TCSO Officially Looking At Clifton As Armour Killer

[kemo]

Apr 26, 2018 20:24:41 GMT crackerjack said:

The pants belonging to Donna were picked up on the Highway by a Mrs. Lamb and she took them home and cleaned them. There was little evidence in the Clifton case. It was circumstantial. After his conviction it was destroyed in 1977. The Innocence Project had nothing to work with, thus, they declined. They prefer to deal with DNA laden cases. They have thousands of cases presented. I would read nothing into their turning down the case. As far as the Jennifer Armour case goes, at the time Tulare County Sheriffs Office investigated the alibi for Oscar. They said it was solid. One can only guess why they are investigating Oscar. I predict that it Richmond - and Jennifer - will be dropped on DeAngelo and when and if it happens, the entire sordid Oscar trial will resurface. If the true miscreant was not let off the hook, as may have occurred, all the suffering could have been eliminated. We gave a good system. When there are flaws we should recognise them and adjust accordingly. It seems reasonable, .

You say that TCSD verified Clifton’s alibi for Armour and it was solid. Do you have a reference for that. (I assume he was in Vegas at the time). If Clifton can be absolutely cleared for Armour, I would consider that extremely compelling evidence that he did not do Richmond.

If that is the case, why didn’t Clifton’s attorney raise that point at trial? When you have a circumstantial case and a very similar unsolved crime that is unsolved but the defendant has been cleared, the introduction of the “ alternate suspect” is an obvious tactic. Nothing raises “reasonable doubt” like the very real possibility that someone else did it.

Along with the possibility that Deangelo planted evidence at the crime scene is the possibility that Clifton’s attorney colluded with the DA. I’m not absolutely convinced all this happened but it is starting to look like a real possibility. I don’t care if it was 50 years ago and everyone involved is dead, I believe injustices need to be exposed, not buried where they will be forgotten.

[attxlatt121]

Also, I didn’t know this but the man had NO KNEECAP. Imagine having no kneecap

[lod76]

"Det. Johnson said he's going to reach out to Clifton's old cellmates for information. He also would like to hear from people in Tulare County who can offer any details about Clifton and his activities and whereabouts during the mid-1970s."

Sounds to me like the plan was in motion to get a couple of old cellmates to say he confessed in exchange for whatever LE are able to give them, and then just unofficially close the case holding Clifton responsible. These jail cell confessions are always a red flag for me as they are generally brought about by corruption and under the table deals, that's certainly how it is here in the UK anyway. The fact that they were looking into this does not surprise me one bit given how the rest of the two cases were handled.

Fortunately with the capture of DeAngelo a great big spotlight is now going to be shone on their corruption and incompetence.

[jackietreehorn]

Jan 1, 2018 17:46:58 GMT locard said:

Jan 1, 2018 11:46:38 GMT zforce said:

Do you have a legal document that mentions semen or any other foreign elements being found on Donna Richmond’s pants?

If so, Clifton and his attorneys had ample amount of time to bring this evidence to light and have it tested. He also is the benificiary of having been convicted of a crime in a state that is proverbially considered ground zero in “Criminal Innocence Projects”. That all of this alleged physical evidence could be completely ignored while he was incarcerated seems almost too hard to believe....especially when TCSO is now doubling down on the fact that he was convicted and publically going after him in the Armour case - which is what this thread is about.

Previous articles on the Proboards on the subject were deleted due to the space shortage issues cited by the moderators.

DNA and biological evidence in the murder case were destroyed by Tulare County.

I have no doubt that Oscar Clifton was a creep. But was he the murderer of this teen girl or the other teen girl? Or did someone else who was the DNA donor get away with murder?

An Innocence Project can't do much with a case, including seek to exonerate a conviction, when the biological evidence was destroyed.    

I'm curious as to why you think Clifton was a creep? All I know about him comes from 12-26-75.com and they clearly were not interested in painting a negative picture of him. I'd be interested in understanding if there truly was an indication that he was a bad character or just a regular handyman who was the victim of bad luck.

[englebergz]

May 28, 2018 19:03:04 GMT jackietreehorn said:

Jan 1, 2018 17:46:58 GMT locard said:

Previous articles on the Proboards on the subject were deleted due to the space shortage issues cited by the moderators.

DNA and biological evidence in the murder case were destroyed by Tulare County.

I have no doubt that Oscar Clifton was a creep. But was he the murderer of this teen girl or the other teen girl? Or did someone else who was the DNA donor get away with murder?

An Innocence Project can't do much with a case, including seek to exonerate a conviction, when the biological evidence was destroyed.    

I'm curious as to why you think Clifton was a creep? All I know about him comes from 12-26-75.com and they clearly were not interested in painting a negative picture of him. I'd be interested in understanding if there truly was an indication that he was a bad character or just a regular handyman who was the victim of bad luck.

The thread's OP is one of those people who believes Clifton's false conviction for attempted rape in 1965 and the two very weak witnesses who claimed Clifton harrassed them on the day of Donna's murder qualifies Oscar as a "creep".

Many developed these opinions based on the scant evidence that existed before the results of an interview with the 1965 "victim" (she presently claims she was forced by TCSO to sign a false statement against Clifton that accused him of an attempted rape that NEVER happened) was presented by 12-26-75 podcasters utterly oliterating the credibility of all that.

For whatever reason, even after these revelations fro. 12-26-75, their opinions have not changed and they still insist on spreading one-sided farcical "official" court docs based on his throughly debunked guilty conviction in 1965. They also like to cite the two witnesses who only came forward with their harrasment accusations against Oscar after much local press coverage implicating him for the Richmond murder. One of these witnesses, who was occasionally employed by the Richmond family as orchard workers even discredited herself with false testimony on the stand.

This new info changes nothing for them and apparently they can not bring themselves to admit how wrong they were. They must think the 12-26-75 podcasters are full of it, I can think of no other reason to continue with their gross decriptions of Oscar Clifton as a creep and rapists murderer. Says more about the denialism, confrimation bias and objectivity of the people still pushing that kind of shameful slander than it does about the guilt of Clifton. I will continue call it out whenever I see it on here, enough is enough!

[zforce]

Jun 2, 2018 14:55:53 GMT englebergz said:

May 28, 2018 19:03:04 GMT jackietreehorn said:

I'm curious as to why you think Clifton was a creep? All I know about him comes from 12-26-75.com and they clearly were not interested in painting a negative picture of him. I'd be interested in understanding if there truly was an indication that he was a bad character or just a regular handyman who was the victim of bad luck.

The thread's OP is one of those people who believes Clifton's false conviction for attempted rape in 1965 and the two very weak witnesses who claimed Clifton harrassed them on the day of Donna's murder qualifies Oscar as a "creep".

Many developed these opinions based on the scant evidence that existed before the results of an interview with the 1965 "victim" (she presently claims she was forced by TCSO to sign a false statement against Clifton that accused him of an attempted rape that NEVER happened) was presented by 12-26-75 podcasters utterly oliterating the credibility of all that.

For whatever reason, even after these revelations fro. 12-26-75, their opinions have not changed and they still insist on spreading one-sided farcical "official" court docs based on his throughly debunked guilty conviction in 1965. They also like to cite the two witnesses who only came forward with their harrasment accusations against Oscar after much local press coverage implicating him for the Richmond murder. One of these witnesses, who was occasionally employed by the Richmond family as orchard workers even discredited herself with false testimony on the stand.

This new info changes nothing for them and apparently they can not bring themselves to admit how wrong they were. They must think the 12-26-75 podcasters are full of it, I can think of no other reason to continue with their gross decriptions of Oscar Clifton as a creep and rapists murderer. Says more about the denialism, confrimation bias and objectivity of the people still pushing that kind of shameful slander than it does about the guilt of Clifton. I will continue call it out whenever I see it on here, enough is enough!

I seriously don’t understand the personal attacks and you pushing the agenda of the podcast so hard.

The “OP” only relayed the info as it was released.

[crackerjack]

[deleted unfounded accusations against legally innocent persons]

[zebra]

^ Maybe I've got a natural bias, but I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions from Donahue's performance at trial and his subsequent death (even if it was a suicide.)

First, I'd want to know what his experience was and how he came to represent Clifton. Did the family hire him or was he appointed? Did he have any sort of co-counsel or did he try to handle this whole thing by himself? Did he have other cases he was trying to juggle at the same time? Criminal defense is expensive, especially in a death penalty case. There are limits to both time and funds. I'm not saying he did a great job, but I've seen lawyers do much worse without being found ineffective. If you have doubts, look at some of the Texas cases where courts seem to require little more than a warm body at the defense table.

Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is a very standard claim in almost all postconviction litigation. There may be cases, but I can't recall a single one, where an attorney was disbarred for IAC in a complicated murder trial. Usually, disbarment requires a pattern of conduct, misuse of clients funds or obvious and outright fraud. And frankly, if they sent lawyers to prison every time they committed IAC, we'd double our prison population overnight. Usually, the worst consequences of being found IAC are a hike in malpractice insurance rates and a sting to the lawyer's reputation. Not much more.

Before I'd assume that Donahue was part of a criminal conspiracy, I'd be sooner to guess that he was short on time, funds and energy and just did a lot of shooting from the hip. It happens more often than most people would ever want to admit. It doesn't help when the prosecution is actively hiding or mischaracterizing evidence.

[englebergz]

[deleted accusations against legally innocent persons]

[sage0409]

Jun 13, 2018 1:12:39 GMT englebergz said:

Jun 4, 2018 21:39:12 GMT crackerjack said:

Zebra, I am impressed with your comments. I have been writing a book of this entire matter including the Armour and Richmond cases. This late in the game effort by TCSO to link the cases to one perp, namely Clifton is all PR. They did everything they could do to lay both cases on him in the relevant period and failed. I believe I know why and how things unfolded the way they did. The big problem is to get people to believe the fix was in on Oscar. Did the local constabulary think or know that a local officer was the miscreant? It's a valid question and a credible scenario. I have another option worthy of exploration. The timing of the suicide of the Defense Attorney speaks volumes. He would be facing disbarment and prison time. I feel for the granddaughter and family of Oscar. It all likely flowed from the nefarious efforts of Bob Byrd. He spent his career attempting to destroy Oscar. Jay Powell, the DA was desperate to get one in the Win column in the election. He lost anyhow. The evidence was pitched as fast as they could do it and authorised by Guess Who? A question that I ask is how did Byrd who was a farm worker a decade earlier end up being the lead detective in a case that would have long term implications for the entire state. As a practical matter, it is difficult to reverse a case with no DNA or the more traditional evidence. I do hope that the family sues TCSO for millions. If I am right about this and time will tell, he should join JJD.. Byrds of a Feather. I have no questions for JJD but one for Byrd. What was the grudge all about? Did Oscar beat you in a game of pool? Was it worth all the rapes and deaths? Is it even yet Bob, or is there more to come?

Yes, yes, YES! [name and accusations deleted, by Drifter].   I don't care how old or retired he is. He should lose absolutely everything he owns with nothing to hand down to his children, much like the way Oscar Clifton left this world. [deleted, by Drifter]

Sadly I wouldn't hold your breath. No LE agency wants to open a Pandora's box of *s

[englebergz]

Jun 13, 2018 5:55:31 GMT sage0409 said:

Jun 13, 2018 1:12:39 GMT englebergz said:

Yes, yes, YES! [name and accusations deleted, by Drifter]. He should lose absolutely everything he owns with nothing to hand down to his children, much like the way Oscar Clifton left this world.  [Deleted]

Sadly I wouldn't hold your breath. No LE agency wants to open a Pandora's box of *s

I'm hoping the FBI opens that box for them. They made this bed when they accused Oscar Clifton of yet another murder he likely didn't commit when confronted with the compelling research by the 12-26-75 podcast. The unexpected arrest of JJD just months later has certainly blown up in their faces hasn't it? We'll see.

[cdbass]

I have been following this for awhile now and have my criminology professor and class following it and discussing it as well. I noticed this, and other boards, discourage participants from naming POIs. This makes perfect sense to me because you could ruin someone's life if your information is wrong (and the arrest of JJD demonstrates most everybody was wrong). Afterall a blog or podcast is certainly not a court of law. The question from my classmates is why this same courtesy is not extended to law enforcement professionals. In this particular case, [name deleted, by Drifter], has never been convicted of anything yet people look to be dead set on ruining his life. Who makes the decision, who can be slandered and who cant?

[zebra]

^ The D.A. was an elected official. Most sheriffs are also elected officials and I assume Tulare County is no different in that regard. Employees of the respective police departments who had a major role in the case as well as the attorney(s) who represented Clifton are also public figures in the sense that the performance of their jobs are subject to judicial review and, in a democracy, to public scrutiny. Some of them prepared reports and / or offered testimony in this case. Those are also matters of public record. People have every right to be informed and concerned about the quality of a police investigation. Democracy depends upon informed confidence in our justice system.

In addition, the prosecution and the police have duties that go well beyond "winning" a case. Their primary job is to see that justice is done, in accord with constitutional limitations on their powers - which includes production of potentially exculpatory information to the defense.

I think it remains to be seen just what kind of job Powell, Byrd and the others did in this case, but there are certainly
some serious concerns.

Contrast that with some private citizen who someone regards as a "person of interest" just because they lived in a certain town, held a job in a general field, had some type of hobby, was related to or friends with some other person, was of a particular age or build or was the subject of some other rumor or whatnot.

[cdbass]

^I appreciate the insight, that actually cleared up a lot. I believe you are correct in regards to the DA and Sheriff but I'm not sure about a civil servant like a deputy or detective. That's why I asked the question of who decides. To me, its in poor taste to publicly accuse a civil servant of criminal behavior w/o some substantial proof...obviously I'm not the guy that decides either, just throwin out my 2 cents.

[zebra]

Think of it like this. We invest many of our "civil servants" with special powers and authority. In the case of police, that includes powers of arrest, exclusive access to certain evidence and access to an entire army of forensic specialists, equipment, records and data. You are correct that many of these people, unlike their superiors, aren't elected, but that makes it even more important to have some kind of check on them. All too often, their direct employer (the chief of police or elected sheriff or D.A.) will "look the other way" so long as they seem to produce politically advantageous results. In fact, they may have their own motive to sweep misconduct under the rug.

Bottom line: with great power comes great accountability.