Remember Isadore Rozeman
I review why Glenn Ford must be denied compensation, based upon his "wrongful release", as follows:
I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release
II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt
III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
Nearly all comments are from:
STATE v. FORD, No. 50,525-CA., 193 So.3d 1242 (2016), STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, May 18, 2016.
Which is the 2016 appellate opinion upholding the denial of compensation for Ford and his immediate descendants.
The (X) footnote refers to that opinion.
I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release In 2013, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office stated that it had obtained credible evidence that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman," and filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and sentence. On March 10, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion. Ford was released the following day after spending nearly 30 years on death row. (X)
The facts are that Ford, by his own admission, was a principal participant in the robbery/murder, that he was, at the least, guilty of second degree murder and Ford cannot be excluded from actually murdering Isadore Rozeman.
(2016) Justice C.J. BROWN: "The evidence as presented supports Ford's guilt of second degree murder and that his connection was certainly not "tangential." (X)
The 2013 "credible evidence" for Ford's 2014 release came from a reliable informant, who remains anonymous.
Even reliable informants are known to be unreliable, occasionally. Informants are only as reliable as their sources, which was Jake Robinson, who, allegedly, stated, to the informant, that he (Robinson) was the shooter of Isadore Robinson and that Glenn Ford was not there. Robinson is a career criminal, who no one trusts (1).
Glenn Ford, at his 1984 trial, did not deny being at the scene of the robbery/murder. Nor can he be excluded from committing the murder.
The record reflects that, at the time of the filing of the 2014 instant petition (to release Ford), two other individuals, Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson, were being prosecuted for the robbery and murder of Mr. Rozeman. (X)
Those charges, which originated from that informant, have, now, been dropped, for lack of evidence.
That doesn't mean the informant was lying, although, such may be the case. The informant's information could not be confirmed.
We know that Ford was released, based upon information that could not be confirmed.
The evidence of Glenn Ford's guilt is overwhelming, yet, he was released.
2016: "The (informant's) statement of the district attorney is not evidence, nor has Ford produced any evidence that he was not concerned in the commission of this crime. We find no manifest error in the trial judge's (2015) conclusion regarding Ford as a principal to this crime." (X)
2016: Justice J. DREW: " . . . it is accurate to say that the trial court (2015) found that Ford committed armed robbery. Even if not present at the moment of a crime, a person can be convicted of that crime, if otherwise involved as a principal." (X) " . . . Ford arguably committed second degree murder arising out of the facts of this case. Had he actually been convicted of that crime, in a petit jury trial conducted in accordance with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ford would have never been released from prison." (X)
False claims of "innocent" and "exonerated" death row inmates are a standard, every day anti death strategy (2).
II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt
Detective Ashley testified that a neighbor of Mr. Rozeman's had told investigating officers that he had seen Ford and Mr. Rozeman having a discussion a few days before the murder and that Ford appeared to have been upset over a debt related to the lawn mowing service. (X)
"From (Deming, a friend of Ford's), the police also learned that Ford had discussed purchasing a handgun, the night before or morning of the robbery/murder)." (X)
Alice Smith, Ford's landlord, also testified. On the morning of the robbery and murder, Ford advised Ms. Smith that he would be able to pay her rent later that day. Sometime in the late afternoon, Ford brought the rent to Ms. Smith. (X)
Ford stated that he and O.B. (Henry Robinson) went to Mr. Rozeman's neighborhood, the morning or early afternoon of Nov. 5. (X)
Ford stated that he saw Rozeman at 1:20 the day of the robbery/murder (X).
"Heidi and Spring James, two young neighbors of Mr. Rozeman, had seen Mr. Rozeman's yardman (Ford) in an alley adjacent to his property at approximately noon. Another neighbor placed (Ford) in the vicinity at between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m." (X)
Detective Ashley confirmed that there were several witnesses who placed Ford within one city block of Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder (X).
Ford stated " . . . that the Robinson brothers had told him of their plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and asked him to join them, but that he declined to do so." (X)
That is contradicted, by Ford, who admitted going into the neighborhood, with Robinson, the day of the robbery/murder (X),
. . . further confirmed by Detective Gary Pittman who testified that Ford admitted to him that he and Henry Robinson had been at Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder . . .
and that Robinson had asked him about selling a gun, with Ford having spoken with two potential buyers about the .38. (X), the caliber used in the murder and presumed to be the murder weapon.
"In February police interviewed Marvella Brown, Jake Robinson's girl friend. She stated that Ford arrived at her apartment around noon the day of the offense, and asked the Robinsons, Is you still going? The three left, she said, returning around 3:00 p.m. with a sack containing jewelry. Ford carried a.22 pistol, and Jake Robinson had a .38." (X).
". . . (customer) Ebrahim had spoken to Mr. Rozeman, he said, at approximately 2:30 p.m. (Nov. 5, 1983) and had arranged to meet him later that afternoon. (X) The timeline suggest he called him earlier.
The timeline indicates that Ebrahim discovered Isadore Rozeman's body around 2:45 pm.
The testimony of Heidi James, Chandra Nash, Joseph Nash and James Spring placed Ford at or near Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the robbery and murder", inclusive of Ford still in the neighborhood when the ambulance arrived to pick up Rozeman's body. (X)
"Jake Robinson's girlfriend, Marvella Brown also testified at trial. She stated that Ford (who she called "Long Hair") was at her house the evening of the crime. Ford asked the Robinsons "if they were going," or "are we going?" Ms. Brown then testified that she saw the three men together a few hours later. She then stated that she saw Ford with a gun, that was not a .22 caliber. Ms. Brown then related that Jake Robinson showed her items of jewelry and a pocket watch and let her keep two of the rings, which she said she "was hiding" after she found out Mr. Rozeman was dead." (X).
In the punishment phase of the trial, Brown recanted all her testimony, stating that she had lied about everything. Based upon all the other evidence, including her original witness statement, above, it is most likely, that she was, originally, telling the truth and that her recantation was perjury. There was no reason for her to lie in the first place and very good reasons for her to lie in the second, as all knowing people were, rightly, afraid of the Robinson brothers (1). In addition, Brown's original statements fit with the timeline and the evidence.
The 5 appellate judges, in this 2016 opinion (X) didn't even mention her recantation. Why? They viewed it as having no credibility. They did, however, mention both her original witness statement and her testimony, confirming their belief in it.
Shortly after the robbery/murder, pawn shop receipts confirmed Ford had sold jewelry, confirmed as that which was stolen from Mr. Rozeman's shop (X). "(Ford) said he received these items from O.B. (Henry Robinson) and pawned them at his request." (X) "(Police) found demitasse spoons, a cross, gold chains, a pill box and shirt studs, all similar to items customarily sold by Mr. Rozeman.", later confirmed as those stolen from Rozeman (X).
The pawn tickets dated the day of the robbery and murder were introduced at trial and handwriting exemplars matched Ford's signature. Detective Gary Alderman testified that a search warrant executed on Ford's hotel room produced an antique spoon, gold chain, cufflink and four studs, which bore the same markings as studs found in a bag belonging to Henry Robinson. Richard Moore, an employee of the pawn shop, identified Ford as the individual who sold certain items (determined to have been from Mr. Rozeman's shop) at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the robbery and murder. (X)
Detective Ashley confirmed that Ford had stated that Henry Robinson asked Ford to sell items connected to the robbery — which Ford then sold to the International Pawn Shop, at approximately 5:00 p.m., just two hours after Mr. Rozeman's body was found. (X)
From "Pouncey and White (friends of Ford's)", . . . "the police also learned that Ford had attempted to sell a handgun that afternoon (the day of the robbery/murder)". (X) " (Ford) admitted to trying to sell (a gun) on behalf of O.B. (Henry Robinson). (X) Alvin White and Clarence Pouncy each testified at trial that Ford approached them after the robbery and murder about purchasing a .38 pistol (X), the caliber of pistol used in the murder and, presumed, to be the murder weapon.
Ford had gunshot residue on his left hand. The residue was of such small amount that it could neither be confirmed nor denied that Ford fired a weapon (3).
There was a partial leaving fingerprints on the weapon. That fingerprint did not exclude Ford, but could not be matched to him (3). That partial fingerprint excluded the other suspects (3).
"On November 11th Ford gave a fourth statement, implicating Henry and Jake Robinson in the murder." (X)
"In January of 1984, Donnie Thomas, a co-defendant's brother-in-law and Ford's cellmate, related to police that Ford had discussed with him the details of the robbery and murder. According to him, Ford was able to gain access to Mr. Rozeman's shop because he was recognized by his employer." (X)
The Rozeman family, as well as customers, confirmed that Isadore Rozeman used multiple bolted doors for security.
Trial commenced on November 26, 1984. The defense was alibi (X).
None of Ford's alibis could be confirmed.
Ford testified at his trial. Ford did not deny (X):
-- "being with the other perpetrators of the crime, either before or after the murder;
-- being at Mr. Rozeman's shop at the time of the murder/robbery;
-- attempting to sell a .38 caliber pistol;
-- pawning items taken in the robbery.
Ford told the jury that he did not commit 52 prior burglaries to which he pled guilty (X) . . . , likely, destroying any credibility that he may have had. (X)
Depending upon jurisdictions, only about 3-20% of burglaries are solved, indicating, by average, that Ford may have committed 472 burglaries at the time of his guilty plea.
III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
Ford has to prove his "actual innocence". Such is impossible. Ford is included in 3-4 felonies in this cases, which could, easily, have resulted in a life sentence and Ford cannot be excluded from being an actual participant in the robbery/murder.
And folks think Ford deserves $330,000? Incredible. If anyone deserves it, it is the Rozeman family, if justice means anything to you.
"It is clear from a reading of the statute that the burden of proof in this case is on the petitioner. Ford must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." " . . . the entire burden is on Ford to prove that he did not commit any crime based upon the same set of facts used in the original conviction." (X)
"The argument that Louisiana's statute is inherently unfair is misplaced and misleading, especially when comparison is made to the other jurisdictions that have analogous statutes." (X)
Read this carefully, from the 2016 ruling:
" . . . at the (2015) compensation hearing, Ford did not refute or explain these assertions (against him) . . . glaringly significant . . . an adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify. . . . Ford's failure to testify, and potentially explain that he was not involved in other criminal activity on the day of the murder, and for some time before and after it, corroborates Ford's actual commission of other crimes. Ford had no privilege against testifying, constitutional or statutory . . . Ford committed other crimes . . . confirmed by Ford's resounding silence at the compensation hearing." (X)
Ford failed to disprove that he committed the crimes of possession of stolen goods, accessory after the fact and being a principal to the armed robbery. In fact, he admitted to them.
" . . . the overwhelming evidence of Ford's knowledge of and involvement in the criminal activity that day and night: his participation in selling the stolen property from the robbery; his acting as a lookout; meeting with Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson before and after the crime; and his attempts to procure buyers for the probable murder weapon." (X)
"The testimony of Ms. Brown that Ford was with the Robinsons prior to the robbery and murder and asked if the three "were going to go," coupled with his presence at Mr. Rozeman's on the day of the crime and activity around the shop, could be construed as "casing" the shop. These actions could easily be construed as showing Ford's knowledge of the planned crime." (X)
Ford admitted his prior knowledge.
"The evidence clearly establishes that Ford took the stolen items and sold them at the pawn shop. Ford's argument that there is no evidence as to how he came into possession of the items is without foundation. . . . Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was not in illegal possession of stolen things." (X)
"Ford was aware of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. . . agreed to sell some of the stolen items in his name, which he did . . . agreed to procure buyers for the .38 caliber pistol . . . the trial judge concluded that the evidence "clearly established" that Ford was trying to help the Robinsons avoid arrest. Accessory after the fact, which — in this case concealed the identity of murderers — may well be the type of crime which the legislature contemplated as a crime unworthy of compensation. She stated that Ford's "willingness and attempts to find a buyer for the weapon used in the crime" added to the fact that he was assisting the Robinsons. These conclusions are well supported by the record and we agree with the trial judge that Ford's assertion that he did not know the items were stolen is unbelievable. We find no manifest error in the finding that Ford failed to carry his burden of disproving his commission of accessory after the fact." (X)
"Henry Robinson had told Ford of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. Ford also emphasizes the state's assertion, in its motion to vacate, that he was "neither present nor a participant in the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman." First, the overwhelming evidence in the record before us supports the conclusion that Ford was concerned in the commission of this crime. Despite his purported absence, Ford aided in its commission in several respects." (X)
" . . . the evidence also supports a finding that Ford was engaged in a criminal conspiracy . . . the uncontroverted evidence shows that Ford knew of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and committed an act in furtherance of the crime by his presence around the shop prior to and after the crime and agreeing to sell the stolen items and murder weapon . . . Ford committed criminal conspiracy. Yet, Ford presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut such a finding." (X)
" . . . Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit any crime based upon the facts used in his conviction, as required . . . the trial court was clearly correct in finding that Ford is not entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction under the subject statute." (X)
"As a final note, in light of our holding that Ford is not entitled to compensation, we pretermit any discussion of the heritability of the wrongful conviction compensation cause of action." "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court denying the petition of Glenn Ford, through Andrea Armstrong, the executrix of the estate of Glenn Ford, for compensation under La. R.S. 15:572.8 is affirmed at the cost of petitioner/appellant." (X)
Justice J DREW: "In this civil case, the trial court ruled that Mr. Ford was not entitled to compensation, finding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit multiple felonies emanating directly from the facts of this robbery/murder. The burden here was on Ford, not the state." (X)
"The (2015) trial court produced sound and organized reasons for judgment . . . The court's hard work, diligence, and fairness are noted and appreciated." (X)
"This record reveals that the defendant committed at least two felonies arising from the facts of the robbery/murder: illegal possession of stolen things and accessory after the fact to first degree murder. Besides these two crimes, the compensation court also found that Ford was a principal to the crime of armed robbery." (X)
Why would, anyone, find that this career criminal deserved compensation? It's just foul.
Give the money to the most deserving Rozemans and/or to some of Ford's 52 known burglary victims.
Remember Isadore Rozeman
As per the Death Penalty Information Center's normal absurdities, Ford is listed as no. 144 on their "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row list.
2) a) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
b) The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense
c) Innocence Project Invents False Confessions: 150% fraud rate in "confessions"?
3) STATE v. FORD, No. 85-KA-1039.489 So.2d 1250 (1986), STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn FORD. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 31, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 30, 1986.
Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims