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.

[XLFD]

Good post, Grouchy, and I would just add that the 'system' used for getting confessions is generally deemed irrelevant to the people who run the justice system, who often are just concerned with the end product, and not the reliability and fairness of the method used to get that product. 

 Here we see a person freely willing to tell his side of the story to explain his innocence without his girlfriend or an attorney allowed, but is told over and over again by a powerful authority figure that his story (true or not) will land him in the slammer for years and no one will believe him over the scientific proof his fellow authorities have-- whereas he is gently informed and implored to adapt his story to another story that the officer puts forth that will get him counselling, leniency, and the ability to leave the room a free man.  In the end we have a confession, but we are no closer to learning the truth of the matter, than we were before he entered that room.

The meek and compliant manner that Lewis shows through the interview makes it even more difficult for me to believe that he could be someone who had the personality to do what he is claimed to have done many years ago. 

[AQUAMAN]

Grouchy, btw, welcome aboard the Torch. You sound like a man that has a vast array of knowledge and experience in these type matters, not one with whimsical posts of youth spent in fantasy like some others. I also praise X as usual, for the incise investigation and reporting, something that takes many hours to make cogent posts, unlike some others here out to just make a sound in the air. Either way, the man is going away for quite a spell, and hopefully, gets the help he sorely needs.

[XLFD]

"Either way, the man is going away for quite a spell, and hopefully, gets the help he sorely needs."  Aquaman, since you mentioned me in the previous sentence, am I the antecedent for "the man"?!  If so, obviously you know something I don't, but I would appreciate the help I sorely need, LOL. 

Most prison counselors who read the official dossier on Lewis will likely make 'acceptance of his guilt' part of the treatment, so even if Lewis is innocent (which is unclear) a competent counselor will likely have a goal to have him 'confess' to his alleged crimes again and express remorse.  If Lewis does not, the counselor has the power to prolong the prison sentence, saying Lewis is not 'cured'.  Another Catch-22 like in the original interrogation, where admitting guilt or not admitting guilt both get you in trouble.

[NYC]

Your exactly right / part of my friends plea deal was he has to see a counselor. On his first visit he explained to him why he took the plea deal. The counselor told him, that if he maintained his innocence he would have to report it back to his probation officer which might effect his plea deal, that in order to be treated he must admit guilt. The whole system is screwy, unless you have access to vast somes of money, there is no way to beat the charges.

[wildfire]

This is bull  XLFD, you are telling me that frederick has to aloud the pigs  in prison to make him lie again  for something he didnt do, wtf,,  is the hole country after him to, what about the other dude ???? well I'am more pissed now.  Karma  is coming around for the ones that karma  is looking for...

[XLFD]

Wildfire,

That's the usual policy for 'sex offenders' as far as I know; I know a man who almost certainly was guilty of molesting a very young girl, gave a half-confession, and sent letters to his ex from prison that told of what his therapy consisted of. 

He went from someone who was saying the event was incidental and innocent to someone who eventually admitted to more and more as the letters progressed, thanks to his counseling.  If Fred Lewis is innocent, by the time he gets through with four years of counseling he will probably say and even believe he is guilty of everything, even the botched rollout of Obamacare.  Even if he has done nothing.  Not doing so will keep him in for longer.  As NYC says, counselors in prison hear everyone in prison tell them they're innocent, their duty is to usually do what Trooper Hammond did.  Confession-- anything less makes the offender need more prison time for rehabilitation and correction.

[wildfire]

and frederick doesnt even know this, Oh my god,  n you are saying he can't tell anybody out here what he is told about to say from them consulors in them prison or he gets longer to? this is crazy, well i beleieve every does say that, but i don't know about everybody else,  what else do you need to tell me that fredericks not aware thats going to happen to him in their?  n   is everything that goes on in their hes not to talk about to us out here? who alouds all these  people to get away with all this. 

[wildfire]

your so called suspect that you don't think was playing with a full deck? best not be talking about frederick , n no one can trust a cop any more, n  the only one that lied about physical evidence was the cop n the prosector (paul)  n the accuser  n her mother,cause all he said he had was jeffery hammond, for his proof,  and yes the cop did play a lot of head games for 2 1/2 hrs at least, and if the cop jeffery wasn't planing on putting someone in jail then why did he say: If you write down what I tell you word for word  you won't go to jail?' If i WAS ON JURY  I will know who lieing way to many young girls are lieing to get revence, or separte fathers with the step mothers, or they they begin coached by someone in the immediate family members  who have revence on X spouses  and use they children against them  just because they were a bad mother all then years n the real father had cusioty  of his children  n the courts would'nt loud the real mother  full cusiody at that time so this real mother is using the kids that now live with her as a pay back  n anybody who married the dad n  step mothers kids are suffering  because of all the lies n haterd this X wife has on her X spouse, so she is making out like a bandit n hiding the one she has  hiden all these years from the cops, n courts to keep him out of going away for yrs,  n    this dude who is the one who has been doing "y'' for years, goes away so will the (real) mother of "y"  n no one even checks into whats really going on with that family who has accused Mr. frederick lewis, MR. Spanioel has told mr fragel (frederick's  lawyer that their is something not right with that family n  he just wasn't sure what it was. that family he was talking about is the accusers family. 

[wildfire]

ok when frederick told jeffery hammond that it was gross n he would never do that (that  in transcipt n on cd), jeffery goes on n is hitting his hand on the table n yelling at frederick n  jeffery kept telling frederick over n over how "Y"'s  polograpfhy  saids she  is telling the truth n he needs to confess, frederick said eeeeeeeeeewwww  n  jeffery said WHY WHATS WRONG WITH HER?  SHES A NICE LOOKING LADY? So jeffery is in the wrong , how do we know he never did anything to that family since he is a friend of "Y"'s family anyways, so to me something is wrong, the cop is friend of "y"'s family???? n  why is it the judge said to fredericks lawyer he doesn't like to piss of the cops, well what do the cops really know about judge cooper n mr p. spanieol?  hmm

[Michelle]

Even though its been near a year this has happened, I still am fairly pissed with the ruling. I have had a lot going on myself so I didn't know exactly how things were going and I wish I had been able to be there for him during this trial. Fred lived with us for several years down south. During this alleged time he was suppose to of been doing stuff with her. I may not have the best memory but he was here for a good while in early to mid 2000.

[XLFD]

I expect to devote more time to helping Frederick out some more once the snow flies, since I am almost convinced he was railroaded by the MSP into confessing to something he never did, or really could have done.  I currently have a FOIA out with Prosecutor Paul regarding this case which I hope to get shortly.

Welcome to the Ludington Torch, Michelle, where justice still matters. 

[Shelby Sowle]

Most of the information in this post is bullshit and i dont know where you got it from but you need to get your facts straight. Hes not innocent.