sure if I would have asked for a lawyer if I was being interrogated in that way. I would probably be so terrified that I might forget. So I'm sure that someone like Wilson, who was also being threatened with the death penalty, had a doubly hard time in that situation.

Having read some opinions from a few different people, I'm not sure if it was police corruption or if they genuinely made a mistake. I'm sure the pressure was on to get someone arrested and sent to prison for this since the victim was elderly and a prominent citizen of the town. However as you mentioned, some of the so-called "evidence" looked so much like a frame-up, the gas can and the underwear and the jewelry which were all determined to have come from the Wilson home and not from the victim. Perhaps the authorities started out with good intentions but ultimately found themselves in too deep and under a lot of pressure from the public and made a (bad) decision to continue to pursue a conviction.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :)

Like I said, nobody can say with complete certainty what they would do in that situation, but I'm not sure if I would have asked for a lawyer if I was being interrogated in that way. I would probably be so terrified that I might forget. So I'm sure that someone like Wilson, who was also being threatened with the death penalty, had a doubly hard time in that situation.

I have never been arrested for anything, so I suppose it is true that I am not sure how I would react to suddenly being charged with murder, when I knew I did not do it. However, I do know my rights and am aware of the 5th amendment. I think all of us know that you do not have to answer any questions when taken to a police station for questioning, even if the police make it seem like an informal discussion, and even if you go on your own volition. Admittedly, if I were in Wilson's situation, I would probably engage the police for a while (since I would know I was not guilty) but as soon as it became apparent that I was THE suspect and they wanted to charge me, I would shut-up and demand an attorney. The less one says the better.

Further, if they put a gun to my head or threatened to beat me (like they did in the Self case), I would recognize immediately the legal problems they have just opened up for themselves, and I would, again, take the 5th, lawyer up, and then try my damndest to open a criminal investigation against the offending department. I am not sure how one opens a criminal investigation against a department (you hear about internal investigative divisions) or if some sort of state or federal authorities come into play. I suppose it depends on how large the department is and whether it is a city or county jurisdiction.

At any rate, my point is, most people would do what I just said, yet Wilson could not due to his limited intellectual faculties. That's where the injustice lies in that case, obviously. In the Circleville letter case (my fav), Paul Freshour should have recognized the Sheriff's intentions early on and kept his mouth shut. Of course, innocent people don't tend to think like a criminal; they don't want to appear uncoorperative, so what Freshour did is understandable. However, people should be aware that if you are taken in for questioning in a crime you didn't commit, chances are the police think you were involved in some way. Therefore, the best thing to do is give your alibi (or whatever) and then lawyer up. If they keep pushing after your initial story, keep your mouth shut.

Again, the next time I am arrested will be my first, so I could be wrong. ;)

Take care.

You bring up a good point, Bunny. I've heard people who were wrongfully convicted say that they didn't do this, that or the other thing because they truly believed they would be found innocent. Maybe some people have so much faith in the way our system works that they think the truth will just be obvious to everyone. None of us knows how we would react becuase we've never been in that situation. I've heard people say they'd never confess to something they didn't do. I can say that I wouldn't either, but after being questioned for hours or days, I'd probably confess to the Lincoln assassination. I just don't know, never been in that position.

I'm not sure if the West Memphis 3 case ever made UM or not, but I think it's a pretty good example of what questioning a person with mental deficiencies for hours without a lawyer can do. I don't believe any of the accused are guilty and I never will. They weren't fine, upstanding citizens by any means, but I've never felt they were murderers. Maybe I've opened a can of worms bringing that case up. Sorry if I have.

In the Circleville letter case (my fav), Paul Freshour should have recognized the Sheriff's intentions early on and kept his mouth shut. Of course, innocent people don't tend to think like a criminal; they don't want to appear uncoorperative, so what Freshour did is understandable. However, people should be aware that if you are taken in for questioning in a crime you didn't commit, chances are the police think you were involved in some way. Therefore, the best thing to do is give your alibi (or whatever) and then lawyer up. If they keep pushing after your initial story, keep your mouth shut.


I should have said that. If I was innocent but the police wanted to question me, I would think that acting uncooperative or asking for a lawyer would make me look guilty to them. I know that I have the right to ask for a lawyer, but I might be afraid to do that if it might make me look suspicious. There's kind of a fine line, isn't there? You want them to know your side of the story because you know that you're innocent, and as someone else mentioned on this thread, you think that the truth should be obvious to everyone else because it is so obvious to you. But then they will want to continue pressing you, and some people might just relent and let them continue to ask the same questions for hours and hours, trying to see if the story will change. I think that I agree with you that the best thing to do would be to give them the story one time and then ask for a lawyer. If you let them try to poke holes in your story you might start to wear down and get irritated or even worse, hostile, and then you'd probably look pretty guilty in their eyes.

Is there a different method of interrogation for suspects who have mental deficiencies? Perhaps there should be.

You bring up a good point, Bunny. I've heard people who were wrongfully convicted say that they didn't do this, that or the other thing because they truly believed they would be found innocent. Maybe some people have so much faith in the way our system works that they think the truth will just be obvious to everyone. None of us knows how we would react becuase we've never been in that situation. I've heard people say they'd never confess to something they didn't do. I can say that I wouldn't either, but after being questioned for hours or days, I'd probably confess to the Lincoln assassination. I just don't know, never been in that position.


Well as Thiussat pointed out, we have to remember that we are free to ask for a lawyer at any time during a police interview, and at that point all questioning should stop. I think some people either forget or try so hard to be cooperative that it ultimately hurts them in the end.

I think you're right, maybe pepole don't want to look guilty by asking for a lawyer. Maybe they don't understand that asking for one is not an admission of guilt.

I'm wondering outloud here as I've never been questioned by the police. You said questioning should stop until a lawyer is present. I wonder if it does in all cases. I'm going from conjecture here, but I've been told by some people that they were told during questioning that they didn't need a lawyer as they weren't being charged. I don't know what the protocol is in that situation.

I'm going from conjecture here, but I've been told by some people that they were told during questioning that they didn't need a lawyer as they weren't being charged. I don't know what the protocol is in that situation.

The cops who told that person that they didn't "need a lawyer" were full of sh*t. They were simply trying to fool the person into not obtaining an attorney so that they could better interrogate the person at will. I am assuming the person in question was a suspect. If the person was not being questioned as a suspect, then the police were correct. If you are being questioned as a bystander or a witness, there is probably little need for an attorney.

You have the right to an attorney even if you have not yet been arrested. However, I do not think that the police have to provide an attorney for you unless you have been arrested. I think the Miranda rights only come into play after an arrest. But, you can remain silent when the police question you, whether you have been arrested or not. In short, they can't make you talk. This isn't Al Quaeda vs. the CIA. This is about American citizens and the police. We don't "force" people to talk in this country. This is what separates us from uncivilized countries like most of the middle-east.

I think all people who are innocent should immediately lawyer up. Nothing good can come from your statements. If the police have wrongly zeroed in on you, nothing you say is going to change their minds (unless you can provide a rock solid alibi.) My idea would be to provide your story once, then get a lawyer, or if you choose to, you could leave at that point.

I say this because there was a case in my small hometown about 10 years ago, when four guys who were my age at the time (about 18-19 year olds) had their door busted in by the FBI for a double murder. There had been a murder on the river where a man and his 10 y.o. son were shot in the head while they were putting their boat into the river for a day of fishing. To make a long story short, several eyewitnesses saw a car hanging around the area that looked like a car that one of the boys drove. All four of the boys had been seen at the river on the day of the crime. A couple of the boys also had had previous run-in's with the law for minor violations like drug possession etc.. Anyway, these guys were already convicted by the community shortly after their arrest. The local papers had already smeared their names and gave everyone the impression it was open and shut. Come to find out, a couple of guys from another state had confessed to the wrong person their involvement in the murders and this came out just before the trial began. There was evidence and details to corroborate their confession. The boys were cleared and released from custody. They simply had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The real perps were older guys in their 40's.

There is no telling what all the boys told the police in desperation that may have "fortified" the police's case against them. They were innocent all along and probably could have avoided at least some of the hassle if they would have simply kept their mouths shut and lawyered up immediately.

None of us ever know when we may be in an unfortunate situation like the aformentioned teenagers were. It's always good to know your rights.

Take care.

The Michael Lloyd Self case is very similar, but I think Self's conviction can be chalked up to corruption. Self was also mildly ******** and confessed three times to the murders of two teenage girls in a small town in Texas circa 1971. According to Self, his interrogators beat him with a billy club and threatened him at gunpoint, basically telling him that he WOULD confess to this crime. The officers in question were themselves arrested and later convicted for their involvement in a series of bank robberies. Another man also confessed to killing the two teenagers. Like Brownfield's confession in the Wilson case, the man's confession included details that were not known publicly. Regardless, Self was already serving time for the murders and the man's confession was dismissed.

And one cop admitted that what Self descibed, he had seen the other cop do. It was the taking out of the bullets, and setting them on the table.

You won't convince me that Michael Lloyd Self is guilty of that crime. He was forced to make that confession, even the confessions he made didn't match up with the murders.