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]

Fred Lewis was sentenced from 4-15 years today.  I learned something interesting from both the prosecutor and the defense before his sentencing.  The prosecutor, who made a plea deal for one incident of sexual assault without penetration back when she was 7 (CSC 2nd), read from a statement by her that mentioned she was tortured for three years.  I am sympathetic to the victim, but it's hard to believe that this or any hint of this, didn't come out long before, Fred being absent from the household and state in most of the interim.

From the defense side, I learned that Fred has mental disabilities, he went through special education throughout school, and that he has a clean record through the rest of his 31 years.  His mental limitations makes him especially susceptible to the Reid technique of interrogation yielding a false interrogation.  The literature is replete with instances of mentally ill and mentally disabled people confessing to crimes they didn't commit. 

[GrouchyOldBaldGuy]

To EyeOnLudington:

So you were there? You saw it happen and have personal knowledge of the facts? Then why didn't we see you on the witness list? Your testimony would have put him away for life plus ten at the very least.

I'm guessing you've never been on the receiving end of a good grilling by an experienced and enthusiastic investigator. This guess is based on the total ignorance of your statement. With the prospect of going to prison as a child molester hanging over your head, the promise of "just sign this and it will all go away" sounds pretty good. I've seen this method used many times in the past. Used it myself a couple times with outstanding results that netted the hard evidence needed to prosecute.

It is disgusting that people do these things to children. What is more disgusting is the number of people, just like yourself, that assume no one innocent is ever accused of a crime. Then go all over town, shooting off their mouth to anyone that will listen, stirring the passions and getting people all fired up when in reality you do not have the slightest clue what really happened. It is people like you that got people lynched in the not all that distant past.

Sadly, you aren't alone. Look at all those fine upstanding Duke University faculty members known as the Group of 88 that ran a full page ad viciously condemning members of the lacrosse team after a stripper claimed rape. Even after it was painfully to even the most wild eyed lynch mob the accused were completely innocent, that Group of 88 stuck to their guns claiming the substance of their message was still valid. And those folks are supposed to be a couple orders of magnitude smarter then you and I, being college professors and all.

EyeOnLudington, you would fit right with that lot. That "never let the facts interfere with a good lynching" mentality got people killed in the past. Sadly, it will probably get more killed in the future as well.

[AQUAMAN]

GOBG, congrats on seeing the EyE for what she really is, fake!

[GrouchyOldBaldGuy]

The difference is simple. In Frederick's case someone mentally beat a confession out of him. Those are just words subject to the context in which they are spoken or written. This man is going to jail with out a shred of physical evidence.

In my case, rather then coerce a confession out the suspects, I got information that led us physical evidence. In one case a computer containing the stolen information. In another case a cache of stolen military hardware.

Then you wrote: "Here is the message: There is no good reason why an innocent person will plead guilty to a sex crime he did not commit."

And the message is still wrong.

[wildfire]

Well fredeick DID NOT DO THIS N  I CAN PROOF to  YOU who  DID!! and Frederick DOES HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE   But the prosector put the rape sheild up n judge cooper after that said yes lets do that, SO THAT CAUSE FREDERICK N HIS LAWYER NOT TO PROVE WHO DID ALL THIS ,  so all frederick had then was to prove he wasn't in this state for all them yrs, n  his health records n pysical eva. his schoo;ing records,   BUT the prosector did not care n either did the judge cooper they asked questions about his disabilites n special ed,  n acted stupid like the judge n proseocutor didn't really know anything about special ed classes, prosector also tryed to pick a argument with fredericks mother on the stand when she told mr spaniola that frederick had 2 kinds of special meeting n  1  was every yr  n  the other was every 3 yrs, one was called IEP,  n  the mother couldn't remeber the int.  to the other one, (which is IEPC)  the prosecutor kept saying NO  he only had 1   n  fredericks mother said no  their are 2  n  prosecutor said NO    this mr paul dude don't know much about anything when it comes to handid cap children n adults  ; and when under presser ADHD people have issues, because of the ADHD it causes their brain to have difficulty in processing as quickly n  accurately as others. Yes frederick was under the reid techniques, were he was coerced in confession

[wildfire]

Lynching are we going to burn at the stake,  this sounds like oult of people that live in known as  ludville (ludington). ,lol

[Shelby Sowle]

If there was evidence to defend him he wouldnt be in prison first off. And literally everything you said about the trial was a lie. His mother was actually kicked out of the court room for harassing the victim by standing up in court and calling her a whore

[Jane]

and teach your kids to never ever ever talk to the police(if they are asking questions). The police will twist and manipulate soneone into believing they are capable of being found guilty. What people should or should not do is irrelevant. people plead guilty when they are innocent. people plead innocent when they are guilty. The real criminals being the latter in many cases. they know the game.

[XLFD]

Asking "Am I free to go?" or telling them politely but curtly that "I don't answer questions." may get you some rough handling and threatening looks, but it's your right to do so.  The officer's reaction to you asserting your fourth and fifth amendment rights, should tell you a lot about what type of officer you're dealing with.  If they don't respect them, you were wise not to openly talk to them in the first place.

[XLFD]

EyE,

This link from Psychology Today explains exactly why someone would plead guilty to a crime they did not commit.  In this case, almost all the factors are evident:  the confessor has a low IQ and low education (he was always in special ed in school), he has had anxiety disorders clinically diagnosed, he has a compliant personality from all accounts, the transcript shows he was given limited options and had to make a cost-benefit analysis based on data from his interrogator. 

The interrogator lied about the evidence, lied about the limitations of such evidence, told Frederick that he had suppressed the memory, and then did what I think invalidates the whole interrogation by introducing the full recollection of the crime throughout the interview.  Frederick's memory is effectively dictated by the interrogator, Jeffrey Hammond in the final confession.  Lewis has tried to recant, but once a confession is there it is there, like those hasty comments you put up on Facebook.

Do some research into the subject EyE, because you can believe that an innocent person would never plead guilty, but the facts of the matter don't back you up.  I put up some links earlier, but there is a wealth of information on it out there and many scholarly journals dedicated to the topic of false confessions. 

[wildfire]

Well you did not read the transcript either on fredericks case.  Plus you do not know the hole case either, he was coeried into writeing it down on paper  this confession by jeffery hammond n was told if he doesn't write down what jeffery told him to write down word for word frederick would go to jail, frederick has never been in trouble n never done anything wrong in his 31 yrs,When frederick was born he had lack of oyxgen to his brain so the doctor n nurses were working hard on him to get him to breath,  he was a premie when borned also,   he was a special ed student from K thur 12 grade  he does have disbilities, Also was born with ADHD  hyperactive,  then also had EI. LD  n  has PSTD going on  n  had spinal meningitis when he was 3 month old   which he had a fever of 104.5  n  when he was in the hospital  they put a needle in his spine  n do 3 test with that fluid n  he had all the systoms  n but not spinal meningitis  so after about an hr or so  they did the test on him again n he had it frederick , had bacterial spinal meningitis, which is the worse n causes brain damage, plus this caused his eyes to go cross n had to had an operation before he turned 1 yr old or he would of went blind,  well needless to say  hes been hit in the head by a little boy  who had  a toy. when frederick was 5 yrs old , n had issues with his eyes ever since.  so he can't see w/o glasses n cant  see with them all that good either, he has to have prims  in them glasses   frederick has had learing disilites all his life, fredericks been in an auto accident were his head was hit in a window  n  his glasses went flying  n  more issues, frederick has  had  other health issues, then when in his 20's  hes had 2 strokes  when he was living in huntsville AL  for all them yrs  of 2001 to 2004.  and his mother has MS  n   frederick drops things can't hang on to things at times n has issues with walking n getting the words out right,  he might even  have parkinson, or MS like his mother, Then hes had other issues that his left legg goes out ward  from his hip down to his foot,  n has been told his hip is what a cerebral palsy persons is like but when he was young no doctors would do anything for him cause they thought it would starigthen up as  he got older,well it never did n his legs hurt with pain all the time, So frederick does have health issues hes had all his life,  n  now this,  so when he told jeffery hammond it was gross  what he wanted frederick to say jeffery hammond said to him OH whats wrong with her "y"  shes a nice looking girl, so maybe you should read better between the lines n not blame someone who has disiblites cause they are handid cap..... Way to many people with handid caps are begin thrown in jail n prisons who don't belong their  because they didn't understand the laws n what was going to happen to them.

[GrouchyOldBaldGuy]

I can answer why an innocent person would take a plea deal rather then go to trial. In this case we have a signed confession. One that is highly tainted but still admitted in evidence. Like Archie Bunker's station wagon filled with nuns, it is very difficult to beat a signed confession in front of a jury or judge.

Ok, now it's you sitting in his shoes. So here you sit, looking at the possibility of 40+ years if this goes badly. Then someone says, "I'll give you a chance to do four years and walk out if you take this deal." Are you going to roll the dice on a jury and 40 years or are you going to take the deal and get it over with? (No copping out saying I wouldn't have signed a confession. You have a full deck.)

As for that part about not confessing, I agree in general. But not in this case. You are conveniently ignoring the rest of the story here. You really should sit down and consider the things you seem to be missing.
- We have a suspect that everyone agrees is not playing with full deck.
- A trusted authority figure lied about the victim passing a polygraph test.
- He also lied about non-existent physical evidence.
- The police officer played several hours worth of mind games and intimidation.
- Don't forget that statement that the police officer was not "looking to put anyone in jail"
- Then there was that promise of signing a paper to make it all go way.

(At this point it is hard to wonder if you actually read XLFD's post at this point.)

If you have no problem with this scenario, then may you never, ever serve on a jury.