This letter was intended to be published by a journalist from Delaware News Journal. The journalist decided not to publish Mr. Ayers letter.
I was recently offered an opportunity to read the article you published in regards to the acquittals, hung juries and charges being dismissed against defendants, along with your opinion of an open script by exonerated co-defendant Deric Forney. While I appreciate your attempt at impartiality while following and reporting on the Vaughn uprising trials, I have a clear understanding on how properly placed words by an assumed trusted voice by the public on any topic can move the conscious and unconscious (woke/and unwoke) alike! Therefore I would like to address a few statements you made to the public.
When Deric Forney expressed his feelings as an innocent man to have to fight for his liberty and freedom and challenged the “persecution’s” haste and overzealous nature in which the indictments were passed out, that’s what he attributes to the acquittals, hung juries and dismissals. Your response was, while he may see it his way, others may see these outcomes as a lack of justice? My response is that in order to come to that conclusion, an individual who was not at the scene of the crime would have to believe the inconsistent and often contradictory statements of individuals seeking favor from the state, which in itself could be the definition of reasonable doubt!
Did anyone stop to think about the fact that these men who have been exonerated, who already faced the uphill battle of re-integrating into society, now have the added stigma of being labeled as cop killers! If what you say is in fact true, that some may think their exoneration’s are a lack of justice, then how do you expect these men to obtain legal occupations or even be able to show up at a parent conference meeting at their children’s schools? We have to start asking harder questions about the indictment process as a whole in the state of Delaware because, as you’ve pointed out, even if found innocent one may still be deemed guilty!
My second reason for reaching out to you was, in my mind, the most inaccurate statement and most partial statement you’ve written throughout this whole trial. Which is that the last two trials offered more evidence against the others. All I ask is that you understand that statement alone influences the public to believe these men are guilty. There was no impartiality expressed within that opinion whatsoever. What I hope is that what I’m about to express, you find interest enough in to investigate. One undisputed fact is that the state doesn’t even believe their own witnesses. Yet they’re so desperate for a conviction on the death of Sgt. Floyd that they continue to push forward regardless of if they have to put liars and perjurers on the stand. Did it simply go over everyone’s head that at the first trial Henry Anderson testified that all he saw was what looked like a little blood on Kevin Berry’s arm, but never saw him do anything, only to turn around at Kevin Berry’s trial and state under oath he watched Kevin stomp on an officer’s head. The prosecution knew he committed perjury. Yet it met their agenda. And now they intend to call this same witness to testify against Roman Shankaras, Alejandro Rodriguez-Ortiz and Lawrence Michaels.
Antonino Guzman will be one of the only two witnesses called to testify to seeing Lawrence Michaels assault Officer Floyd. Why isn’t the state questioning the fact that every single witness who gave a statement or testified has stated that when the inmate called the remaining inmates in from yard, there were absolutely no officers in sight. Over 50 statements support this fact. Yet the state will place Mr. Guzman on the stand and he will testify that once the remaining inmates were called in, this is when he saw the attack take place. The state clearly knows he’s lying but because he’s placing this defendant on Sgt. Floyd, they’ll roll the dice. How else can you explain the fact that Mr. Guzman was slated to testify to seeing other defendants attack another officer, yet those defendants charges were dismissed! The gamble the state is taking is that a jury would more likely convict on a lie in regards of the murder than simply an assault. Mr. Guzman’s list of contradictions is extensive and no man’s liberty and freedom should hang in the balance of his words!
Michael Rodriguez will also be called to testify that he witnessed Michaels and Ortiz attack officers. This is in direct contradiction to Officer Wilkerson who will testify that the tier Mr. Rodriguez came off of to witness the attack was in fact locked during the attack! The state dropped charges against other defendants Mr. Rodriguez was also slated to testify against. The state will also have to contend with the testimony of Deric Forney and John Bramble who will let the jury know how this witness attempted to trade their freedom for his.
In truth Mr. Wilson this trial will be exactly like the first two because like I stated in my opening to the courts: After reading our 3,000 pieces of paper at least twice, the only thing consistent is the inconsistency and lies. Thank you for your time and shortly I should be able to supply you with the proof of my words. At this point it’s clear the state is attempting to leverage its prestige through malfeasance in one last hope to secure a conviction on the death of Sgt. Floyd. Why should anyone accept or be comfortable living in a world where a human being’s life, liberty and freedom can be decided on clear lies and contradictions and inconsistencies? This should be the moral question asked if in fact society is truly seeking pure justice as it claims?
Jarreau A. Ayers