Clifton innocent?

[jamhandy]

Dec 4, 2018 18:51:07 GMT zforce said:

Dec 4, 2018 3:34:59 GMT jamhandy said:

My problem with this is that you're already assuming that the witness testimony was 100% accurate and honest. You think you've reduced the problem to, "1. Either Clifton was flashing girls by the orange groves on the day of the murder OR 2. somebody who looks exactly like Clifton and drives a similar vehicle was flashing girls". That second possibility sounds contrived, so you've concluded Clifton must be the flasher, and therefore most certainly also the murderer. However, I think there are many other ways that the testimony was possibly unreliable.

A young girl was murdered in a tiny community. A man was arrested who had a previous attempted rape conviction and the town is out for blood, and I think in those circumstances, the truth can become much more malleable. Clifton was already public enemy #1 and had his mugshot smeared in the papers before those witnesses came forward, and their testimony seemed somewhat peculiarly recounted with their parents backing them up.

Furthermore, it bears remembering what happened in Clifton's attempted rape conviction. The podcast said they personally spoke to the victim and she said she was only willing to sign an affidavit attesting to the "official version" for the trial because TCSO pressed her to do it and lied saying that Clifton was a suspect in a murder of another girl. Imagine yourself in her spot for a moment. Real life is often more ambiguous than what can deliver a conviction. Her truly honest account might be, "some lanky guy startled me while I was sunbathing and seemed really creepy", but when you're put in a position where telling the truth might set a killer free, it's a difficult burden on anybody to stay absolutely faithful to your oath -- especially when the authorities are pushing you so they can get the conviction.

Maybe the orange grove witnesses' testimonies have a kernel of truth, but maybe it was on a different day or a different location, or some guy yelled an obscenity at them as he drove by and a fleeting glimpse of him they saw blond hair. Even in a mundane circumstances, we have a tendency to stretch our stories. In my personal life, I sometimes tell a story about how I saw Larry David trying to buy a bus ticket to New Jersey and arguing with the clerk. In truth, I'm not sure it was Larry David -- it might just have been some bald guy. And I'm not really sure the guy was arguing either -- he just looked slightly animated, but seeing a bald guy ordering a bus ticket to NJ and there's a slight chance he might have been Larry David is not an event worth telling.

How am I assuming anything? MISTAKEN IDENTITY HAPPENS. It’s right there where you quoted me.

You habitually lying to your friends and family about having seen Larry David isn’t even really comparable to a situation involving police and a murder.

I don't think you really addressed what I was raising. "Mistaken identity" isn't exactly the line of thought I'm pursuing. You seem to have an ironclad belief that the precise content of those witnesses' testimonies is definitely what happened that day; i.e. on the date of 26 December 1975, there was a flasher exposing himself to a couple of different girls by the orange groves where Donna Richmond was found murdered hours later.

The only point of contention you seem willing to acknowledge is whether _maybe_ the flasher wasn't Oscar Clifton, but a case of mistaken identity.

But that's not my leading guess. I think it's more likely that those girls had an encounter of some kind at some point of half-remembered details. Their classmate gets brutally murdered and suddenly those incidents seem likely linked. Through the process of expressing this to friends/family, being urged to go to the police, talking to police, talking to prosecutors, the details get warped into an account biased against Clifton.

This kind of thing happening isn't restricted to those particular witnesses. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but it's often misunderstood why it's unreliable. It's less often because the witness is lying through their teeth or because of completely false memories, and more likely because of something more subtle: a belief from the witness that what they're saying is basically true, but a reluctance to acquiesce to challenges that seek to undermine what they believe or to admit the limitations of their observations. This is typical whether it's something mundane or consequential.

On top of that, I think TCSO was demonstrably duplicitous when stacking the cards against Clifton -- particularly Bob Byrd, a man central to both incidents where Oscar Clifton was convicted.

[cherylh]

I saw Larry David on a flight to NYC. He sat right in front of me.

Refused to turn his phone off during landing. And was a dick about it.

You know Larry David when you see him.

[jamhandy]

Dec 4, 2018 20:21:20 GMT cherylh said:

I saw Larry David on a flight to NYC. He sat right in front of me.

Refused to turn his phone off during landing. And was a dick about it.

You know Larry David when you see him.

Hey, it looked like Larry David and it sounded like Larry David (which is perhaps more important considering how distinct his voice is). However, ultimately, I didn't get enough of a look/hear from the guy to answer the question "Why would a guy with a billion dollars be in Penn Station buying a bus ticket to New Jersey?" with honest confidence.  

[cherylh]

Back to the topic -- eyewitness testimony

It's well known that if a person witnesses a crime, and is shortly afterward shown a photo of a person, that image can become locked into the witness's memory as the person they saw. Even if the person in the photograph had nothing to do with the crime. It becomes as real and sure as a true memory would be.

[zforce]

Dec 4, 2018 23:47:23 GMT cherylh said:

Back to the topic -- eyewitness testimony

It's well known that if a person witnesses a crime, and is shortly afterward shown a photo of a person, that image can become locked into the witness's memory as the person they saw. Even if the person in the photograph had nothing to do with the crime. It becomes as real and sure as a true memory would be.

Except in this case it would have had to have happened three times, with three different people.

I think the point I’m trying to make is getting lost....

There’s a belief among a large group of people that Clifton was framed, however the flashing incident tends to eliminate a “frame job”....regardless of who the flasher is. Also Donna Richmond’s pants were found and collected from the road by a woman prior to LE being notified of her disappearance...and that is based on the podcast’s own timeline of events.

[jamhandy]

Dec 5, 2018 0:26:29 GMT zforce said:

Dec 4, 2018 23:47:23 GMT cherylh said:

Back to the topic -- eyewitness testimony

It's well known that if a person witnesses a crime, and is shortly afterward shown a photo of a person, that image can become locked into the witness's memory as the person they saw. Even if the person in the photograph had nothing to do with the crime. It becomes as real and sure as a true memory would be.

Except in this case it would have had to have happened three times, with three different people.

I think the point I’m trying to make is getting lost....

There’s a belief among a large group of people that Clifton was framed, however the flashing incident tends to eliminate a “frame job”....regardless of who the flasher is. Also Donna Richmond’s pants were found and collected from the road by a woman prior to LE being notified of her disappearance...and that is based on the podcast’s own timeline of events.

Again, why do you have absolute confidence of those witnesses and yet you completely ignore numerous witnesses that attest to Clifton's whereabouts during that day, including 2 witnesses who place Clifton away from the crime scene precisely when the crime was committed?

I can't remember exactly the podcast's timeline/stance, but I don't think they ever explicitly stated they believed TCSO was responsible for planting Donna's clothes or Clifton's invoice book. I think they considered it because they were pretty sure somebody planted those items deliberately and TCSO is responsible for no shortage of misconduct during this case, but I thought they were fairly settled on believing it was the VR.

Was it a massive conspiracy with all these people collaborating to frame him? I think that's a straw man and mischaracterization on your part. I believe it's the person who placed the invoice book at the scene of the crime is the person who framed Clifton, and I think that person is singularly Joseph DeAngelo. TCSO just did a great job of unknowingly assisting him by being wildly unethical in their investigation and obstinately focusing on Clifton.

[cherylh]

Hey, I was just making a generation observation about eyewitness identifications.

I know nothing of the Clifton case.

That said -- yes, numerous people could be convinced to identify a particular person as the one they saw, depending on procedures used by detectives. It's been a problem in many wrongful conviction cases.

That's why procedures for photo lineups, photo identification and live identification have been completely changed since the 1970s.

[jamhandy]

Let me clarify what my angle is and what I'm trying to understand: I'm currently inclined to believe Clifton was innocent, but I have my doubts. I'm not saying that witnesses at the orange grove were *definitely* untrustworthy. In fact, it's troubling to me, and it's the main source of my doubts. Ultimately, however, considering those witnesses and the invoice book left near Donna's bike are basically the only evidence against Clifton, it doesn't tip the scale against Clifton in my eyes. If you compare evidence tit-for-tat, I fail to see any reason to favor the orange grove witnesses over the alibi witnesses. In fact, I can think of a few reasons why I trust it less: the podcast pointed out several niggling inconsistencies in the testimony about the flasher; they came forward well after Clifton was arrested when he was already a pariah in the community in the initial shock of the murder; they admitted they saw his picture in the paper; it seems extremely difficult to squeeze these flashing incidents into Clifton's day considering all the places he was attested to be; and finally, TCSO is alleged to have pressured a witness to give dishonest statements for the _previous_ Clifton conviction so that might reveal a pattern they followed in Richmond investigation.

zforce, you seem to know a lot about this case and you have comments on it going back at least five years, so it's curious to me that you've consistently held up the orange grove witnesses as absolutely shutting down any possibility of Clifton's innocence, so I'm honestly trying to get a better understanding for why you feel that way.

[zforce]

Dec 5, 2018 4:46:49 GMT jamhandy said:

Let me clarify what my angle is and what I'm trying to understand: I'm currently inclined to believe Clifton was innocent, but I have my doubts. I'm not saying that witnesses at the orange grove were *definitely* untrustworthy. In fact, it's troubling to me, and it's the main source of my doubts. Ultimately, however, considering those witnesses and the invoice book left near Donna's bike are basically the only evidence against Clifton, it doesn't tip the scale against Clifton in my eyes. If you compare evidence tit-for-tat, I fail to see any reason to favor the orange grove witnesses over the alibi witnesses. In fact, I can think of a few reasons why I trust it less: the podcast pointed out several niggling inconsistencies in the testimony about the flasher; they came forward well after Clifton was arrested when he was already a pariah in the community in the initial shock of the murder; they admitted they saw his picture in the paper; it seems extremely difficult to squeeze these flashing incidents into Clifton's day considering all the places he was attested to be; and finally, TCSO is alleged to have pressured a witness to give dishonest statements for the _previous_ Clifton conviction so that might reveal a pattern they followed in Richmond investigation.

zforce, you seem to know a lot about this case and you have comments on it going back at least five years, so it's curious to me that you've consistently held up the orange grove witnesses as absolutely shutting down any possibility of Clifton's innocence, so I'm honestly trying to get a better understanding for why you feel that way.

I also take into account that Clifton had no shortage of appeals with different attorneys and before different judges. If there was anything amiss about his trial it would have been uncovered by the appellate courts. Clearly at trial the testimony as to Clifton’s guilt was given more weight than the alibi witnesses.

His guilt is a lot easier for me to believe than some massive conspiracy against him by people who had everything to lose in doing so. There was simply no reason for LE to not pursue the real killer.

[jamhandy]

Dec 5, 2018 7:01:49 GMT zforce said:

Dec 5, 2018 4:46:49 GMT jamhandy said:

Let me clarify what my angle is and what I'm trying to understand: I'm currently inclined to believe Clifton was innocent, but I have my doubts. I'm not saying that witnesses at the orange grove were *definitely* untrustworthy. In fact, it's troubling to me, and it's the main source of my doubts. Ultimately, however, considering those witnesses and the invoice book left near Donna's bike are basically the only evidence against Clifton, it doesn't tip the scale against Clifton in my eyes. If you compare evidence tit-for-tat, I fail to see any reason to favor the orange grove witnesses over the alibi witnesses. In fact, I can think of a few reasons why I trust it less: the podcast pointed out several niggling inconsistencies in the testimony about the flasher; they came forward well after Clifton was arrested when he was already a pariah in the community in the initial shock of the murder; they admitted they saw his picture in the paper; it seems extremely difficult to squeeze these flashing incidents into Clifton's day considering all the places he was attested to be; and finally, TCSO is alleged to have pressured a witness to give dishonest statements for the _previous_ Clifton conviction so that might reveal a pattern they followed in Richmond investigation.

zforce, you seem to know a lot about this case and you have comments on it going back at least five years, so it's curious to me that you've consistently held up the orange grove witnesses as absolutely shutting down any possibility of Clifton's innocence, so I'm honestly trying to get a better understanding for why you feel that way.

I also take into account that Clifton had no shortage of appeals with different attorneys and before different judges. If there was anything amiss about his trial it would have been uncovered by the appellate courts. Clearly at trial the testimony as to Clifton’s guilt was given more weight than the alibi witnesses.

His guilt is a lot easier for me to believe than some massive conspiracy against him by people who had everything to lose in doing so. There was simply no reason for LE to not pursue the real killer.

From your responses, it doesn't appear you've actually been reading what I've wrote, but okay, I guess you're not interested in helping me understand your position about the orange grove witnesses. I asked these questions in good faith -- I was honestly interested in your insight.

With regard to appeals:

1. Exculpatory physical evidence was a little hard for Clifton to obtain -- on account that all physical evidence was destroyed one year after the first trial by order of Sgt. Bob Byrd of TCSO for no remotely honest reason I can conceive.
2. Up until April of this year, we had no idea that one of the worst serial offenders of all time was a policeman (1 of only 8) in the tiny rural town of 4500 people precisely where this murder occurred, and it was only faintly understood by a tiny number of people the nature of the nearby crimewave in Visalia and how it relates to a much larger 13 year series of rape and murder of young girls in California.
3. Appeals aren't do-over trials. You usually have to prove technical criteria to the effect that the lower court erred on specific terms.
4. Clifton's attorney in the first trial committed suicide the day before he was due to testify to a committee regarding possible misconduct while representing Clifton, and he was unhelpful in passing on his case files to later Clifton attorneys.
5. Clearly we shouldn't ever concern ourselves with questioning verdicts because the legal system always works and we should always trust that the courts have probably already thought really hard about it. Except that's insane; we're examining this case 40 years later because it stands out as an egregious miscarriage of justice

[zforce]

Dec 5, 2018 7:56:47 GMT jamhandy said:

Dec 5, 2018 7:01:49 GMT zforce said:

I also take into account that Clifton had no shortage of appeals with different attorneys and before different judges. If there was anything amiss about his trial it would have been uncovered by the appellate courts. Clearly at trial the testimony as to Clifton’s guilt was given more weight than the alibi witnesses.

His guilt is a lot easier for me to believe than some massive conspiracy against him by people who had everything to lose in doing so. There was simply no reason for LE to not pursue the real killer.

From your responses, it doesn't appear you've actually been reading what I've wrote, but okay, I guess you're not interested in helping me understand your position about the orange grove witnesses. I asked these questions in good faith -- I was honestly interested in your insight.

With regard to appeals:

1. Exculpatory physical evidence was a little hard for Clifton to obtain -- on account that all physical evidence was destroyed one year after the first trial by order of Sgt. Bob Byrd of TCSO for no remotely honest reason I can conceive.
2. Up until April of this year, we had no idea that one of the worst serial offenders of all time was a policeman (1 of only 8) in the tiny rural town of 4500 people precisely where this murder occurred, and it was only faintly understood by a tiny number of people the nature of the nearby crimewave in Visalia and how it relates to a much larger 13 year series of rape and murder of young girls in California.
3. Appeals aren't do-over trials. You usually have to prove technical criteria to the effect that the lower court erred on specific terms.
4. Clifton's attorney in the first trial committed suicide the day before he was due to testify to a committee regarding possible misconduct while representing Clifton, and he was unhelpful in passing on his case files to later Clifton attorneys.
5. Clearly we shouldn't ever concern ourselves with questioning verdicts because the legal system always works and we should always trust that the courts have probably already thought really hard about it. Except that's insane; we're examining this case 40 years later because it stands out as an egregious miscarriage of justice

What is it you want to know about my position on the orange grove witnesses?

[Agent99 aka Sandia]

Dec 5, 2018 10:03:54 GMT zforce said:

Dec 5, 2018 7:56:47 GMT jamhandy said:

From your responses, it doesn't appear you've actually been reading what I've wrote, but okay, I guess you're not interested in helping me understand your position about the orange grove witnesses. I asked these questions in good faith -- I was honestly interested in your insight.

With regard to appeals:

1. Exculpatory physical evidence was a little hard for Clifton to obtain -- on account that all physical evidence was destroyed one year after the first trial by order of Sgt. Bob Byrd of TCSO for no remotely honest reason I can conceive.
2. Up until April of this year, we had no idea that one of the worst serial offenders of all time was a policeman (1 of only 8) in the tiny rural town of 4500 people precisely where this murder occurred, and it was only faintly understood by a tiny number of people the nature of the nearby crimewave in Visalia and how it relates to a much larger 13 year series of rape and murder of young girls in California.
3. Appeals aren't do-over trials. You usually have to prove technical criteria to the effect that the lower court erred on specific terms.
4. Clifton's attorney in the first trial committed suicide the day before he was due to testify to a committee regarding possible misconduct while representing Clifton, and he was unhelpful in passing on his case files to later Clifton attorneys.
5. Clearly we shouldn't ever concern ourselves with questioning verdicts because the legal system always works and we should always trust that the courts have probably already thought really hard about it. Except that's insane; we're examining this case 40 years later because it stands out as an egregious miscarriage of justice

What is it you want to know about my position on the orange grove witnesses?

I wanted to respond, but hope I'm not distracting from your conversation.  The only thing I disagree with jamhandy is the statement that Oscar's defense attorney, Donahue, committed suicide. There is no evidence of that at all. In my town a young guy leaving a party and knowing he had too much to drink tried to take back roads home and in the dark didn't realize the road came to and end and that he had to turn left or right, instead he went straight into a burm became air born and slammed into a water tower and was killed. This sound like this might have happened to Donahue. 

I don't think someone involved in the criminal justice system, like Donahue, is so sensitive that he's going to commit suicide because he didn't call an exculpatory witness.  Plus is there a reason we are not aware of for not calling the witnesses.  Did they change their story?  Were they not sure of the time or even the day?  These are questions I'm making.  It could be they were excellent witnesses and should have been called. 

Personally I don't buy everything I've heard about the podcasters theories but I think they are doing an excellent job.  I don't think it's necessary to buy everything.  The sheriff didn't have to be some evil doer out to get Oscar for personal reasons.  It could be that he was convinced that Oscar was guilty and perhaps did something wrong such as influence the grove worker to identify Oscar.  For instance he was supposed to show a witness a group of photos, but did he show the grove worker Oscar's photo and did he say anything prejudicial against Oscar?    I even wonder if Donahue thought his client was guilty and didn't want him to get off.  Of course I don't know this, it's just something that I wonder about.

[zebra]

Just tossing this out there, because it's something that has bothered me for awhile.

Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the girl in the orange grove saw some creepy guy within a fairly short time of Donna's abduction. Let's also assume, just for the sake of discussion, that he didn't really resemble Oscar, or that he was wearing completely different clothes, or that there some other identifying factor that would have strongly tended to exclude Oscar as the "flasher."

According to the podcast, a reporter states that police approached the girl the next day and showed her a photo of Oscar, which she identified. (And by that time, Oscar is the #1 suspect). What happens if she says, "Nope, that's definitely not the guy I saw."

She then becomes a rather central defense witness in this case. Not only does she exclude Oscar, but now the defense can argue there's an alternative suspect - a pervert running around in the area of the grove - who is absolutely NOT Oscar. Think of the problems that would cause the prosecution.

If police have already decided that Oscar is their guy, they have motive to push her towards a positive ID.

In addition, this girl and her family work for the Richmonds. If she becomes a star defense witness, could there be a perceived danger (whether accurate or not) that her family's livelihood is in jeopardy? And not just with respect to the Richmonds, but in the community as a whole?

[retrosacto]

In case it’s neither Clifton nor DeAngelo, I thought I’d point out something incongruous from one of the newspaper articles.

It’s the article Exeter Teen-ager Feared Abducted in The Visalia Times Delta. In the final paragraph, there are couple of sentences written in active voice and one not. The first sentence is off for several reasons.

“Miss Richmond was described as blonde and extremely attractive.”

1) Who described her this way? It’s not stated.

2) If the copyeditor was following AP Style (press style guide), the correct adjective form would be “blond” not “blonde” and the word “was” would have been “is” or at least “has been.” You can tell AP Style is enforced by the word “Teen-ager” being hyphenated.

3) None of the other news stories use the word “extremely” in reference to her looks, personality, talents or activities. “Extremely” is a strange word to see in a straight news article in any context but especially uncredited like this.

Because of the vagaries of converting typewritten copy to typeset column inches and getting the article to end on the correct line, there are often last-minute changes made by the reporter(s), copyeditor, editor, or typesetter. If none of these people are around, then someone like that from the same family of newspapers all sharing the same presses might supply it or even the publisher who’s generally still around until the press run is underway. This reads like a last-minute addition by someone other than the copyeditor.

Or not. The article contains a number of minor proofreading errors.

“Miss Richmond... was... extremely attractive.” Who said that? She’d only been missing since the previous day.

[zforce]

Dec 10, 2018 20:17:47 GMT zebra said:

Just tossing this out there, because it's something that has bothered me for awhile.

Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the girl in the orange grove saw some creepy guy within a fairly short time of Donna's abduction. Let's also assume, just for the sake of discussion, that he didn't really resemble Oscar, or that he was wearing completely different clothes, or that there some other identifying factor that would have strongly tended to exclude Oscar as the "flasher."

According to the podcast, a reporter states that police approached the girl the next day and showed her a photo of Oscar, which she identified. (And by that time, Oscar is the #1 suspect). What happens if she says, "Nope, that's definitely not the guy I saw."

She then becomes a rather central defense witness in this case. Not only does she exclude Oscar, but now the defense can argue there's an alternative suspect - a pervert running around in the area of the grove - who is absolutely NOT Oscar. Think of the problems that would cause the prosecution.

If police have already decided that Oscar is their guy, they have motive to push her towards a positive ID.

In addition, this girl and her family work for the Richmonds. If she becomes a star defense witness, could there be a perceived danger (whether accurate or not) that her family's livelihood is in jeopardy? And not just with respect to the Richmonds, but in the community as a whole?

I think the defense did try to argue the “flasher” as being someone else, hence the line of questioning regarding what the girl didn’t see or couldn’t remember regarding her identification of Clifton.

Maybe a young girl would process all of the aspects you mention and within 24 hours feel pressured into a false identification, however my general feeling is that after very nearly becoming the victim herself she would want the right guy to be caught. There was also the two corroborating witnesses from the Woodlake incident as well.

So let’s say the flasher is someone else. He has no way of knowing he’s going to be misidentified in Woodlake and then later as the orange grove flasher, yet he still tries to frame Clifton by leaving his receipt book at the scene of the third crime when he abducts Richmond. Either way, this is the point where the frame job begins. He drives Richmond north from the abduction site to the orange grove on Marinette where he murders her. He then flees in a southwest trajectory from that scene all the while leaving a trail of Richmond’s clothes to Clifton’s front door.

What doesn’t make sense to me is if the killer’s motivation is to commit a crime and frame Clifton for it, he’s going about it all wrong based on the first two incidents: Woodlake and the orange grove flasher. Again, he has no way of knowing he’s going to be misidentified in both of those incidents, but he also has no way of knowing that Clifton can’t be solidly alibied for the time period in which he’s out committing all of these crimes.