Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
Innocence Commission
Embarrassing Charade
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
Common Mediocrity
of History
Coerced Jailhouse
Confession Witness
Satanic Scam
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
Legislative Concepts
and Proposals
Attorney General
William Barr is a
Sick Retard
Debating with the
Law-and-Order Mob
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Mass Incarceration
Worse than Immigration
for Republicans
2020 Election
Newt Gingrich
Republican Fossils
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Criminal Guilt
Determined Socially
Guilty Until
Proven Innocent
Quick History of
Police Misconduct
Intellectual Dishonesty
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Real Justice
Crosley Green
Common Cause of
False Convictions
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Supports Replacing
Juries With Politicians
False Prophet
Ann Coulter
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Political Activism
and Ideology
Jailhouse Witnesses
Release Two
To Convict One
T-Shirt Artwork
Contact Info
About Site



Real Justice Crosley Green

Kim Hallock told the truth. In the below video, I spend about 100 minutes in and around a pickup truck next to an abandoned orange grove, with a copy of Kim Hallock's 140-page deposition. It is very tedious. I reach two main conclusions:

1) The whole story is true, there was a black guy in the park who drove to the orange grove, except

2) At the very end, Kim changes the story to hide that she was raped.

Unless you are willing to take the time to go through the deposition (click to download), it is hard to have an accurate opinion about it.

Where are you getting the story she was raped? She had no outward appearances of any injuries.. no bruising. That has never been suggested, mentioned in more than thirty years?

I explain that in my analysis of her deposition in my video. I would not have made a 100-minute video, if I believed I could convince you her story was very accurate in less than 100 minutes.

The evidence is her behavior, and the fact that her whole story is very accurate, according to my analysis. Except she changed from the true story at the very end, and had Chip shooting and her fleeing immediately, when almost certainly the door was shut at that time, and Chip scooted over to the door and opened it a tiny bit later. At the time the black guy was telling her what he was going to do, my analysis shows the door was shut, and Chip probably did not shoot until the black guy let her go, or was distracted a tiny bit later.

Are there notarized timestamped photos of every part of her body to prove she was not bruised, and that no photos were discarded? I am a little puzzled how you would know she had no bruises. I agree most people don't know that what a cop says he saw, is not necessarily true. But in this case people are openly accusing police of being misleading. When the lawyer taking her deposition led her to say she was bruised on the arms, she said no. But she said she was "sore all over."

I believe she went to David Stroup's house to keep her secret. And it is very normal for boyfriends and family to keep a rape secret, and to feel it is your own fault. David Stroup probably told Chip's cop uncle Dan Wilmer. And then Dan Wilmer and whoever knew, shut down any further inquiry, to protect their special little girl who worked at the courthouse. They never even told Mark Rixey, they just told him to let it go. And Kim herself probably hid any bruises, she did not want her father and brothers and gossipers to know she was raped.

If they were hiding she was raped, they would certainly not make a record of her being bruised. Bruises would conflict with the sanitized story they were presenting. But I don't believe they even looked, and she chose not to show them.

It is standard for police to leave out evidence, or fail to find evidence, which conflicts with their initial narrative, or with initial witness statements. In my experience, police usually want to find less physical evidence. Because most cases are built on witness testimony, and coerced witness testimony.

A juror cannot absorb a story put together in little tidbits of prints and photographs, each presented by a different technician over several days. A juror becomes sleepy. A juror can only absorb a story told in a single breath by a normal person. So in practice, physical evidence is only used to try to punch holes in the stories told by imperfect witnesses with imperfect memories, to create reasonable doubt. Crime Scene Investigation makes great TV. But it makes for not guilty verdicts.

It is so easy to get a witness, or coerce a co-defendant to tell a story in a plea deal. And once you do that, the witness telling that story on the stand is enough to get a conviction. In real life, that story is usually inaccurate. And fragments of physical evidence only introduce inconsistencies.

If you think central Florida cops don't have a mandate from the local political establishment to lie all day to get the desired outcome, you should visit my website


You say Kim Hallock being raped was never been suggested, mentioned, in more than 30 years. But I point to the fact that you have not watched my video, it is not so easy to watch a 100-minute video. And the analysis of the 140-page deposition used in the video, took even longer. So even in 30 years, how many people are actually going to read through that 140-page deposition, and really analyze it?

It is human nature to want quick answers, and to sell simple stories. I could not get anyone to read that 140-page deposition if I wanted to. The reality is that court cases produce so much paperwork, thousands of pages of discovery, that not even the lawyers go through all of it. Maybe one person 10 years later at the Innocence Project actually cares enough to go through it.

It may even be intentional, the government uses their advantage in the sheer number of employees to churn out paperwork. And in doing so they create an advantage, by overwhelming the one or two lawyers paid a paltry sum by the taxpayer to go through it all. You are supposed to disclose everything, but you can hide things by the sheer volume of paperwork you dump on the public defender or registry attorneys.

So I take the opposite argument, why would this come out in 30 years? How many people even knew? It is possible only Kim and Chip and the guy who did it knew. But Chip's family and Kim's family have no incentive to stir the pot by calling their daughter a liar a year later. Nobody has any incentive to admit that information was hidden.

It also took many years for Prosecutor White's notes about Kim changing her story and the cop suspicions to come out. But everyone has an agenda. They want to prove police are racists, or Kim is a liar. So their investigations begin with an agenda, designed to find evidence to support that agenda. This idea that Kim was raped and hid it does not really help anyone clearly. It does not prove she is evil or cops are racists or Crosley Green is innocent. It just proves Rixey and Clarke have no experience with rape victims, and cops were willing to lie to protect a family member, quite mundane.

And it is so longwinded to prove it, it does not even sell well. How many will ever follow the story I am telling? So it is an oddity of value to nobody, except someone who likes finding truth that probably nobody will ever pay attention to. And again I ask you, how many will spend the time on the deposition like I did? Can you even show me a video of someone else in a pickup truck by an abandoned orange grove with a toy gun like I did?

If nobody else ever even took the deposition out to a pickup truck in 30 years, you have your answer. Maybe one, two, three people did? Ten people?


The 18th Judicial Circuit framed my friend for murder. My friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that did not happen. The 18th Judicial Circuit is known for coerced testimony, hidden evidence, and lies lies lies. So I was given this deposition with the expectation that I would find lies lies lies, and a story that didn't even happen.

I came looking for one thing, with an agenda to find lies, and found the opposite. I certainly did not expect a 20-year-old girl to talk for so long and everything fits together. And I certainly did not come looking for something to make a video about, or to post on facebook. I am not a big maker of videos. I wrote a true crime book about my friend's story, and someone else made it into a podcast, not me. I am not even a member of the facebook group for the book I wrote. I did not put my name on the book, and nor is my name Tracey. I am not a self promoter.

But I did find something sort of like my friend's story. My friend was a 21-year-old girl who got taken advantage of sexually, and was framed for murder. You look her up, Mandi May Jackson, you are going to tell me that young girl Mandi May is a murderer. Just like people are telling me Kim Hallock is a murderer. So what I found out is Kim was right to hide the parts about sex and being raped. People like to frame young females for murder. People in Central Florida are not that different from people in Iran. They want to stone a girl to death for being a slut.


I spent 100 minutes arguing that Kim Hallock's deposition is surprisingly accurate. Building on that, I made a 15-minute video where I use a stopwatch to prove Kim Hallock was most likely raped. If you accept that Kim really ran around from the driver to the passenger door, the black guy would have had a minimum of 27 seconds to rape her, and most likely did.

And she never mentioned it to anyone? Her parents ? David Stroup? She had no injuries? And Chip himself never mentions it to the deputies who beg him to tell them where the assailant went? Chip says nothing? ( chip was completely lucid initially. ) if Kim had given accurate directions.. and rushed to get help for him , he likely would have lived. Have you read all the documents? The trial? The police reports?

How do you know Kim never mentioned being raped to her parents? My assumption is that she did tell David Stroup, but hid it from her parents. She went to David Stroup's house specifically to hide it from her parents, as I explained in my video. Maybe he keeps a good secret. And if her parents did eventually learn about it, what is their incentive to tell any stranger? Why would her parents want strangers to know that she was raped, or her favorite color, or anything else? Why is Kim going to come along years later and say she hid being raped, and bring all kinds of craziness on her, in addition to getting the stigma, and having to go to a new trial or the guy she presumaby thinks is guilty being set free.

If Rixey or Clarke said Chip was completely lucid it would mean nothing to me. Cops around here are complete idiots who also lie all day without consequence, based on whatever stupid little emotional agenda they have. If Chip was so lucid, why didn't he stand up and walk out of there? One reason might be if she did run over his legs, and they hid that. I provided my complete explanation of Chip's psychology and motive in my video, to answer those questions for anyone who wants to know my theory.

Once again, I ask how you would know Kim had no bruises, if she hid being raped. She was a tan girl who went to the beach, it was a season when she could wear long sleeves. People do not automatically bruise when they are sufficiently submissive, just like you can grab everything in a room and leave no fingerprints.

But there is a deeper problem running through everything you say. You assume that criminal justice is some rational utopia, where everyone knows everything. (I guess if you think Crosley Green is innocent, he was framed because of racism.) I assume you have never been accused of a serious crime, or known someone who was, to where you had an insider vantage point. It is all lies and gossip and sloppiness, and covering up lies and gossip and sloppiness, and confusion.

Cops lie and forget stuff and straight leave stuff on the ground, and cover it up later. People at the gas station hide that she bought rolling papers, or invent theories of what happened, which witnesses hear, and later recite as facts. People read stuff in the paper, and then go up on the stand and swear to it like they witnessed it.

One group of people who know it is a crazy mass of lies and confusion is police. That is why they have to hide and lose and fail to find evidence that contradicts their initial narrative or witness statements. Because it is such a huge mass of lies and confusion and gossip and misinformation all sworn to as the truth, they literally have to cheat to end up with something that is consistent when they get to trial.

I thought about reading the trial transcript. But it is worth zilch, compared to the deposition. I have sat in criminal trials in the 18th Judicial Circuit, and the prosecutors coached the witnesses to swear to the prosecution narrative, regardless of what the truth is. It is not rare for prosecutors to hide notes or information about what witnesses really witnessed, it is standard. Because there is zero penalty for hiding things and lying, and in fact they are rewarded for getting convictions. (I assume this increased after Connick v Thompson.) So the trial transcript is unlikely to provide enough additional insight about what happened in the orange grove, to be worth digging through.

Kim's deposition is the best, least polluted, source of information about what actually happened. It didn't have to be that way. I expected it wouldn't be, I expected it to be total garbage. But having gone through it, I know it is infinitely more useful than some much shorter thing a cop wrote up who was not even there. Nobody else was there, and by the time of the trial the prosecutor had coached Kim. So it is 140 pages that makes all other evidence look like nothing.

Police reports that don't fit the initial narrative will be hidden, or rewritten. Police reports that I am able to get 30 years later are extremely sanitized and massaged to get the conviction. Are you not aware that under Florida law, police who commit crimes like throwing away evidence, are investigated by their own police station? Nobody else in Florida has jurisdiction to do it. So cops can literally hide and lie and change whatever they want, because the people who are supposed to regulate it, are captive to the exact same set of incentives and the same politics as the cops themselves.

Why is it so hard to understand that if Chip's cop uncle Dan Wilmer found out Kim was raped and Chip let it happen, and they were buying weed which would look so bad in court that case law wouldn't even let you mention it in front of the jury in Florida, he would tell the other cops to just leave her crazy story be, and they would do what he asked, because it is all in the family?

I live next to an abandoned orange grove, and it makes perfect sense to me Kim would not know the way back to somewhere that somebody else drove to. I can't even find the way back to places I drive myself off road, it happens all the time. I even lost my drive shaft on I-95 by Vero Beach, I pulled off on the shoulder right before the exit. And when I went back 20 minutes later to get it, I could not find the exact spot I pulled off onto the shoulder. Every Christmas and Fourth of July my neighbor throws a party, and he puts a little sign at the end of his street that says "barbecue ->". I have driven there twice or three times. I cannot find my way back to that house without that sign, because I don't know what street it is. Even though it is literally probably less than 1,500 feet away from me, and I have driven there several times when the sign was there to tell me which street it was.

But if you are saying you think Kim made up the whole story, there was no black guy, I have established in my video that is next to impossible. She left out a specific subset of things, the things you would not tell your parents if Chip had not been murdered.

I assume you have never been involved in the criminal justice system, because you have a utopian notion of mankind. Other than this one girl Kim, I guess, who must be the only liar.

Put simply, if we don't have a photograph of Kim with bruises, then we don't get to know if Kim had bruises or not. If we don't have a photo of tire tracks, we don't get to know if there are tire tracks or not. We don't know what the entrances to roads around there looked like in the dark. Jurors in the 18th don't get to know that stuff, and we 30 years later certainly don't get to know that stuff. I assume this is one of the reasons New York passed a law giving defendants quick access to witnesses and crime scenes. Police are not reliable. They could have a photo of tire tracks and say they came from the orange grove, when they came from the baseball field. They could know who the cashier was at the gas station, and throw away that name because she dirties up Kim's story.

In my friend's case, they had pictures of two groups of blue rubber gloves, and the police report said they found two different groups of gloves, one group with apparent blood stains. In the CSI report there was only one group of gloves. They sent out DNA swabs labeled "gloves" and "blue gloves". At one trial, the CSI said there were five gloves total. At another trial, she said there were eight gloves total. Based on the pictures, she definitely did not find the gloves where she said she found them. The CSI completely invented, on the stand at trial, where she took the swabs from, which swabs from which glove, different from any prior information. The prosecutor used those intentionally vague labels to fit his narrative, after they got the DNA results, when they made their plan before the trial.

I remember watching a prosecutor tell jurors about circumstantial evidence. He said "Suppose there is a cabin and a fresh snow, and there are footprints to the cabin, but none leading away. You can infer someone is in that cabin." I wanted to say no, maybe the cop just didn't see the footprints leading away. Maybe they went out the back. Maybe the footprints to the cabin were from the first cop, who the second cop, the CSI with the camera, doesn't know is already in the cabin. Maybe the defendant is a devious criminal who walked backward through his own footprints like the kid in "The Shining", to frame an innocent person.

Police are imperfect sources of information. Trials are even worse. It is normal for jurors in the 18th Judicial Circuit to have no idea what actually happened. There is zero penalty or consequence for perjury on the stand in the 18th Judicial Circuit, whether by cop or witness. I have seen people, the judge, look straight at a person committing obvious perjury, and just get a weird grimace on her face. Nobody even accuses anyone of perjury. A large percentage of trial convictions are based on the coerced testimony of felons, drug dealers, whether as co-defendants or even jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. So neither prosecutors nor defense want penalties for perjury. You are not allowed to call someone a liar in front of the jury. Jurors just assume prosecutors and judges would not put a liar in front of them, but there is no person or institution or mechanism to stop it.

So I would be a fool to launch a rocket off any of that stuff. But I was surprised, that this deposition is worth more than I thought it would be. It is a single flickering candle, in a dim world.


Since your questions merit a response, I will tell you: Where I live next to this abandoned orange grove, even after a year sometimes I could not find my own street at night. Many times I drove past it. Many times I turned off too soon. Finally I began to rely on it being the only one with a light. But now the light is burnt out, and another street has a light. So I tried to do it by mailboxes, but a lot of streets have mailboxes. Also since it is a dirt road, I can look at the wear in the road, how overgrown is it? But I am already past the street by the time I can see that. As of today, I do it by the signs people post on the telephone pole, advertising home improvement services or whatever. There are the most signs by my road. The place Kim was, had none of that, no markers for her to remember what road she came off.

Kim driving out of there in a hurry, and not knowing where she drove out of, fits being raped and fleeing, better than any other narrative. If she were this brilliant liar who left the shoestring, why not memorize the place yourself in case you want to go back and hide it? If it was some place she and Chip knew of and drove there themselves, some other kids would know that, or she would wait longer and give right directions, or she would get Stroup to drive her out there to meet the cops so she could make sure they weren't getting suspicious and snow them with lies.

In my second video, I demonstrate why I believe Kim did see Chip get shot in the chest. And I believe later, she was ashamed to admit she left him there, when she found out he was still alive. All evidence is she thought he was dead, and she in fact drove over him. She was stoned and in shock and paranoid and had just been raped, and above all didn't want her parents to know it was all her fault for hanging out in the park after dark which they told her not to do. I cannot imagine why people assume any behavior of a stoned young girl who has just witnessed a murder is a product of rational planning and thinking and strategizing.

You yourself are very quick to think that I, a stranger, am irrational in my conclusions. And yet you assume that Kim's actions were rational products of true knowledge that was in her mind. So that her actions therefore can be used to infer the truth in a logical way, 1,000 miles away and 30 years later. Suppose I were so crazy and stoned right now, and so angry at you for not believing me, that I drove out to Cocoa tonight, thinking I might still find blood on the ground. What rational, sinister motive would you assume I really had, that I must be hiding? What rational reason would you invent for me driving out there?

I just happen to have photos of three streets in my neighborhood by an abandoned orange grove. Could you tell the difference between these three streets with no street signs, at night, if you drove out of one in the dark without even knowing where you were when you drove out, in a hurry because you were scared of rape and gunshots?

What if finding the abandoned orange grove were like this?

I am not an ER doctor (and neither are Clarke and Rixey medical or psychiatric experts). And I can't know the exact amount of time from when Chip was shot, to when he spoke and he died. But let's say it was 60 minutes. If he was "perfectly lucid" at 56 minutes, and he died at 60 minutes, then he could stand up and walk at 2 minutes.

Unless Kim ran over his legs, which she thought she did. The medical examiner does not get her job by saying what people with heroin mugshots want her to say. The medical examiner gets her job by saying what the elected State Attorney wants her to say. The medical examiner at my friend's trial misled the judge and jury that the victim was alive in a coma for two days, when in fact he died the day he jumped off his balcony. Because they wanted to hide that he was in organ donation for two days before anyone examined him, because the witnesses who saw him jump did not hear a gunshot.

I think very likely Kim did run over Chip's legs. According to my reconstruction of how he fell out, she would have run over them if he did not move them. And she thought she ran over them. Chip may have had some bruises on his knees from having sex in a car or kneeling at the baseball field. But if big sand tires roll over your ankles, they might not cause any bruises. My lifted truck never set off the weight alarm at the drive thru that told people I was ready to order. So I always had to drive up to the window and shout.

So if sand tires rolled over his ankles while he was face down, it might twist his ankles or hyperextend them so he couldn't walk. But you couldn't tell without doing an MRI to see there were fractures or inflammation or something. They are not going to spend $5k or whatever, to do an MRI on a dead guy's ankles in 1989.

So it is not necessarily a case that they hid it or lied. It is just a case that Clarke and Rixey don't know jack.

I will draw also on my own experience with a chest injury. Last winter I tripped on a root in the dark, and flew forward onto a 30-inch metal fence post like in this picture. I put my hands out to break my fall, but they never touched ground, the fence post broke my fall into my chest. It hurt for months, and still sometimes hurts. Near the same time I had the virus, and my heart stopped six times and I could hardly breath for weeks. But through all of that, I was always able to stand up from lying on the ground and walk (when I regained consciousness).

Here is me getting up off the ground and walking with my hands behind my back, in the first take. I am far older and fatter and less flexible than Chip Flynn. And you can hear me breathing. My heart still hurts from the virus. I may die in less than an hour from that shot!

So if Chip wasn't able to walk out of there 2% of the time lapse from getting shot to dying, either Kim ran over his ankles, or he wasn't lucid. So Clarke and Rixey are wrong about something, or there is some missing information.

I'm open to the idea that Chip's ankles got run over, and he didn't tell them or was much worse off than they let on. So why not make Rixey the devious one? Any cop should know how to do a "Why don't you tell us what happened before your friend tells us" setup.

Rixey: Why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: Clarke is out there talking to Chip. He's not angry at you, you didn't run over him. He just said he wants to go home. So why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: Well, Clarke is out there talking to Chip, so why don't you tell us what happened here before Chip tells us?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: You know what, he's dead! So why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.


According to my analysis, there would only be one shell casing on the ground, from the one shot that shot Chip in the chest. All the other shots were Chip shooting air with a revolver. Why would they not find the shell?

Almost all pistols eject right, so the shell would not have gone into the pickup bed. But police are not perfect. And unless they had a metal detector, they almost certainly would not find the shell. The first reason is Chip may have stood up and walked a few yards. I believe Kim ran over his legs. But big sand tires from the back of a lifted pickup, would not cause a severe injury, and maybe not any injury.

But even if they knew within 50 feet where the shell should be, they would not find it without a metal detector. Because abandoned fields in Florida have an airy layer just below the surface, that is several inches thick. It is a loose open sponge of like dead roots. Metal drops into and through it, and you can't find it by eye. I have lost so many bolts and metal parts, even when I saw exactly where they fell, that I bought a metal detector.


Every time I accidentally dig further into this case, it further supports my conclusions without wanting to.

For example, I was bothered that Crosley is described as a drug dealer, with no mentioned history of violence at age 30. Everyone I have known who was capable of such a fearless and aggressive robbery, was already a psycho in high school. Rather than committing their first such act at age 30, they have mellowed out by age 30. There would be some evidence of them being a psycho or attacking someone in high school, or at some point before first doing it age 30. Then I found out Crosley was convicted of robbery in 1977.

I imagined Kim must be leaving out the sex. Then I read somewhere that she did in fact go to Mims Park first and have sex. I thought she must be going to the baseball park with the sheriff by the black neighborhood to buy weed. That is also supported by this idea I learned of later, that she went to Mims Park first. Why go to the baseball park if you already had sex? There is even a "drug deal gone bad" narrative mentioned somewhere I found later.

Most recently, I was reading some of the prosecutor's appeal paperwork, and it states that Clarke and/or Rixey changed their statements meaningfully 20 years later.

Motion For Stay Pending Appeal

So Clarke and Rixey are unreliable. Chip was found still face down in the position Kim left him, having not even rolled over, and moments from death. And yet he was perfectly lucid, not just perhaps dreaming he wanted to go home?

The appeals prosecutor said Diane Clarke and Mark Rixey did not even talk to Kim. But it may be they did, and they were encouraged to leave it out of their police reports. If so, instead of going after this poor girl Kim, you should be demanding that scumbags like Clarke and Rixey who write false police reports be prosecuted, instead of rewarded by their supervisors.


I would love to say Kim Hallock lied, just like a 19-year-old girl lied to give my friend life without parole, for a crime that didn't happen, in the 18th Judicial Circuit. But Kim Hallock told the truth. I don't think the problem is girls lie, or the solution is in the appeals courts.

A lot of things have combined to explode the population of innocent people in prison. The left discredited itself with a flawed philosophy of rehabilitation and root causes. The Supreme Court said sheriffs could coerce inmates to claim other inmates confessed. The Supreme Court said prosecutors have the rights of the King of England to victimize the innocent in Connick v Thompson. New felony murder laws, and life sentences for drugs, made it easier to coerce sophisticated felons and drug users who understand how to game the system, to lie about first-time offenders and incompetents in court. Left-wing judges wrote a lot of case law to protect felons and drug users from having their testimony impeached for being felons and drug users. This was intended to balance the false presumption by the jury that police and prosecutors have good will and tell the truth. In practice, this case law actually sums these two layers of false credibility, when prosecutors coerce drug felons to lie in plea deals. After Mark Fuhrmann and Big Mike Brown, Heather Mcdonald wrote a book telling Republicans they had a moral mandate to cover up police misconduct, and insulate police from consequences for misconduct, to save lives. Case law became perverted to where judges are selected for freakish memory, not for wisdom or judgment. Opposing factions push to convict or release everyone, and the role of the jury in determining who gets locked up has been diminished.

Through all of that, there was a Republican and suburban and upper-class majority of the electorate, that prevented fixing any of those root causes through the legislature. So the focus turned to appeals courts, and case law in the Supreme Court, and to dealing with cases of false conviction one-by-one. Today that has changed. A sufficient number of people have seen their friends and family members victimized by a justice system that seeks to maximize convictions and punishment, and the suffering of the underclass, rather than discriminate between innocent and guilty. The majority now sees there are problems, and wants to improve the product. So I think it is time to turn the focus away from appeals and Supreme Court cases, to legislative and structural changes to punish police and prosecutors for misconduct, and deter perjury in coerced testimony and plea bargains.

The mob will do everything they can before and after the jury trial to make it irrelevant, and get their way. The mob can never fix a case, because they can only act like a mob. The best-intentioned people on the Internet, will do evil without wanting to. They will usually do worse than the jury trial. The jury trial was designed to take it out of their hands. So the jury trial needs to be embraced, and repaired and rehabilitated and restored to be the best it can be, the most sincere and independent it can be. And the damage to the jury trial, in the form of coerced testimony and cops lying without penalty, and crooked prosecutors convicting innocents without penalty and in fact with a reward, needs to be fixed.



I am tired of people literally inventing evidence to prove Kim Hallock killed Chip Flynn. Like insisting it is strange she couldn't find her way back to an unmarked dirt turnoff where she had never been before, and fled out of in the dark.

Nowhere has anybody put up a single website with all the proof, all the photos, all the evidence and testimony in the Crosley Green case, like I have done for my friend who was falsely convicted at

The reason they haven't is because they don't want to. It is all flimsy. It is not a serious story. And they don't want it to be, it is not their business. It is a human interest story about a mean little girl who framed "a black guy." And that is the little story they want to tell to sell ads for their podcast or TV show whatever. An actual story with actual evidence would be tedious, it wouldn't work, nobody would listen for that long.

The reason this bothers me is because there are real problems with the US criminal justice system, and false convictions. There are problems the Innocence Project lists, like bad lineups, and coerced witnesses. Heart strummers like Erin Moriarty distract from that truth, when they look right past a crooked prosecutor, and look right past police who changed their sworn story 20 years later, to blame a stoned teenage girl for the problems in the US criminal justice system.

Erin Moriarty even embraces these known liars as sources for her story. The cops said Chip Flynn was lucid, never mind he was moments from death and still in the exact position Kim last saw him, having not even rolled onto his back. The prosecutor said the suspicions should have been examined. Erin Moriarty cozies up to these known liars who help her sell TV ads, and then says "Why won't Kim Hallock whom the mob accuses of murder and was probably raped, let me interview her and create some huge event I can make my name and a fortune reporting on? What is she hiding?"

Stoned teenage girls are not the achilles heal of the US criminal justice system. But news promoters who whip up a mob with innuendo, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so with incomplete tidbits of evidence, are a major problem with the US criminal justice system.

We have clowns like Tim Curtis who show up and claim to be an actual witness to whatever the latest gossip is. People like that are tools of the mob, a real problem for the criminal justice system. Erin Moriarty elevates people like that on her show.

I literally have more Crosley Green testimony, arguments, and analysis posted at my website than either John Alberto Torres or Erin Moriarty have posted anywhere, and more than anyone seems interested to post on Wikipedia. So I challenge any whiney little itch who wants to run with a mob and cry all day that Kim Hallock is a murderer: Put up a complete and detailed website with ALL the evidence like I did at, or shut up forever.

You are doing a disservice to the justice system, and to thousands of innocent people locked in prison, with your cheezy little stories. You are an embarrassment to the innocence movement. When has Erin Moriarty even advocated there should be some legal penalty for a prosecutor who hides discovery? She won't, because the prosecutor is her buddy, he gives her statements she can print. And Kim Hallock gives her nothing, and that is how you are decided guilty by the news media in Erin Moriarty's world.


And I also want to clear something up for aggressive people who accuse Kim Hallock of murder. If Kim Hallock wants to hide something about herself, like that she was raped that night, that is known as privacy.

Privacy is a right to protect yourself, because man is naturally evil and aggressive. Man will use whatever information he can get, to do evil to any person he can take advantage of. The right of a person to keep secrets is sacred.

The right of a stranger to invent accusations, to make up stories to fill the void created by the secrets which privacy is composed of, is zero. The difference is as sharp as the difference between consensual sex and rape. It is as different as between me eating food out of my own refrigerator, and you running in and eating my food.


Crosley Green's DNA and Criminal Justice on Planet Earth

In Crosley Green's pending case, the State mentioned many things that were not known at trial. One of them was a DNA test on a hair that was found in the car or something. It basically matched Crosley Green.

What bothers me about this so much, is it begins with the assumption that evidence is real, that the people who produce it are perfect and honest. The question is not whether the DNA matches. It is whether human beings who have a strong bias for the result, are capable of conducting an exercise like this honestly. The reality is there is not a public demand for honesty, or to audit the honesty of the work of people like the FDLE. There are many who would protect crooked work at the FDLE, and shield them from being exposed as dishonest.

In my friend's case Mandi May Jackson, there was an FDLE ballistics analyst who did bad work, Christine Murphy. If they fired her, you could tell the jury she did bad work. But instead she "retired". According to case law in Florida, you can't tell the jury if she did bad work, only if she had a reputation for bad work. So by her retiring instead of firing her, they effectively hid her bad work from juries. You just are not allowed to tell them. There are many extraordinary examples in Mandi May Jackson's case that show the extent to which dishonesty is mainstream and accepted and demanded by biased factions in criminal justice. I will share just one example here.

There was a woman Denise Smith who saw a man jump off his balcony. He lingered at the railing long enough for her and her brother Russell Songer to say "don't jump, don't jump." She dialed 911 and called it in as a suicide. She mentioned no gunshot or words. She was in the Navy, and claims to be familiar with what guns sound like. The first two responding officers clearly recorded her story. One wrote it in his police report. The other probably wrote it in his police report but it was edited out by the lead detective. But he described what she said clearly and confidently in his deposition.

At trial, Denise Smith told a completely different story. She said there was a gunshot and the man came running out onto the balcony, and basically jumped over the railing. Her brother Russell Songer said the man cried "Oh no!" right before the gunshot. They clearly said nothing like that to the police the day it actually happened. The Detective called them in a few weeks later. And before he took their statements, he told them his new narrative that the victim was shot while fleeing, and fled a gunshot over the balcony.

Just to make sure there is no doubt, there is physical evidence. The physical evidence matches what they originally told police, and makes the "shot while fleeing" story they told at trial, impossible. This woman did not know the man who died, or live in his building. She did not know my friend who was accused. She was a complete stranger who was out walking through the park with her brother. She considers herself a moral person.

And yet with no direct interest in the case, not knowing anyone involved, and with no apparent incentive, she went up on the stand and told straight lies with no incentive whatsoever. She was not coerced to lie under a plea bargain. She was not lying to get out of jail, or for money, or to avenge a friend, or under any kind of pressure. And yet she felt she was doing right as a good citizen to go up on the stand and tell complete lies about what she witnessed, for the purpose of taking an innocent person's life.

That is the ecosystem the FDLE lives in, when they do their little DNA experiments like they did for Crosley Green.


Read how John A Torres of Florida Today shamelessly pushes garbage for clicks, and discredits the innocence movement: John A Torres Pushes Contradictions, Hearsay, and Garbage.



Here is the opinion of the US District Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, reversing the Middle District of Florida:


Before reading all 184 pages, I believe this ruling is legally correct. I also believe Crosley did it. I also believe Crosley should get a new trial. The lower court opinion contained basic errors, which should not have been critical to the outcome but may have contributed to it. The only relevant matter in the appeal is the withheld notes of the opinion of police who never met Kim Hallock, that Kim Hallock did it. Other matters mentioned include the DNA test, and more recent conflicting sworn statements. I believe the standard, is whether the withheld notes could have affected the trial outcome, from the vantage point of the court. Crosley's attorneys knew of the evidence which the withheld police opinion relied on, specifically some inconsistencies in Kim Hallock's story, which were not material to the outcome. The idea is that the opinion of a cop as to guilt, particularly one who never met Kim Hallock, is not admissible as evidence at trial, and so could not have affected the trial outcome. The counter-argument is that if this police opinion was made available to Crosley's attorneys, it could have informed them that the possibility Kim Hallock did it needed to be more deeply investigated. The reality is Crosley's attorneys already had all the data they needed to decide whether to investigate whether Kim Hallock did it. And they likely did not investigate if Kim Hallock did it, because they knew it wasn't true. But the court does not know what Crosley's lawyers probably know, which is that Crosley was there. So from the point of view of the court, the information in the withheld notes could have been used by Crosley's lawyers to guide their investigation before trial, but not at trial. I believe the legal standard is whether the notes could have been used or could have helped at trial, which they could not have. Even if the legal standard is could they have helped Crosley's attorneys investigate before trial, there is a fair argument that they could not have, as Crosley's attorneys were aware of Hallock's small inconsistencies, were aware of the "drug deal gone bad" theory, and had the theory that Kim Hallock did it available to them. Particularly where the opinion of a cop who never met Kim Hallock and never investigated the case, is not relevant to a lawyer who knows all the objective facts that cop knew and more. I have not seen the opinion of the appeals court, and it may refer to basic errors in the lower court ruling which contributed to the outcome. My own opinion is that if they withheld it, there should be a new trial, period. But then there is an argument that the state missed their opportunity to provide a fair trial in a timely fashion, which I don't know if there is any legal support for.


After reading all 184 pages of Crosley's appeal reversal, I cannot find fault in it. That may be because Crosley has not had lawyers who raised the arguments effectively. Off the top of my head, I find only three issues in Crosley's trial and conviction, 1) whether his lawyer should have stricken the juror whose niece was murdered, 2) whether the dog-track evidence was reliable, and 3) whether the reliability of coerced witnesses was sufficiently explained to the jurors. The law does not seem to support any mechanism for relief for the trial lawyer's decision to keep that juror, since the juror cured his problems with legally accepted statements, and there is no reason to suspect it affected the outcome. The dog track stuff may be unreliable, or maybe should have been discredited. But Crosley could have been easily convicted without it. It does not seem any appeal has ever raised the issue of whether coerced witnesses were sufficiently explained to the jurors. I also think Crosley's lawyers wasted time in not getting a quick ruling explicitly on every matter from the Florida Supreme Court, to avoid ambiguity in whether the federal court has jurisdiction. I think making that claim on actual innocence is a waste of time. But better representation is hard to come by even with money but only with a compelling case for innocence. And the case for Crosley's innocence or even that the jurors were misled or the outcome is not legal, is not compelling. Finally, I think the jurors figured out what happened here, that Kim Hallock went to the park to buy weed and the drug dealer robbed them. And any additional exploration or new evidence would lead to the same conclusion, which I arrived at myself just from Kim Hallock's deposition. I am disgusted that Clarke, Rixey, and news people have chosen this case to make issues where there are none.