Summary
Detective Fire. It is important to note that the two officers that had their names come up in Detective Fire's testimony were never deposed by my Trial attorney. One was the initial officer on the scene that received the initial eyewitness statements and description, which according to Fire was how the officer determined me to be the prime suspect. But review of the police reports shows that the officer never mentioned me as a suspect but referred to me only as a subject wanted for questioning because of his knowledge of me being with the victim earlier that evening. The state's attorneys would not call this officer to testify because he would have had to respond to the initial eyewitness statements and description which were totally opposite to my description. Also this officer would have had to explain why he only determined me to be a subject wanted for questioning and not a suspect as Fire defined me. This officer had received my description earlier from the incident he investigated in which the victim got into a fight with another male. The officer's testimony would have revealed I wore a long sleeve red flannel shirt and my hair in a pony tail. Detective Fire, made a probable cause determination that was not based on the facts. Instead of admitting his mistake, he would try to justify his false arrest.
What is disturbing is that upon review of the Trial Record it
appears that the state's attorneys were
well aware that the initial eyewitness
statements and identification, plus blood test
results were never turned over to the defense
upon demand of discovery. The other officer that my Trial
attorney never deposed was that officer that took the blood
swabbings. And again, since he would testify in regards as to test
results revealing only one blood type
(mine) the state's attorneys would not call him as a witness.
What also did not come out during the Trial was the fact that Detective
Fire knew the alibi witnesses. That they had been
arrested a number of times for various reasons. Also that he knew
the female witness from another murder case in which she was a
witness. Now that evidence has turned up that state's
attorney Bruce Young had made a deal in
exchange for the couple's alibi testimony and did not reveal that
to the defense. The fact that the other two pieces of exculpatory
evidence was also suppressed strongly suggest that the state's
attorneys worked hand in hand with Fire to cover up the fact he
had made a false arrest and, most disturbing, that they conspired
to convict a man they have to know is innocent.
Shortly after I got off death watch in 1987 due to the ruling by
Trial Judge Susan Schaeffer granting me a stay of execution by
ruling to give me an evidentiary hearing on the sentencing issue
of my 3.850 appeal and denying me relief on the Trial issues, I
would see an excerpt on ABC World News Tonight
about a murder case in Clearwater, Florida, where Detective
Fire was being accused of coercing a confession
from a man named Tom Sawyer and achieving a
first degree murder conviction. I would immediately bring this to
my state mandated attorney's attention. For here was evidence
that Detective Fire was guilty of misconduct in another murder
case. My state mandated attorneys have not helped me with
information, which strongly suggests that Judge Susan Schaeffer
had to know of the Tom Sawyer case when she refused to hear the
Trial issues in my case, which would have made two cases showing
misconduct by the Clearwater Police and in particular, Detective
Peter Fire. Sadly neither Forrest Sawyer or Dianne Sawyer will
respond to my request for help in showing Detective Fire is also
guilty of misconduct in my case. Tom Sawyer
would get his conviction reversed and is now a
free man enjoying a substantial settlement.
I deserve an evidentiary hearing on the Trial issues of my case. I did not receive a fair and impartial Trial. An evidentiary hearing will show overwhelming evidence that I was railroaded in a kangaroo court. I am innocent and should be immediately released.