Comments
141 - 160 of 243 Comments Last updated Nov 14, 2013
explainthis

United States

#152 Mar 20, 2013
@fasfasf..
Propaganda? No, common sense. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can not fool all the people all the time.
The jury members were judging Ryan in the newspaper, not Charles. They were speaking about their decision, based on what they were told during the trial, now they see for the first time that Jerry Trump lied to them. They now know what Shawna Ornt, Dallas Mallory, Richard Walker and the other 4 witness would have said if they had been called to testify during the trial. Actually there were 2 more since the Tribune story. The jury either read or saw the video of the Hearing where Michael Boyd puts himself at the murder scene before 2:10am before the victim came out to his car, drove over to the victim and spoke to him 3-5 minutes, drove off at 2:20am. Boyd never had his eyes off the victim from the time the victim entered the parking lot until Boyd departed at 2:20am. These are Boyd's words during his sworn testimony in April. Now we know Shawna Ornt called 911 at 2:26am. Prior to calling 911, Shawna had come out alone for a smoke, saw some shadows and ran back to tell her co-worker, Trump that there was something odd going on behind the victims car. They returned to the open overhead door but could not see or hear anything. How much time did all this take. Had to have been after Boyd drove out at 2:20 and prior to 2:26. So okay, lets think about this, Boyd leaves at 2:20 am, Shawna steps out to smoke, pulls Jerry outside, open and close the overhead door, two boys stood up one walking towards Ornt, speaking to her and both boys turning and walking east up the alley to fourth street. At this point Shawna and Trump ran to the sports department to call 911. How much time did all this take. From Shawna first entering the parking lot and calling 911. At least 3 minutes. Which means she was in the parking lot the first time around 2:23am just 3 minutes after Boyd testified he departed after speaking with the victim. These are his sworn words in April. The medical expert testified the murder would have taken between 7-8 minutes. The murder was very active with 11 blows to the victim and strangulation. Remember when Shawna came out the first time she did not see a person and heard no noise, only saw a shadow. The victim must have already been murdered by 2:23am. Based on the expert, the murder would to have started 7-8 minutes before this or earlier. This time is around 2:15-2:16am. Boyd testified he was with the victim until 2:20am the murder would have already been started prior to this time. Boyd should be questioned about this timeline which he explained for the first time during Ryan's Habeas Hearing. This is the first time Boyd spoke under oath in a court setting. There are some serious questions that should be answered by Michael Boyd. There is more evidence against Boyd than there is against Ryan. Thanks to Boyd's testimony. There is ZERO evidence linking Ryan OR Chuck to the crime scene. ZERO EVIDENCE.
explainthis

United States

#153 Mar 20, 2013
@fasfasf...
"Skeptic is entirely right about a few things: people would be treating this differently if he was not a rich white guy (which leads to the question - for those with a conscience - how many people in jail am I ignoring right now because they don't have the level of exposure as rich white Ryan?)"

I think we can all agree the world is not fair. Seems like this would be a great opportunity for you to jump in and help some of these people rather than invest your time working against Ryan. Guess you don't care. You are a pure hypocrite.
explainthis

United States

#154 Mar 20, 2013
@fasfasf...
"The second thing he is right in is the assumption whomever here is spouting about Ryan's innocence is most likely someone who just watched a short, biased, program to make them feel like they are a detective or expert on anything other then sitting in front of the TV being fat consumers."

Perhaps you are right . What did you base your decision on. Was it Jerry Trumps testimony that he committed perjury, Kim Bennett's testimony in April testifying she saw Ryan and Charles get into his car and drive away around 1:30 am just like Ryan has always said from day one. Bennett had told police but they hid her interview and so Ryan`s attorney did not know about Bennett's report. This shows two things, first that the police did hide reports from witnesses and that Ryan was correct when he testified he departed the club at 1:30am no wonder the police hid this crucial information. Or was it that Dallas Mallory was not called by Prosecutor Crane. That Prosecutor Crane did not ask Shawna Ornt, the "sole witness" per the police, if she could or could not identify Ryan. Could it have been the four plus witnesses that Prosecutor Crane did not put on the witness stand so Ryans attorney could cross exam their false police reports. The ones given to Charles before the trial that now we all know were false. Reports they have seen and realize are false not there words. Was it during Prosecutor Cranes closing when he lied and said there was no hair in the hand and later during Ryan's 2008 Hearing admitted their was a hair in the hand. The jury members are now hearing this and realizing all these things were not known during the trial.
No one can blame the jury for making a wrong decision if they are not given all the facts.
Actually I am wondering if Bill Haws, Cranes chief investigator's testimony saying under oath that Barbara Trump had told him that she had not sent the newspaper as Trump had testified. Of course knowing this and allowing a witness to lie as Prosecutor Crane walked him through his perjury performance on the witness stand. This is called suborn perjury. Might want to look that one up.
explainthis

United States

#155 Mar 20, 2013
@fasfasf...
"A good example of this Sheepery is people assuming because the police found no evidence left by any one person, there was none. It shows a lack of reasoning and problem solving skills, and this is a result of the manipulation of feelings. Just because it wasn't found doesn't mean it wasn't there."

I think you might be in wrong on this one. There was lots of evidence: The bloody shoe prints, print on the car which have never been connected to anyone. So yes there was evidence even Prosecutor Crane told the jury on the first day of the trial there would be no evidence that would connect Ryan or Charles to the crime.

"police found no evidence left by any one person, there was none. It shows a lack of reasoning and problem solving skills".

TRUE, on the part of the police and the prosecutor. I would agree with you one that one.

"Whether he gets out or not, or he is innocent or not, one thing is true. Ryan, his family, and all you idiots out there who think you know a damn thing about a damn thing sure helped Datelin/NBC/TruTV etc sell a lot of car insurance, soda, clothes, fast food, makeup, and other stuff. How do they do that?"

Do you think if they were not talking about Ryan they would just stop and not do another show. They have been doing this well before Ryan and I am quite sure will continue into the future. So that statement seems a bit silly….

"Creating controversy and presenting the most dynamic volatile program possible. Do you think that they would get more viewers if they presented things that might show his guilt? No. They know that. Grow a brain."

You might do well do follow your own advise. Looking forward to your next posting telling us how you have helped some poor kid fight the system or are you just going to continue being a hypocrite in the strongest form.
IWNR

Minneapolis, MN

#156 Mar 29, 2013
I've followed this case closely for years. I've reviewed the transcripts, evidence and filings, and encourage you to do the same before forming an opinion. I learned about this case from one of the TV shows, but it wasn't until I reviewed the original documents that I become convinced of Ryan's innocence.

Let's review the record, shall we:

1. Ryan was convicted on the testimony of 2 witnesses; Trump, who Judge Green found perjured himself when he ID's Ryan and trial, and Erickson whose originally story was completely implausible and has also now recanted.

2. The timeline rules Ryan out. He was on the phone until 2:10am. Chuck testified that he left his phone in his car. Given the very narrow window of time when we know the killing took place, there's no way he could have gotten there in time to do it.

3. The phyiscal evidence rules Ryan out. There was a treasure trove of it at the crime scene; footprints, palm-prints, fingerprints, blood, hair. None of it matched Ryan or Chuck, and some didn't match the victim. Given the nature of this crime, it's implausible that the killer's DNA is not at the scene. Chuck even testified that Ryan went through stuff in the victim's car. So why didn't they find his prints?

4. The 2 kids Ornt and Trump saw were not the killers. According to Ornt, they did not have blood on them, and were not carrying anything. How is that possible? The killer would have had blood all over him right after the crime. The police were even asking for info on people seen with blood on them that night. And since no murder weapon was found at the scene, the killer obviously took it with him. And consider their behavior. They walked toward the two janitors and calmly told them "someone's hurt here, man", then continued down the alley. That's not the natural reaction of a killer found standing over the body of his victim. Also, they walked towards downtown, where they were more likely to encounter other people, and in the complete opposite direction of where Ryan was parked.

5. Use some simple, basic logic folks. The state's theory of the case makes no sense at all. You're going to tell me that 2 drunk, 5'6" 150lbs. high-school kids murdered a 6'3", 315 lbs. former college football player on the spur of the moment while leaving no trace (but somehow managing to leave the DNA of an unknown third person) because they wanted money to buy more drinks at a bar that had closed nearly an hour earlier? Please. I wouldn't trust a couple of wasted 17 year-olds to go into my kitchen and make themselves a sandwich without leaving a mess.
yes.

United States

#157 Apr 2, 2013
IWNR wrote:
I've followed this case closely for years. I've reviewed the transcripts, evidence and filings, and encourage you to do the same before forming an opinion. I learned about this case from one of the TV shows, but it wasn't until I reviewed the original documents that I become convinced of Ryan's innocence.

Let's review the record, shall we:

1. Ryan was convicted on the testimony of 2 witnesses; Trump, who Judge Green found perjured himself when he ID's Ryan and trial, and Erickson whose originally story was completely implausible and has also now recanted.

2. The timeline rules Ryan out. He was on the phone until 2:10am. Chuck testified that he left his phone in his car. Given the very narrow window of time when we know the killing took place, there's no way he could have gotten there in time to do it.

3. The phyiscal evidence rules Ryan out. There was a treasure trove of it at the crime scene; footprints, palm-prints, fingerprints, blood, hair. None of it matched Ryan or Chuck, and some didn't match the victim. Given the nature of this crime, it's implausible that the killer's DNA is not at the scene. Chuck even testified that Ryan went through stuff in the victim's car. So why didn't they find his prints?

4. The 2 kids Ornt and Trump saw were not the killers. According to Ornt, they did not have blood on them, and were not carrying anything. How is that possible? The killer would have had blood all over him right after the crime. The police were even asking for info on people seen with blood on them that night. And since no murder weapon was found at the scene, the killer obviously took it with him. And consider their behavior. They walked toward the two janitors and calmly told them "someone's hurt here, man", then continued down the alley. That's not the natural reaction of a killer found standing over the body of his victim. Also, they walked towards downtown, where they were more likely to encounter other people, and in the complete opposite direction of where Ryan was parked.

5. Use some simple, basic logic folks. The state's theory of the case makes no sense at all. You're going to tell me that 2 drunk, 5'6" 150lbs. high-school kids murdered a 6'3", 315 lbs. former college football player on the spur of the moment while leaving no trace (but somehow managing to leave the DNA of an unknown third person) because they wanted money to buy more drinks at a bar that had closed nearly an hour earlier? Please. I wouldn't trust a couple of wasted 17 year-olds to go into my kitchen and make themselves a sandwich without leaving a mess.
EXACTLY. THANK. YOU.
Excoppa

Perth, Australia

#158 Apr 13, 2013
Many flaws are very clear here:
1 -the video interview with Chuck is appalling. His interrogation was a farce. He was threatened to answer leading questions. The boy was a 17 yr old junkie who had no recollection of the incident yet was explicit on what Ryan had done
2 -there are no witnesses to the incident
3 -The key witnesses linking Ryan in any way finally admitted they had lied. And they did so knowing they could be put away for perjury. Why has the perjury been ignored todate
Finally - I remain in a state of absolute disbelief as to how the American judicial system can still deprive Ryan of his liberty. It sucks!!
Delcia Crockett

Columbia, MO

#159 Apr 20, 2013
Old news.

One life taken.

One life wasted by the one that took it.

Sad.

But old news.
WoWoW

Kankakee, IL

#160 Apr 20, 2013
Delcia Crockett wrote:
Old news.
One life taken.
One life wasted by the one that took it.
Sad.
But old news.
The one that took it is still living his life free. TWO that didn't are imprisoned for it. But things have a way of working themselves out. Expect things to look very different in two years time.
Delcia Crockett

Columbia, MO

#161 Apr 21, 2013
I like your optimistic attitude, and your manners in your disagreeing with a point given.

I would love to be proved wrong this.

All you have to do is prove it. Not argue it. Prove it.

So far, only argument and debate have surfaced anywhere.
yes.

United States

#162 Apr 24, 2013
Delcia Crockett wrote:
I like your optimistic attitude, and your manners in your disagreeing with a point given.

I would love to be proved wrong this.

All you have to do is prove it. Not argue it. Prove it.

So far, only argument and debate have surfaced anywhere.
You're so freaking delusional. All we are asking you is to show ONE FACT that points to Ryan murdering this man. One fact. Show me.

Since: Apr 13

Columbia, MO

#163 Apr 28, 2013
I do think that Ryan killed he sports editor, because no one has proved otherwise - and he was given a trial and all the opportunity in the world to prove he did not do it.

Too, I think that Ryan's Dad and sister let him down. Had she not plied him illegally with drinks and had not his father allowed him to roam instead of being home in bed on a school night, then he would have an opne-and-shut case of innocence.

As a result of no alibi and being plied to a stae of intoxication, then he became a convicted killer.

I would be a prime witness about how the Columbia polioe can arrest an innocent person. I would never have thought it could happen, and no one supported the police more than I did, until the police not only was going to arrest me for a bad neighbor's whim, but they told me I could not call when she and her son were vehicular stalking me.

For two years, I was a prisoner in my own house, and did not even look her way.

Now, I plan to defend myself if she crosses the street on me in any way.

I can relate to an innocent person walking through Hell, because the police do not get their facts straight.

But, when you really believe in Ryan, then you should keep searching with all your heart and soul to find the person you think really did do it.

Maybe if the sports editor had had a chance to defend himself, then we would all agree on who did it.

When you want an example of how wrong the police can be, I am one of those who can tell you how and when.

And, I am certain in saying that I am not the only one in Columbia, Missouri who can.
WoWoW

Kankakee, IL

#164 Apr 28, 2013
Delcia__Crockett wrote:
I do think that Ryan killed he sports editor, because no one has proved otherwise - and he was given a trial and all the opportunity in the world to prove he did not do it.
Because the entire trial was based on two witnesses who lied, and they have now admitted that they lied and committed perjury. Pretty much anybody could be convicted of anything if you've got witnesses who will lie. Do you seriously not comprehend this?

Now take away those two witnesses and what is left to show that Ryan was involved in any way? NOTHING. At all. Zero. Zilch.

These witnesses have now subjected themselves to perjury charges.

I guess I can't be too hard on you for not getting it. Judge Green didn't get it either. But he was protecting his colleague. What's your excuse?

Since: Apr 13

Columbia, MO

#165 Apr 30, 2013
Well, when/if you get "the real killer" (and you say the killer is still out there), then you will have a Pulitzer Prize story in the media.

Most journalism folks are ethical, and would never go by the adage: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a true story."

I would love to see the headline that Ryan is set free as "the real killer" is caught.

Will Ryan ever write a book?

Best seller, guaranteed.
concerned

Kansas City, MO

#166 Apr 30, 2013
Delcia,
You say you were almost arrested on a bad neighbor's "whim", note the "almost arrested". So what if you had been arrested based on someone else's made up story (see where I am going with this?). What would have happened to you? Apparently the police did not believe you if they told you to quit calling them. So what if the neighbor convinced them you truly did something criminal then the police decided to push it even if there was absolutely no evidence. Yes, you would sit where Ryan is. So, you would be guilty because no one could prove otherwise? No, you would be "guilty" because it closed a case for the police and cleared out a file. Case shut. Good luck with your incarcaration. You feel Ryan is guilty yet you had someone make up a story about you and try to get you arrested. You of all people can't see how a situation like that could get out of your control? You live in Columbia. I can see why you'd like to believe Ryan did it. Better that than to worry every time you walked out of your house that there was a killer on the loose.
Eimee

Whitehall, PA

#167 May 1, 2013
I have thought of this scenario many times. It's the only thing that would make more sense than Ryan being completely innocent. Once a lie, always a lie, but over the years a lie didn't become the truth. I think he thought since they didn't have any DNA evidence there was no way they would get convicted. Unfortunately, he was wrong. Although I have found this case very baffling at times, I still I'm not totally convinced of their innocence. Something didn't added up or we are not given the entire story.
WoWoW

Kankakee, IL

#168 May 2, 2013
Eimee wrote:
I have thought of this scenario many times. It's the only thing that would make more sense than Ryan being completely innocent. Once a lie, always a lie, but over the years a lie didn't become the truth. I think he thought since they didn't have any DNA evidence there was no way they would get convicted. Unfortunately, he was wrong. Although I have found this case very baffling at times, I still I'm not totally convinced of their innocence. Something didn't added up or we are not given the entire story.
Don't understand what you are saying. What is it that makes more sense?

And what doesn't add up about Ryan's story? His story never changed from Day 1 and is perfectly consistent. Chuck's original story never made sense. But now it does. Chuck made the whole thing up. We know that now. He's finally admitted it. It's really not in dispute anymore. Just a matter of time. Dig deep into the story and you'll know. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask. Trying to understand this case is a puzzle. If you don't have enough pieces, you are going to think things don't add up or that you don't ave the story. The story is out there. It's long.

“What's your story? Nevermind.”

Since: Apr 13

none of my business.

#169 May 3, 2013
I don't have a clue if Ryan is guilty or not but studies on eye movement suggests that a person lying won't look you in the eyes when they lie. Watch the two videos below at the times stated and you will see when he is asked if he did it or was involved he looks away, down, blinks and almost closes his eyes when he answers every time.

In this video of dateline go to 14:02-14:20 when he is asked by the man if he had anything to do with the murder, and at 16:11-16:24 when he is on the stand and asked by the lady, he blinks and looks away/down both times when he answers


In this video of 48 hours go to 06:39-06:43 when he is asked by the lady if he had anything to do with the murder, he blinks and looks away/down when he answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
WoWoW

Kankakee, IL

#170 May 3, 2013
GLXGT wrote:
I don't have a clue if Ryan is guilty or not but studies on eye movement suggests that a person lying won't look you in the eyes when they lie. Watch the two videos below at the times stated and you will see when he is asked if he did it or was involved he looks away, down, blinks and almost closes his eyes when he answers every time.
In this video of dateline go to 14:02-14:20 when he is asked by the man if he had anything to do with the murder, and at 16:11-16:24 when he is on the stand and asked by the lady, he blinks and looks away/down both times when he answers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =edRLdi3rLpoXX
In this video of 48 hours go to 06:39-06:43 when he is asked by the lady if he had anything to do with the murder, he blinks and looks away/down when he answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Your premise is false. Studies have proven that blinking and looking away are actually not good indicators of deception. That thinking is way too simplistic and not backed by science. See here:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

If you want to learn what real indicators and if you want to know what an actual deception expert thinks about Ryan's interviews and case, read Eyes for Lies blog posts here:

http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search...
Eimee

Whitehall, PA

#172 May 4, 2013
BoCoMo wrote:
A new "48 Hours" will be broadcast tonight at 8:00 central time. I encourage everyone interested in this case to watch the program tonight or record it. It is long past due for this young man to be
given his freedom!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/...
I did watch it. There was absolutely nothing else new concerning this case. Nothing at all to prove his innocence (nada) Bill Ferguson made it sound like there was alot of NEW leads. Where ?? I admire his dedication from a father to help a son, but in 9 yrs with nothing else just proves (IMO) its time to face the inevitable that the right ppl are in jail for this crime. Btw, someone mentioned in a earlier post, Ryan past the lie detector test, he DID NOT !! That is why his defense team fought so hard to keep any testimony protaining to any thing that would even come close to bringing it up by the Prosecution.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MO Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 1 hr REAL AMERICAN PAT... 97,097
MO Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 2 hr Prowd Tee Purty M... 1,849
MO Powerful Photos Blast The Media's Portrayal Of ... 6 hr Go Blue Forever 229
9 year old white bitch got away with murder 10 hr Purple_ana 1
MO Missouri Proposition B: The Puppy Mill Bill (Oct '10) Thu stupid bills for ... 6,930
Do you approve of Vicky Hartzler as Representat... (Oct '11) Thu WeimMom 10
MO Ferguson Police Chief Just Shocked Everyone Wit... Wed i kno 327
•••
•••
•••

California Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

California News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in California
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••