does anyone have any updates on the UM segment 'Bordello Murders'? Two prostitutes (Gloria and Candy) were murdered in the early ninties in Oakgrove, Kentucky and the madam was determined to find out who the murderer was (well she suspected that it was a police officer who frequented the "massage parlour"). This case has always interested me and i always felt so sorry for the victims and their families- they had small children and one of them had a six week old daughter :( i have been trying to search the internet for an update on the case but have been unsuccessful- can anyone help?

I've never been able to find anything online about this case other than a short article from the late 90's.

Ed Carter is guilty as sin and it disturbs me greatly that he's out there probably living his normal life after killing those two girls.

Ed Carter is guilty as sin and it disturbs me greatly that he's out there probably living his normal life after killing those two girls.

I can rarely recall someone on UM who was so apparently guilty getting away with it. It amazes me he was never convicted for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dynoguy88
Ed Carter is guilty as sin and it disturbs me greatly that he's out there probably living his normal life after killing those two girls.

I can rarely recall someone on UM who was so apparently guilty getting away with it. It amazes me he was never convicted for this.


It doesn't suprise me that Ed Carter is free. There was no chance that Ed Carter was ever going to be convicted. The department was never going to admit to the embarassment of one of their officers being convicted. Police tend to clean their own messes. If ed goes to jail, it could mean the firings of several top officers. Nobodies going to risk that. Not to mention that other officers that are involved in illegal activity.

If it;s any consolation, there may be some retribution..

1. Ed's name is and was out there as a person potentially involved in shady activity. If he gets caught again doing something the police will not protect him this time. They may even bring up the murder charges on him again.

2. Considering Ed was cleared "under the table". He can also be punished "under the table". (if you know what I mean..BANG!:eek: ). This is a fear that I'm sure that Ed has to live with now. A sort of potential death row.

3. Ed has most likely cashed in all his personal IOUs in the department. Any special "pull" he had in he department is all but gone.

4. This case may have attracted the attention of other agencies who may been looking at corruption within the department. Which may prove to be a more effective prevention method than the murder case. Maybe the FBI has looked into the department? (yeah...right...:rolleyes: )

well at least im not the only one who cant find an update :) but i wish there was one and yes i completely agree that Ed Carter is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!!!!!
- its hillarious how one police officer did say that he couldnt state whether Ed had passed the polygraph :rolleyes: , how his attorney said that he has never left the area and always co-operated with investigators- and then he resigned from the police force and moved to another part of kentucky! His ex wife may just be pissed at him and willing to set him up but she seems like a reliable witness (regarding her statements as to what time he came home the night of the murders and refuting Ed's claims that he didnt own the type of gun that had killed the two women) its just ridiculous and so obvious who was involved and that it was all covered up- when people screw up they cover up and thats just what the oakgrove police officers did! Such a sad case i wish that justice would one day be bought :(

Yeah to us civilians bitter that Ed is living scot free like other posters have said it isn't what you think. Ed got a divorce, he probably lost a lot of friends and family and he has to live with the guilt. Maybe it isn't enough (and it isn't) but just know that Ed deep down did NOT get away with it

I found the lawyer who spoke for him quite disturbing as well, and had the weakest arguements in the history of UM (or at least the ones I've seen and can recall).

It was obvious fro mthe get go he did it, there's nothing that doesn't link him to it.

I found the lawyer who spoke for him quite disturbing as well, and had the weakest arguements in the history of UM (or at least the ones I've seen and can recall).

It was obvious fro mthe get go he did it, there's nothing that doesn't link him to it.

I completely agree- the lawyer was disturbing- and the fact that Ed Carter had his lawyer talk for him made it a little more obvious that he had something to hide. He claims not to be involved but it is known that "witnesses" or "innocent" people dont really need attorneys and he has one so hes definately involved. The evidence against Ed Carter is much more substancial than what his lawyer puts across (stating that 'Ed Carter did not commit these murders- he worked there as a janitor but did not committ these murders blah blah blah....whatever') The evidence includes:

-A woman who used to work at the parlour and then worked for the council was able to verify the madams claims of Ed Carters odd behaviour and constant visits to the parlour.
-ex- wife has details about the night of the murder and disputes several of Carter's claims of innocence (what time he arrived home and possession of a particular weapon)
-although it is incorrect to assume, i believe that Ed did not pass the polygraph test because if he did pass it then it is more than likely that the officer being interviewed would have stated quite deliberately that he had passed it so there is no way that he could have committed the murders- as all the police officers seemed to be on Carters side- which is stupid especially considering that he lied to the officers about not owning a 38 caliber gun even though he did own one- which was verified by his ex-wife
-he voluntarily resigned from the police force and then moved away to another part of Kentucky .....obviously because he thought the shame of it wouldnt follow him. He was running away and when one runs away from something they are usually hiding some sort of secret
-his personality in general- he seemed like the sort of person who would abuse his powerand authority as a police officer and intimidate anyone to get his way- he seemed like he was very threatening to the girls at the parlour and his actions, such as trying to control the massage parlour business, fighting with Tammy (madame) about the business, always hanging around the parlour and the girls, asking for extra things including pressuring Tammy into letting him into a janitor contract that he then wanted his ex wife to perform them!!!!

they are just some points that make you wonder why Ed Carter was not investigated further

The fact that Ed Carter had his lawyer speak for him does not make him guilty; it was the smart thing for him to do. He may be guilty but I wouldn't bet the farm on it either. Those who work in the sex industry definitely face greater risks than the general population and I doubt that Ed Carter was the only possible suspect in this case. All we really have as far as evidence goes against him is the word of his ex-wife who potentially had an axe to grind. Again, I am not saying that Carter didn't do this but it is far from 100% certain in my mind that he did.

BTW, I said this in another thread recently and it bears worth repeating that if the police wanted to question me in regards to any crime which I know that I had nothing to do with, I would still have a lawyer present and would defer to that person. I have seen far too many people wrongfully convicted to do otherwise and I am sure that Ed Carter was only too aware of the pitfalls of not having an attorney present.

The fact that Ed Carter had his lawyer speak for him does not make him guilty; it was the smart thing for him to do. He may be guilty but I wouldn't bet the farm on it either. Those who work in the sex industry definitely face greater risks than the general population and I doubt that Ed Carter was the only possible suspect in this case. All we really have as far as evidence goes against him is the word of his ex-wife who potentially had an axe to grind. Again, I am not saying that Carter didn't do this but it is far from 100% certain in my mind that he did.

BTW, I said this in another thread recently and it bears worth repeating that if the police wanted to question me in regards to any crime which I know that I had nothing to do with, I would still have a lawyer present and would defer to that person. I have seen far too many people wrongfully convicted to do otherwise and I am sure that Ed Carter was only too aware of the pitfalls of not having an attorney present.




Point taken Canadian UM fan :) your thoughts arent questionable at all. I just believe that Ed Carter should have been investigated further. A lie detector test hardly constitutes as a excellent source for separating the guilty from the innocent. My opinion is that he should have been questioned further since he spent alot of time at the parlour- maybe he had an idea as to some suspects or maybe he could have assisted in the case- that is after all what police officers are supposed to do.

Maybe its just a case of police corruption or the loyalty of the other officers to Ed Carter (especially Officer Lesley Dunkin). Why did they not search his house etc for the gun he claimed not to have? even though his wife was probably pissed about the divorce- maybe they divorced after the murders because she couldnt take the fact that Ed may have been lying about his whereabouts on the night or the existence of the gun- or maybe she just made all of it up and changed her story once the relationship went sour as thats possible too.

As for the lawyer...yes smart idea to have one and Ed Carter may be innocent but if that was me and i was accused of a crime i didn't commit I would join my lawyer in the actual interview and use the lawyer for guidance- the fact that Ed completely declined to be interviewed and left it all up to the lawyer seems a bit too suss for me- however this is just an assumption and you cant base evidence on assumptions alone.

Also the former working girl of the parlour turned council member (Patty Bellu-aka Harley) claimed that Ed's perculiar involvement in the parlours business had gone on for some time-she worked there for two years so she would have known- Ed had plenty of time to get emotionally involved in the events leading up to the fight with Tammy the madam who then banished him from the parlour. Being the police officer who demanded the most from the parlour and the girls, its seems that even if Ed was innocent, he is at least hiding some perhaps valuable information. And if I was another member of the police force and i heard about Eds bizzare stalker behaviour round the parlour I would question his denial of at least some involvement in the case.

Thanks for your input Canadian UM fan the argument can be pushed both ways with good points either way and unfortunately this may be one UM that will remain a mystery :(

BTW, I said this in another thread recently and it bears worth repeating that if the police wanted to question me in regards to any crime which I know that I had nothing to do with, I would still have a lawyer present and would defer to that person. I have seen far too many people wrongfully convicted to do otherwise and I am sure that Ed Carter was only too aware of the pitfalls of not having an attorney present.

The downside of doing this though is that you now turn yourself from witness to suspect.

Why do you need a lawyer to answer questions as a witness?

If the police didn;t suspect you now, they almost certainly do since you've lawyered up.

Remember when the police ask you to come in for an interview, you don;t know whether your simply in to answer a question about what you saw or whether they want to grill you as a suspect.

The moment you lawyer up, there are a lot of things that the police can do now. Least of which is actually arrest you.

Thanks for your input Canadian UM fan the argument can be pushed both ways with good points either way and unfortunately this may be one UM that will remain a mystery

Well, it's not much of mystery, IMHO. We have a pretty good idea who did it, we just can;t get enough evidence to arrest him or prosecute him.

Point taken Canadian UM fan your thoughts arent questionable at all. I just believe that Ed Carter should have been investigated further. A lie detector test hardly constitutes as a excellent source for separating the guilty from the innocent. My opinion is that he should have been questioned further since he spent alot of time at the parlour- maybe he had an idea as to some suspects or maybe he could have assisted in the case- that is after all what police officers are supposed to do.

Code of Silence.

Being the police officer who demanded the most from the parlour and the girls, its seems that even if Ed was innocent, he is at least hiding some perhaps valuable information. And if I was another member of the police force and i heard about Eds bizzare stalker behaviour round the parlour I would question his denial of at least some involvement in the case.

Not that I am agreeing that a fellow cop should do nothing...it is not that easy to rat on one of your fellow officers.

1. At it's most basic--Your fellow officers are trained empowered people with guns and nightsticks----and a great willingness to use those tools on people they do not like. Nuff said.:(
2. Your going to have to be dependent on these same officers at some point to save your life. You don't want someone taking a pause before responding to backup.
3. That same officer may be or could become your ranking officer at some point. He may be the person that decides whether you get promoted or not. As much as I hate to say this, if you show loyalty that goes a long way in getting your stripes.
4. Us versus them mentality. Ed Carter's victims were criminals themselves. They were prostitutes that you might be arresting at somepoint yourself. Why risk everything to avenge the justice of a prostitute? If Ed Carter had killed to young catholic schoolgirls, I'm sure there would be more of an inclination to break the code of silence. But a drug dealer or prostitute? Why avenge the enemy?
5. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If your going to rat on a fellow police officer, you better make sure you yourself are clean. You also better make sure you were not seen in the brothel as well. You better make sure there is not a questionable shooting in your past that someone could bring up as retribution against you.
6. The person that you go to to rat against another officer is your CO. If that fails you go to the person in charge of internal investagations. And that's pretty much it. You did your duty. There is really nothing you can do if the CO or IA does nothing.