The Protection of Ashton Davis #4
There is one critical difference between Davis’ and Gray’s physical appearance. Gray has a very prominent mole on the left side of his chin. The victims were asked, in specific, to whether the perpetrator had any distinguishing characteristic(s) on his face. According to the police reports, they said “No”. According to Helgren’s own, original lengthy affidavit detailing the evidence, there was no indication of a mole.
However, despite the police knowing of a connection between Fowler and Davis, the police did not include Davis’ photo in a photo lineup, but that of Gray. The justification for this was twofold: (1) police claimed there was data connecting Fowler and Gray and (2) police had received information at the time of the crime that the perpetrator had a mole. However the police acknowledged that none of the contemporary reports or data could substantiate any police claim that a mole had ever been mentioned. In fact, both police and the DA’s Office were forced to concede that the first mention of a mole on the perpetrator in any document was roughly 3 ½ months after the crime and only after Gray raised the issue as to why he, and not Davis, had been included in the photo lineup. This issue led to an evidentiary hearing on July 1, 2011.
On July 1st, 2011, Detective Helgren under oath was asked by the court why Davis had not been included in a photographic lineup. Detective Helgren testified that Davis was not included because (1) the perpetrator’s hair was inconsistent with Davis’ hair (i.e. dreadlocks vs. no dreadlocks) and (2) Helgren, at the time of the lineup, had received information that at the time of the crime, Davis was not in Madison, but in Atlanta, GA. (See Attachment #64)
Both of Detective Helgren’s reasons were proven to have been in extreme bad faith. First, the perpetrator’s hair was a non-issue because the victims had been asked about the perpetrator’s hair and asserted they could not see it because it was covered by a hat/hoodie. Second, there was no basis whatsoever for any claim that Davis was in Atlanta, GA. Helgren was unable to produce a scrap of evidence to this effect or to substantiate that he had ever received any such information.
The above obviously put Helgren and the DA’s Office in a bind. How would they get out of it?
The answer is that on October 6th, 2011, Helgren repudiated under oath his prior testimony under oath. Helgren now testified that the reason Davis was not included in the photo lineup was because at the time of the lineup Helgren had never heard of Ashton Davis. (See Attachment #63)
Detective Helgren’s revised testimony directly contradicting his prior testimony is prima facie evidence of the criminal felony of false swearing. Due to this, and the many prior assertions of both Stephan and Helgren that were proven to be false, one would think that the court would be most alarmed by Helgren’s testimony and seek to have something done about it.
One would think wrong. Not only has the court done nothing, the court has refused to even address this issue or a number of other similar issues related to police and prosecutorial deceit and misconduct. Why?
The matter gets even more bizarre as will be shown later, in light of what was the testimony of March 26, 2012.
« PreviousNext »