Creating Criminals: The Frederick Lewis Story

[XLFD]

Introduction

 

In our area we have recently seen the conviction of what most people would consider to be monsters.  There was Wayne Lyle, who came to court initially last week and could not plea coherently because he was crying too hard.  After the tears dried at the next hearing, he admitted to the CSC against a 9 year old girl and added another older victim. 

Perhaps more horrendous was the crime that Dalton Willard was accused of and admitted to in court two weeks ago.  In Grant Township (Mason County), he lured a 9 year old boy into a house where he proceeded to sexually assault him.   Immediately afterwards, the boy told his parents of the crime, and Willard was eventually picked out of a line-up. 

 

Cases such like these are just an example of what goes through our court system every week.  In both cases the victims were young, but the charges were very credible and immediate.  The punishments the perpetrators will get will be well deserved.  But then there are other case where you begin to wonder whether our local justice system is maybe too zealous in getting perpetrators of a crime, when perhaps the crime has never been committed, or is based on a flimsy foundation.

 

Twelve local jurors convicted Sean Phillips of secretly confining his 4 month old daughter, Baby Kate Phillips, without ever being able to determine what exactly has become of her.  Twelve new jurors should be getting the chance to weigh the evidence (including any new evidence that has since surfaced) of whether a murder charge is indicated. 

The lack of a body and weak circumstantial evidence will be a big hurdle to jump, but many observers of the first trial were summarily surprised by the guilty verdict handed out.  The elements the State had to show for 'secret confinement'  were set at a rather low threshold, and whether the State can show a "confession" letter of Phillips to the baby's mother indicates the harsher murder charge in the upcoming trial will be interesting to see.

 

More instructive of prosecutorial zeal on an alleged perpetrator happened in the recent Todd Lane Johnson charges of CSC against a minor.  Johnson coached soccer at Mason County Central (Scottville) Schools, and a former MCC student last year came out with charges that she had been molested by Johnson since she was 13 years old, off campus. 

 

Although the MCC Superintendent said he conducted an internal investigation (without any evidence of having did so) and the Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) ducked FOIA requests about the case so as not to 'tamper with the jury pool',  public statements were made that did just that.  Sheriff Cole said "It (the sexual relationship) was ongoing for several years and started when the player was 13."  The now-21 year old woman later admitted to the court that everything was a fabrication, she made the whole story up for reasons known only to her. 

Instead of her life being forever damaged by Johnson, his life was forever damaged by her baseless allegations.  He was lucky enough to have had her recant at the last minute; if she hadn't we may have had an innocent, civic minded person in prison now.

 

An investigator needs to be wary when a victim comes out many years after the fact to point fingers for a crime whose occurrence can likely not be proven with any substantial evidence.  You are relying on the testimony of a victim who has supposedly been too scared to come forth, with memories, facts, and motives that may not be the too clear.  Something, whether it was via counseling or an event, has triggered them to come forth and tell a very personal story to strangers many years later. 

The investigator has to make a judgment as to the veracity of the allegations, and if there is not a lot of collaborative evidence but credible testimony by the victim, he must seek the person out who may have committed the crime and check his veracity.  Who wants to let a perpetrator of a heinous crime not receive their due punishment?   But are we willing to use the power of the State to bear in making an innocent man into a guilty party twelve years after the fact.  This may have very well happened in the case of Frederick Lewis.

 

The Background of the Frederick Lewis Case

 

In August 16, the public learned of Mr. Lewis when he rejected a plea deal, as reported in the MCP: 

Frederick Lewis was arrested on Feb. 12 following an investigation by the Michigan State Police. He was charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct first degree involving a minor under the age of 13. The incidences allegedly took place when the alleged victim was between the ages of 7 and 11, she is now 18. The woman, who now lives in Baldwin, is a relative of Lewis’ and was living in the same Custer Township house during the alleged incidences.

Earlier this week Lewis turned down a plea agreement from Mason County Prosecutor Paul Spaniola. The agreement would have dropped the two counts of CSC first degree and charged Lewis with CSC second degree instead with a sentence of four to 15 years.

 

Before his scheduled trial in October, the Muskegon Chronicle reported: 

A 31-year-old man from Mason County accused of sexually abusing a girl under the age of 13 has accepted a plea agreement, sparing him from the potential of life in prison.  Frederick Lewis of Scottville was charged originally with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, that would have resulted in life sentences, for alleged sexual abuse that occurred from 2001-2004.  Lewis appeared in court recently to accept a plea deal that changes his charges to criminal sexual conduct, second degree. 

 

<-- Frederick Lewis and his attorney

One would believe justice was served, and a foul criminal not unlike Wayne Lyle and Dalton Willard was finally off the streets.  The whole situation had pretty much flew under my radar; I hadn't known Mr. Lewis, and like the vast majority of consumers of the local media, his actions spoke for him.  But then others familiar with the case brought some things to my attention concerning this particular case, and now I am left wondering whether the juggernaut of justice in Mason County has made another victim out of a virtuous person, like they did in the Todd Lane Johnson situation.

Both cases involve the testimony of a person that the alleged perpetrator had a modicum of control over, coming out many years later to reveal they were used sexually by them when they were minors.  Investigators assumedly questioned Johnson-- who knows when the MCSO shields their records-- and Johnson assumedly maintained he was innocent.  As they went to trial, however, he had to worry about potentially serving a lot of years behind bars.  The temptation of a plea deal to minimize those years had to have been playing in his mind.  Lucky for him one was never accepted, because the State had thrown all of its trust behind a woman who had made up a story. 

Frederick Lewis, facing an insistent accuser and what amounted to a 'confession', decided finally in October to accept the lesser charge.  The question remains, however:  "Is he guilty?".  Two people know the answer to that question, but they both have different stories. 

 

Her Story

 

The victim in this story, I will call her 'Y', is definitely a victim of someone close to her at a very tender age.  As early as when she was five she was sexually used by her 11 year old cousin, documented back in the year 2000 in a hospital report: 

 

 

Following some abnormal behavior by her daughter less than a year after this revelation, her father had 'Y' evaluated.  Excerpts therefrom:

 

 

 

'Y' would be in and out of counseling during her formative years over this action by her older cousin, spending time with her father and stepfamily (Frederick included) for a few more years.   Over these years, is when the molestation is supposed to have happened with Frederick.  This would only be brought to light this year, after more changes had taken place in 'Y's life. 

In the summer of 2012, 'Y' moved from her father's household to her mother's.  Her mother has been diagnosed as bipolar, and had 'Y's cousin (the one who molested her when she was 5) living with them until she had found out about the past abuse of her and her brother.  'Y' had taken an overdose of pills in January 2013 because of all the stress involved, as these excerpts from a Community Mental Health report indicates:

 

 

The final service section of this CMH report was signed on February 7, 2013.  Less than a week after that, 'Y' accused (for the very first time) that Frederick Lewis had engaged in criminal sexual contact for years with her when she was very young.  The Michigan State Police was sent to investigate whether the allegations had any merit; Trooper Jeffrey Hammond interviewed 'Y' and then went to Mr. Lewis to investigate his involvement.  In the transcript of the interrogation he conducts with Frederick shortly after this, Trooper Hammond never mentions any knowledge of 'Y's past, or her known sexual abuse at roughly the same time by her cousin.   

 

Frederick Lewis' Tainted Confession

 

According to Lewis and his girlfriend, an admitted victim of her own sexual abuse from the past who believes to this day in Frederick's innocence, Tpr. Hammond came to their residence on the morning of February 12, 2013 waking him up after he had been up most of the night.  Hammond invited Lewis to go to the Pere Marquette Fire Department to be interviewed about the allegations which had been made by 'Y'.   Hammond declined to hold the interview at the residence, he insisted that they 'voluntarily' go to the PMFD, waiting for an answer as he rested his hands on his service revolver and taser. 

Believing it was an offer he could not refuse, Frederick assented and was driven by his girlfriend to the PMFD after Hammond left in his cruiser to go there.  When he got there, the girlfriend was denied entry to the interrogation.  Hammond went out of his way to tell Lewis he was not under arrest, and implied he wasn't being detained, but the transcript reveals him using some sort of unnamed law and legal purpose that prevented her from being in the room even at Lewis' request:

 

 

So a tired Lewis was placed in a room alone with a Trooper, and the questioning began.  Throughout the 'interview' Hammond never gives Lewis his Miranda Rights, nor does he intimate that Lewis has the freedom to leave without doing the interview, and not be arrested.  In fact he often gives Lewis two alternatives:   1) to admit the events happened and receive leniency or 2) to admit that nothing happened, in which case the law would bear full on him as the other side has 'scientifically proven' their case already. 

 

 

And not much later:

 

Fred rarely gets to complete a sentence, and so the backstory of 'Y's CSC at her cousin's never sees light.   He does note that the original time period 'Y' used was during a time he had a convenient alibi. This bit of exculpatory data didn't spark much interest in Trooper Hammond:

 

 

Even after Lewis relates some of the past allegations 'Y' has made which include her biological father and others (that are part of the record that the trooper shows no knowledge of), Hammond continues the hammer:

 

 

Young victims of molestation can often displace the aggressor and transmit false memories, even enough to pass a polygraph.  Hammond further insists on the given account by 'Y' as incontrovertibly fact.  The only thing to determine is if it was forced, or something else.  Even though his younger brother corroborates Fred's version it is used to further press the issue when he says she was in Fred's room cleaning it on occasion.

 

 

Fred continues to be harangued by the trooper, who stresses a point he has made implicit throughout most of the interview:  that either Frederick is a sick pervert who forced himself on this girl or someone who gave in to base instincts:

 

 

A couple minutes more into the interview, it is condensed by Hammond into two choices, where confession works out best for all: 

 

 

And if it wasn't completely clear:

 

 

And over the next hour, with the threat of hard jail time if he didn't confess because of all the scientific proof of his guilt, Frederick Lewis listened to what he needed to do, so that he could have the best result for his future.  With the promise of a lighter sentence and counseling if he capitulated, he agreed to the lesser of two evil choices he was given.

 

Epilogue:

 

Most of us do not know Fred Lewis or 'Y', myself included.  But his story is at least a cautionary tale to those who are not sure of their rights when dealing with police officers.  Lewis could have left at any time, however, this knowledge was not passed to him.  He could have asked to have a lawyer present, or even his girlfriend present (which was denied, as surely as was any mention of anything close to a Miranda Warning).  He could have went silent, and it would not have been used against him any more than if he decided to cite the "Gettysburg Address" instead of answering any questions. 

Beyond this, it was found out later that there was no 'juvenile polygraph' administered to 'Y', and her testimony was accepted at face value, under no duress.  Unlike the antagonistic and threatening interview Fred received. 

Much of what Hammond offered wasn't true, police officers do have the right to exaggerate and lie in the course of interrogations, but according to Hammond this was not an interrogation.  Nobody else has corroborated her story about Fred, nor have the officials thought that her debasement at the age of five to her young cousin, along with her psychological problems that led to an attempt on her life earlier this year, had any effect on Trooper Hammond's tactics in holding this interrogation.

According to police officer.com the law when it comes to police lying to suspects to get confessions:
•Courts agree due process requires that confessions be voluntary. That means they can't be coerced.
•Courts agree coercion can be psychological as well as physical.
•Most courts agree they'll decide whether the confession was voluntary or coerced based on a "totality of the circumstances."

Totality of the circumstances can include:
•Police conduct - what officers say and do and how they say and do it, e.g., the length of the interrogation and whether police offer refreshment or breaks.
•The environment - e.g., are police questioning the suspect in a 6' X 8' windowless room where they stand between him and the only exit?
•The suspect's age and mental status.
•Etc. - anything else that bears on the coercive nature, or not, of the interrogation.

 

The main evidence against Frederick Lewis is that he has a signed confession by himself admitting to what he thought would get him out of doing hard jail time, as proposed by Trooper Hammond.  Hammond's tactics did get a confession, but was it legit or forced out of an innocent man?  This is probably enough to convict in a court and area known to be hard on crime.  But is it the truth, and will we see justice for either party here?

 

Over two weeks ago, I sent a FOIA request to the Michigan State Police asking about their policies/training manuals on interrogation of suspects and for the training that Trooper Hammond had in this regard.  Contrary to that act, I have received nothing from them in return, only a notice that the FOIA Coordinator is on break until December 2nd.   

Frederick Lewis goes to court at 9:00 AM on Tuesday, December 3rd to find out how long he goes to prison for one count of CSC second degree based on the allegations of 'Y' and the plea deal he was forced to take after signing the confession he was forced to make.  He will have a scarlet 'sex offender' label with him for likely the rest of his life once he does get out.  I have a gut feeling that he may be innocent, and the system may be guilty.

[Georgie]

Hes were he belongs hopefully they keep his perverted baby loving ass takes a horrible person to do what he did but to lie for him and give him a false alibi shame on them everybody knows what happens to perverts like him in prison

[melissa]

I am just so horrified that you would believe that story of a sick twisted fred lewis. In his confession he gave details, explicit details. Pretty sick mind at work there. And exactly where do your facts come from, seems to be alot of accusations with no proof. Fred lewis is where he belongs just should have gotten life for this heinous crime.

[XLFD]

Unfortunately, much of the original supportive material for this article were lost when the original platform I used to create it went off-line.  I still have hard copies of that material if there's anything you may wish to see regarding it.

My belief of the facts behind the story is mostly immaterial to the point behind the article.  Lewis may be guilty, he may be innocent; only a couple of people know that fact for sure.  One was accused of crimes that occurred ten years prior, over charges that never were made to anybody before that. In fact, there are documents that show her claims were against another older cousin back around the time when Lewis allegedly is claimed to do it. 

Lewis was interrogated in a way that effectively coerced a confession out of him in order to placate his interrogator.  Never was this cognitively-challenged individual given his rights to counsel, he was denied the right to have his friend in the room during the interrogation, he was told the police and court would believe the results of a non-existent lie detector test the victim took which implicated him over his recorded pleas of innocence.  He was given the choice to either confess or face a lot worse consequences for not confessing. 

The court allegedly allowed the victim to change her story and suppress records that could have been used for his defense. 

There is clearly a victim in this case, but I would maintain there were probably two.

[melissa]

First off i have first hand knowledge of everything, so id love to see the documentation that states ur facts. And there are laws the protect individuals medical records. And only one time did victim testify under oath. So theres no way to say the story changed. When victims are threatened at a young age they usually dont come forward until they feel safe from the abuser. But for your proof id love to get a look at it. Then we can proceed from there.

[XLFD]

Feel free to write a rebuttal article on this forum, telling your side of the story, which explains why the victim did not come forth in the years that Frederick was out of state, and why she had originally pointed a finger at someone else in a previous investigation done ten years prior to the accusations against Frederick. 

Several of the medical and therapist records were at my disposal for this article because the victim's custodial parents had them and at least one fervently believes in the innocence of Frederick.  I cannot affirm that Frederick is innocent, I didn't know him until late 2013; but I reviewed the process in which he was found guilty, paperwork including the girl's past admission of being molested by a young cousin of hers while at her neglectful, bipolar mother's residence, where Frederick's involvement was left out entirely because he was not even in the household. 

Unfortunately, in this country, too many people are thrown into prisons based on questionable accusations made many years after they can be properly investigated and coerced confessions.  I believe Frederick was one of those; your mission if you decide to accept it, is to prove to me that he isn't.

[melissa]

Ok first your getting the side of freds mother who of course is gonna say her son is innocent, there was no investigation to a cousin what so ever. The fact that you keep referring to a bipolar mother is another violation of medical records. Id be more then happy to sit with you and show you where your facts from her are tainted. So that you may retract the false allegations that you so freely reported on. You must provide proof when reporting. Its called truth in reporting. Otherwise your no better then the criminals your reporting about. So your story is based on a vendictive mother of a child rapist.

[XLFD]

Incorrect, my story is based on public (although limited access) records that were based on previous inquiries into the molestation of the victim, where the cousin is named, and the victim names them.  These records are quite explicit, involve the testimony of a very young victim, and has no reference other than positive, to her experiences with her father's side of the family, which included Frederick.

This aspect of the story is totally ignored by the prosecution and never considered relevant to what happened.  I, for one, believe it is relevant if she claims one person did it around the time ithappened and then the story is totally different many years later.  Fear of reprisals by Frederick would be difficult to believe based on his record, and the fact that he was not only out of the house, but out of the state during this long period.

If the mother was not bipolar, which is basically irrelevant but says a little about why she may have been denied custody of the young victim,then some of those records were in error, but it isn't a 'violation of medical records', it's a reportage by medical professionals of what they accepted as factual when they were investigating a molestation report that happened to the victim while under her mother's care. 

As always, you are free to offer your own perspective and rebuttal records, or you may continue to attack me and my methodology without putting forth facts. 

[Jasper]

Causes of Wrongful Convictions

The Michigan Innocence Clinic was the first clinic of its kind to work on non-DNA exonerations. Our work has revealed particular circumstances far too often seen in cases of wrongful conviction. These cases show us how the criminal justice system is in need of much repair and how the Michigan Innocence Clinic can combat troubling trends of the system. 
In each case we have worked on, we have uncovered overlapping causes of wrongful convictions.

Following are common causes¹ of wrongful convictions; these are not the only causes, however:

Eyewitness Misidentification Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.

Junk Science Many forensic testing methods have been applied with little or no scientific validation and with inadequate assessments of their significance or reliability. As a result, forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. And in some cases, forensic analysts have engaged in misconduct.

False Confessions In many cases, innocent defendants make incriminating statements, deliver outright confessions, or plead guilty. Regardless of the age, capacity, or state of the confessor, what they often have in common is a decision—at some point during the interrogation process—that confessing will be more beneficial to them than continuing to maintain their innocence.

Government Misconduct In some cases, government officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted despite weak evidence or even clear proof of innocence.

Snitches Often, statements from people with incentives to testify—particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury—are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person. People have been wrongfully convicted in cases in which snitches are paid to testify or receive favors in return for their testimony.

Bad Lawyering The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses, or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people.

These factors are not the only causes of wrongful convictions. Each case is unique and many include a combination of issues.

http://www.law.umich.edu/clinical/innocenceclinic/Pages/wrongfulcon...

[XLFD]

Thanks. Jasper.  I wasn't aware that Michigan had its own version of the Innocence Project.  Oh, BTW, bad lawyering was much of the case here; court-appointed attorney David Glancy did his usual expedient methods to help the State prove its case.  After a while, the indigent defendant had enough and switched lawyers, but most of the damage had already been done, not to mention Judge Cooper was in charge.

[Jasper]

Well, that explains it all.  David Glancy???? Incompetent as teets on a boar for representation of citizen's who cannot afford a (real) attorney who will stand up for your rights.

Imagine Glancy as the Prosecutor???  The voter's of Mason County exercised their rights!  Glanzy's wife is also a Court appointed attorney, and from my understanding follows  the footsteps.  

[Jasper]

Did Frederick Lewis have a court appointed attorney?  

As a side...it is so easy to accuse someone of a crime these days!  The accused are already "guilty" instead of "innocent, until proven guilty."  It goes totally against the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.

A child making accusations of sexual misconduct...oh that is already a given!  GUILTY!!!  

There has been case after case of innocent people being released from prison after serving years and years for false accusations!  

[Jasper]

The same theory I pointed out above applies to false accusations of Domestic Violence. It is so easy for a woman to call 911 and state; they are a victim of Domestic Violence.  The accused are already assumed guilty by LEO'S and the Judicial System, prior to any court hearings.  It is beyond the realm of what the accused endure by the courts prior to any court hearings.  We won't even go there on plea deals.  What I will say is, if one has the financial means instead of solely relying on court appointed attorney's who don't give a rat's ass, the accused stand a far better chance of proving the false allegations of Domestic Violence.

So, even though I know nothing about this Fred Lewis case...I question the Judicial System???  

Google, the Innocence Project.