tam
Detective
Posts: 5 
|
Post by tam on Oct 22, 2016 18:32:35 GMT -5
A couple of weeks ago, Crime Watch Daily did an episode on this case in 3 parts below. In case you have trouble, the videos can be viewed here: crimewatchdaily.com/2016/10/13/jamie-snow-conviction-exoneration-project-brings-new-details-in-old-murder-casePart 1: Part 2: Part 3: Case SummaryIn 2001, Jamie Snow was wrongfully convicted for the 1991 murder of a gas station attendant during an apparent armed robbery at the Clark Super 100 Station located at 802 E. Empire St. in Bloomington, Illinois. Jamie was home with his family on the other side of town when the crime occurred. He is currently being represented by the University of Chicago’s Exoneration Project. This will be his 17th year residing in Stateville Prison in Joliet, Illinois for a crime he didn’t commit. This violent and senseless crime occurred in Bloomington, Illinois on Easter Sunday 1991. The murderer walked away with approximately $100, as Jamie Snow ate dinner with his children. The tragedy was compounded when, after several years without a clear suspect, Jamie Snow was arrested and improperly charged by police and prosecutors willing to convict him by any means necessary, even after passing a polygraph exam. The conviction was only possible using testimony of unreliable witnesses, many who had their own legal issues, people easily coerced into accepting deals, some more than willing to give false testimony. Jailhouse informants claimed that Snow “confessed” to them while awaiting trial. Many of whom have now recanted their testimonies in sworn affidavits. There has never been any physical evidence tying Jamie Snow to this case. Jamie has spent the last 17 years in prison fighting to present new evidence demonstrating his innocence. The original trial violated his constitutional rights in several ways, many which stem from a lack of representation by his public defender, who presented little to no defense. Not surprisingly, this attorney has since been disbarred, yet Jamie’s conviction remains. With an over-zealous prosecution and no proper defense, Snow had no more chance at trial than William Little did when faced with an armed gunman. The Prosecution relied on one “star witness” who provided critical eye-witness identification. Yet this same witness was UNABLE to identify Snow in photo books or during a line-up which occurred soon after the crime. It wasn’t until 1999, 8 years later and AFTER Snow’s arrest, that the “star witness” identified Snow upon being presented with his seeing his photograph in a local newspaper and a picture of the original lineup in a private meeting at the state’s attorney’s office shortly before trial. Only at the trial, 10 years after the fact, did the “star witness” speak of Snow’s “eyes” being “unforgettable,” yet he had seen Jamie in numerous close up photos and the in person line-up not long after the incident occurred. Approximately 4 years after conviction police radio tapes disclosed to Snow that “star witness” could NOT have seen what he testified to seeing. Additionally, numerous pieces of critical evidence, never disclosed before trial, have been uncovered. Jamie has always maintained his innocence, and continues to do so. An extended, downloadable case summary, please click here.
Representation
Jamie Snow is being represented by Tara Thompson of the University of Chicago's Exoneration Project. |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 22, 2016 18:46:13 GMT -5
Hi Tam, welcome to the forum! As promised, I've moved this to the Innocence Project section of the forum for you (the exoneration project in this case but hey pretty much the same thing lol). The only other change I made is the forum thread title to fit the format (reflect the state and year of conviction).
I'm re-watching the Crime Watch Daily segments now (I had previously seen the episode but wanted a refresher and not forget key details) so I can more appropriately comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 22, 2016 19:30:36 GMT -5
Ok here's my thoughts, there are numerous problems with this conviction.
-The suspect sketch based on Martinez's supposed eyewitness testimony does not really look that much like Jamie Snow.
-Fingerprints and shoeprints did not apparently match to Jamie Snow
-Martinez cannot identify Jamie in the police lineup despite claiming to come face-to-face with the killer (and even that supposed eyewitness account is discredited by a patrol officer watching the gas station). He says maybe number 3 or 4 when Jamie is number 6. The other witness (Gutierrez) cannot pick anyone out of the line-up at all. Jamie passes the polygraph, yet he still somehow becomes the prime suspect. Jamie Snow had run-ins with the law and his latest charge was assault on a peace officer- because of that, I feel that he was not very well liked by the department and it could have had an impact on the case. (Similar to how Steven Avery's convictions are said to have been influenced by how disliked he was by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department).
-Martinez apparently fails three more times to identify Jamie Snow as the person he saw at the gas station that night, and then after a jailhouse informant says he will snitch for a deal, it is only after that he identifies Jamie after a 5th time of being asked. Jailhouse informants are notoriously unreliable in my opinion and have been a frequent reason for controversial or vacated convictions. Not to mention, the informants the prosecutors cut deals with are all polygraphed and all fail. You can't tell me these informants were not motivated by the $5,000 reward in Billy's case. (And of course there were later six affidavits recanting testimony).
-The defense attorney was apparently an alcoholic DURING Jamie's trial and had mental illness issues and was later disbarred. How is this not grounds for a new trial at least based on ineffective of counsel or the reasonable assumption that the lawyer may not have been in the right frame of mind to be of effective counsel?
-Susan Claycomb is accused of driving the getaway car and testifies on video to being offered probation to testify against Jamie, which she doesn't. While I understand prosecutors cut deals to get the "main killer" all the time, it does fit in once again with the theme of an over zealous prosecution, especially when she defies them to stand trial and is found innocent based on her attorneys who were good discrediting the same witnesses who got Jamie Snow convicted.
-If the Chicago Exoneration Project is willing to pay for DNA testing, then why would McLean County not want that to happen? Regardless of anyone's feelings on Jamie Snow, how could anyone not be in agreement to test the DNA? What if it leads to someone else, and then Billy Little's real killer could face justice.
And that is another thing about this case. So many times I see someone claim they're innocent and that's it. While I understand why of course it should be about their innocence, it never makes me feel good when they don't discuss only about their innocence the victim and/or wanting to get justice for the victim. That's not the case here as Jamie Snow's supporters are offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to Billy's real killer according to Crime Watch Daily. I appreciate Billy's not being forgotten about in this case, and it would be a huge disservice to him to not re-test the DNA evidence in this case. At the very least, based on the witness recantations and inadequate defense alone, Jamie Snow should at the very, very least be entitled to a new trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on Oct 22, 2016 21:31:20 GMT -5
Was it just because Snow beat up or wounded a peace officer that the police department got overcharged with emotion and wanted a convenient excuse to lock Snow away just to vent their rage?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 22, 2016 22:15:35 GMT -5
I think they may have found Jamie a nuisance because of his run-ins and the assault on the peace officer was the straw that broke the camel's back and they really wanted the killer to be him because of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on Oct 23, 2016 0:05:41 GMT -5
I think they may have found Jamie a nuisance because of his run-ins and the assault on the peace officer was the straw that broke the camel's back and they really wanted the killer to be him because of that. So he's only really guilty in a court of officers' irritability and mental gymnastics, so to speak? |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 23, 2016 0:10:46 GMT -5
I have no idea. It's just my opinion that a possible theory as to why Detectives/Prosecutors were so hell bent on focusing on Jamie Snow was because they just didn't like him (which of course is no excuse). This is not an official thing and is just my opinion.
|
|
tam
Detective
Posts: 5
|
Post by tam on Oct 23, 2016 12:46:02 GMT -5
I'm on the road, bit just to be clear, Jamie did not assault a police officer. He was arrested for obstruction of justice. In the show they used the term "obstruction of a peace officer," which is inaccurate. Will clarify more points later.
|
|
|
|
Post by 912thamwuser on Oct 23, 2016 17:31:14 GMT -5
I'm on the road, bit just to be clear, Jamie did not assault a police officer. He was arrested for obstruction of justice. In the show they used the term "obstruction of a peace officer," which is inaccurate. Will clarify more points later. Gomennasai. I apologize for that. In fact, I'm glad you were here to confirm that the show didn't explain that part of the story very well. |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 23, 2016 23:26:48 GMT -5
My apologies as well for misunderstanding/mishearing what Crime Watch Daily meant, although I was half-asleep myself as although I know what obstruction means, for some reason I just heard "on a peace officer" and assumed assault. I guess it was an otherwise excellent segment but that still could have been explained better though as to what happened in the alleged obstruction incident.
I still say in my opinion they might have not liked Jamie for some reason to be so focused on him. Others will say they were just desperate from pressure to solve the case. Perhaps it's a combination of both
|
|
tam
Detective
Posts: 5
|
Post by tam on Oct 24, 2016 9:53:37 GMT -5
Below are a few clarifications and links to expanded information, such as interviews, police reports, crime night info, etc. I hope you find this helpful. As far as the case status, we are waiting on a ruling in federal court on the case. We think they will primarily focus on ineffective counsel. We are fighting for DNA testing in McLean County Circuit Court - they continue to fight DNA testing, even though the Exoneration Project is willing to pay for it. Supporters filed a FOIA lawsuit against the city of Bloomington - we feel we have been wrongfully denied FOIA requests. There's more information about all of these issues below. Feel free to post any questions you may have. This is a very interesting case to sink your teeth into. In reference to the previous post about them targeting Jamie, it's interesting to note that the Detective (Crowe), who was on this case from the beginning never believed Jamie was a viable suspect. As soon as he retired in late 1997, two younger detectives took over the case and never looked at anyone else. One of them, Detective Katz, has had a case overturned because he paid a witness to testify without disclosing it to the defense team. You are correct that the state was under tremendous pressure to solve this case. The victim's mother was relentless in calling police for updates, etc. Which she should have been, I certainly don't blame her. But that still doesn't excuse the tunnel vision in this case. Clarifications from the Crime Watch Show:
- The gun was a .22 (Not a .38, as portrayed in the show. And actually, no gun or casings were ever found - just two .22 bullets recovered from the victims body). - Susan Claycomb, Jamie's co-defendant: What they didn't say is that Susan was pregnant when she was arrested. They let her out of county jail to have her baby. When Jamie said something about them giving her a choice to testify against Jamie or not, and she refused and asked to kiss her kids goodbye and they wouldn't let her, she had just had the baby. Other than those minor issues, the show was very accurate, and we truly appreciate Crime Watch Daily for doing a story on this case. Additional information below: STAR WITNESS DANNY MARTINEZ:
- Expanded crime night/star witness (Danny Martinez) issue along with police reports: blog.freejamiesnow.com/the-11th-hour-witness/- Audio (42 seconds) of Detective Barkes admitting to Danny Martinez that he gave the Martinez' phone number to the victim's mother. What do you suppose they were talking about? soundcloud.com/freejamiesnow/danny-martinez-detective-1- Audio (1 minute 18 seconds) of Detective Barkes asking Martinez if he knows Jamie Snow - says Jamie's names at least 5 times. Again, this was before Martinez ID'd Jamie. soundcloud.com/freejamiesnow/danny-martinez-excerpt-do-youINEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
- The full audio of Appellate Court Judge Knecht addressing the issue of ineffective counsel (4 min.). He is arguing with the State's counsel about the issue. NEW EVIDENCE:
- This video outlines much of the new evidence discovered SINCE the trial in the Jamie Snow case. It’s important to understand, the jury was NEVER presented with this evidence. Much of which was discovered through FOIA requests by supporters. - FOIA Lawsuit: We still believe there is information they are not turning over through FOIA. As outlined in the FOIA lawsuit we filed against the city of Bloomington this month. They will not turn over interview tapes, wiretap orders, wire tap recorded calls, info about reward money distribution, etc. - Local article: www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/advocates-for-convicted-murderer-sue-city-for-records/article_f4fc2e64-5417-5e00-af82-d3c41cacf2ad.html- You can read the full lawsuit here: edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2016/10/city-of-bloomington-sued-under-foia-for-withholding-public-records/DNA TESTING:
- We are currently wrangling with the circuit court to get testing for items that have not been tested. The items are outlined in this petition - we have over 62,000 signatures asking McLean County state's attorney to test the DNA at no cost to the tax payers - the Exoneration Project has agreed to pay for all of it, yet the still fight. Why? www.FreeJamie.com |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Oct 24, 2016 17:22:59 GMT -5
Was it the same lawyer who was an alcoholic that had the stroke or was it another defense attorney representing Jamie Snow? In any case, that's just another layer to this issue of ineffective counsel.
I'll look further into other links too but I really hope those of you fighting for Jamie Snow to be exonerated get that FOIA request and of course the DNA testing. 62,000 voices cannot be dismissed easily.
|
|
