Speaker 1: Kennon. Cathy Middleton had properties in Blue Springs, Missouri, as
Speaker 1: well as Ken's family laid back in Arkansas, where they
Speaker 1: hoped to one day retire. On February twelfth, nineteen ninety,
Speaker 1: when he planned to clean a gun that he had
Speaker 1: brought back from Arkansas, Ken felt ill, laid the gun
Speaker 1: down and took the nap. Meanwhile, Cathy returned early from
Speaker 1: work to confront Ken about news of a regretful affair
Speaker 1: that had ended three years earlier. After grabbing the gun
Speaker 1: from where Ken had laid it down, Cathy made her
Speaker 1: way to the phone to call the alleged mistress. When
Speaker 1: tragedy struck. It is believed that it destroyed. Kathy mishandled
Speaker 1: the weapon in her left hand and shot herself in
Speaker 1: the head. Ken immediately called nine one one, and first
Speaker 1: responders found him without a drop of blood or gunshot
Speaker 1: residue on him. A positive gunshot residue test of Cathy's
Speaker 1: left hand would have conclusively ruled her death as a
Speaker 1: tragic accident. However, her left hand test results went missing
Speaker 1: and the crime lab document was altered in what clearly
Speaker 1: appears to be evidence tampering, where the medical amateur and
Speaker 1: blood spatter expert willing to testify to an impossible scenario
Speaker 1: in which Ken was magically able to shoot Kathy from
Speaker 1: less than a foot away while remaining free of blood
Speaker 1: and g s R. Ken was sentenced to life plus
Speaker 1: two hundred years. Despite the mishandling of the crime scene,
Speaker 1: ballistics testing was still able to prove Ken's innocence. His
Speaker 1: conviction was overturned in two thousand four, but a jurisdictional
Speaker 1: technicality has held him in legal limbo ever since. Canaida's
Speaker 1: son Cliff Middleton join us to ask, how is it
Speaker 1: that even though a new statute remedies that technicality, the
Speaker 1: current prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker, refuses to act. This is
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Ronful Conviction. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jason Farm. You know, each week I have a pretty
Speaker 1: good idea of how I'm going to start the show.
Speaker 1: You Know, usually there's one main focus, one main problem
Speaker 1: that we can talk about in any particular case. But
Speaker 1: this time I don't even know where to start. When
Speaker 1: our friend Larry Garrison, who's actually known as the news
Speaker 1: breaker okay for his years of investigative reporting and his
Speaker 1: work through Silver Creek Entertainment. When he first told me
Speaker 1: in US here at Ron Convention about the case of
Speaker 1: Ken Middleton, he had lived up to his nickname once again,
Speaker 1: I mean the newsbreaker. So I'll start by saying that
Speaker 1: Ken Middleton has been in prison for over thirty years
Speaker 1: for being present during what they may well have known
Speaker 1: all along was just a tragic accident. And there are
Speaker 1: so many problems in this case that we could literally
Speaker 1: pick on any one of them and make an entire
Speaker 1: episode of the show just about that. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: ineffective assistance of council, false expert testimony, evidence, tampering, incompetent
Speaker 1: investigator's official corruption, conflict of interest, Ken refusing freedom through
Speaker 1: an Alford play. Write something that you never catch a
Speaker 1: guilty person doing, and that's something that happened seventeen years ago,
Speaker 1: almost eighteen now. Plus There's this insane jurisdictional technicality that
Speaker 1: has kept this innocent man in prison long past the
Speaker 1: time that I believe everyone knows that he should have
Speaker 1: ever been in there. So, without further ado, at seventy
Speaker 1: seven years old, Ken is calling in from inside the
Speaker 1: prison walls in Missouri. Ken, I'm so sorry, you're here
Speaker 1: because of the reason why you're here, but I'm very
Speaker 1: honored to have you on the show. Thank you appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And with Ken is his son and probably the most
Speaker 1: passionate advocate, Cliff Middleton. Thanks for joining us. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for having me on. Jason, I really really
Speaker 1: appreciate it. And I know how hard this is going
Speaker 1: to be. I mean, like any other son, you love
Speaker 1: your dad and you just want this thing to end. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go back in time and I'm gonna turn to you. Ken.
Speaker 1: This is early in Blue Springs, MS and you're there
Speaker 1: with your wife Kathy. So tell us what was happening
Speaker 1: in your life? What were things like before all this happened.
Speaker 1: It was great. We had a great marriage for over
Speaker 1: sixteen years. Had a farm in Arkansas, two different farms.
Speaker 1: I had three hundred and fifty two acres of the land.
Speaker 1: I had drove a truck for over twenty years, and
Speaker 1: I had injured my back and I wasn't working right then.
Speaker 1: So I was going to the farm and doing projects,
Speaker 1: working on the house and watching nice of the cattle
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. Cathy worked at eight D and
Speaker 1: T for twenty eight years. And two years he'd have
Speaker 1: her time in worse, she could retire regardless of age.
Speaker 1: And that's what was waiting on and was moving back
Speaker 1: to Arkansas for good. And let's get into how this
Speaker 1: came to pass. So let's go back to February, and
Speaker 1: just to set the stage here, you had been at
Speaker 1: your place in Arkansas and you brought a handgun that
Speaker 1: you owned to Missouri with you. But meanwhile you had
Speaker 1: been feeling sick, but no one knew at the time,
Speaker 1: not you or anybody, that you were really seriously ill
Speaker 1: at this point, is that right? Right? And I was
Speaker 1: sick for left Arkansas, and when I got back Sunday afternoon,
Speaker 1: I didn't sleep much all night. So the next morning,
Speaker 1: Kathy had went to work at a T N T.
Speaker 1: And I unloaded the rest of the truck and brought
Speaker 1: the gun in the house. It had been in Arkansas
Speaker 1: since I went to Coloretto elk hunt in the fall before,
Speaker 1: and there's a big snow and rain and stuff in
Speaker 1: Colorado and it got wet. So I picked it up
Speaker 1: and brought it back to Missouri as aimed to clean it.
Speaker 1: And when I got it out of the truck, I
Speaker 1: went in the house and sat down. I called Kathy
Speaker 1: at work, and she asked me how I was feeling.
Speaker 1: I said about the same. I wasn't feeling good, and
Speaker 1: I sat in a recliner and I went to sleep.
Speaker 1: And I had never cleaned the gun. So the next
Speaker 1: thing I knew is she was already home, and she
Speaker 1: picked up the gun out of the tail and had
Speaker 1: had the gun laying on and she was upset that
Speaker 1: somebody had told her that was having affair with a woman,
Speaker 1: which was true, but it had been over for three years.
Speaker 1: And she walked over to the phone in the dining
Speaker 1: room to call a woman. So I got up and dazzy,
Speaker 1: and next thing I know, the tragedy had happened. And
Speaker 1: the tragedy that had happened is the matter of this
Speaker 1: dispute between the Middleton's and the State. Now. Ken maintained
Speaker 1: his innocence in the matter, that this was a tragic
Speaker 1: accident in which Kathy visibly upset about the news of
Speaker 1: this affair, and on her way to the phone to
Speaker 1: confront your alleged mistress, Cathy was holding the gun in
Speaker 1: her left hand and accidentally shot herself on the left
Speaker 1: side of her forehead. Splattering blood all over the wall.
Speaker 1: This version of events is supported by the ballistics and
Speaker 1: all the other physical evidence. And then there's what the
Speaker 1: state wants everyone to believe. Right, bear with me, because
Speaker 1: this is nuts. That Ken had somehow held Cathy up
Speaker 1: against the wall and shot her in the face, but somehow,
Speaker 1: miraculously was able to be completely clear of blood spatter
Speaker 1: or gunshot residue, not a trace on him. And we'll
Speaker 1: get into all of that a bit later. So back
Speaker 1: to this terrible tragedy. A gunshot rang out and Cathy
Speaker 1: was on the floor in a pool of blood. What
Speaker 1: a nightmare? Ken? What happened next? I've seen her on
Speaker 1: the floor and grabbed the gun and put it on
Speaker 1: the table and call nine one one immediately. I asked
Speaker 1: for the paramedics and had called them three times within
Speaker 1: a short period of time, and wanted to know who
Speaker 1: the paramedics was. And the third time the operator told
Speaker 1: me to go outside, that the paramedics were there. And
Speaker 1: I looked out, and I told her that I had
Speaker 1: looked out and there wasn't nobody out there, and she
Speaker 1: convinced me to go outside that they were there. So
Speaker 1: I went out and the first thing I've seen was
Speaker 1: a couple behind the walls screaming at me to get
Speaker 1: my hands in the air and turn around with my
Speaker 1: back to him at his gun pointed at me, and
Speaker 1: I've done as he said, and he'd come up behind
Speaker 1: me and searched me. Wanted to know who the paramedics were,
Speaker 1: and he ordered me back in the house. And we
Speaker 1: went back in the house and he went in and
Speaker 1: checked on my life, and I was just historical, and
Speaker 1: I guess I was done on my knees, and he
Speaker 1: jerked me up. And when he'd done that fast, I've
Speaker 1: become dizzy, real dizzy, and I thought I was ain't
Speaker 1: a blackout, So I said, as ain't be sick, and
Speaker 1: I went down the hall to the bathroom and I
Speaker 1: went in and spliced water on my face, and then
Speaker 1: he took me outside and I had a real bad
Speaker 1: hurting in my left arm and chest. Now, when the
Speaker 1: paramedics arrived, he determined, Kenny, you would have been hyperventilating,
Speaker 1: complaining of chess planes and the blood pressure was going crazy,
Speaker 1: and they convinced you to go to the hospital for
Speaker 1: an examination. They taught me to go into the hospital
Speaker 1: and they took me to three medical hospitals, and then
Speaker 1: on the third one, I was forced in a mental
Speaker 1: hospital till the next day. They later tried to say
Speaker 1: that you had checked into that mental hospital to try
Speaker 1: to get away with murder, claimed by claiming insanity defense.
Speaker 1: But we're getting ahead of ourselves here, and let's not
Speaker 1: leave out the fact that your dad was in and
Speaker 1: out of consciousness on his way to the hospital, and
Speaker 1: they took an e k G at the hospital and
Speaker 1: it showed that Ken, that you had recently suffered from
Speaker 1: a heart attack. Now here's another thing that I have
Speaker 1: trouble understanding or processing. The officers didn't write their statements
Speaker 1: until days later, and they did it by memory, right,
Speaker 1: And these statements that were taken from a historical man
Speaker 1: who had to be rushed to the hospital talking about you,
Speaker 1: of course, Ken, who was just trying to help figure
Speaker 1: out what happened, So the officers didn't bother to write
Speaker 1: it down. There were a couple police reports that were
Speaker 1: handwritten out that day, but the official reports that I
Speaker 1: have reviewed were written on I believe it was February one,
Speaker 1: and Cathy died on the twelve. Now, in researching this case,
Speaker 1: I saw in the police reports where they kept on
Speaker 1: documenting instances in which Kenada allegedly had done something with
Speaker 1: his hands, like you mentioned splashing water on its face, right,
Speaker 1: They wrote down another instance where they said he wiped
Speaker 1: his hands on the door, touched dirt in a potted plant,
Speaker 1: and the implication is that ken was trying to somehow
Speaker 1: wash away the gunshot residue. There's a picture the Independence
Speaker 1: News Examiner paper took of my father out there on
Speaker 1: the front stoop, leaning over that potter plant, sobbing, and
Speaker 1: the two paramedics are consoling him him. It's it's very
Speaker 1: obvious that he was in a state of shock and hysteria.
Speaker 1: First of all, you already claimed he was washing his
Speaker 1: hands when he splashed water on his face. It's crazy
Speaker 1: to think that somebody's trying to wash their hands in
Speaker 1: the dirt unless you've been involved in something like this.
Speaker 1: How would you even know what a gunshot residue test is,
Speaker 1: especially in nine JSON maybe the day with crime shows
Speaker 1: and things. But he didn't know what they were testing
Speaker 1: him for. They took my shirt, under shirt and clothes
Speaker 1: and shoes and all and they did tested then come
Speaker 1: back native no blood or nothing on my long sleeve shirt.
Speaker 1: And the picture in the front hide of a house
Speaker 1: when I was over the stove shows the long sleeve
Speaker 1: shirt down to my wrist. There was no blood, no
Speaker 1: gunshot on it. Right and as the evidence clearly shows,
Speaker 1: she was shot from very close range, less than a
Speaker 1: foot away, and there's no way you can do that
Speaker 1: without being covered in blood and gunshot residue. But you
Speaker 1: weren't because you didn't kill her, and Cathy's gunshot residue
Speaker 1: tests would likely have corroborated Ken's version of events and
Speaker 1: showing that this was a tragic accident not a homicide. Cliff,
Speaker 1: can you explain what I mean by that? They swabbed
Speaker 1: both of her hands that day for gunshot residue, and
Speaker 1: the prime document that they fill out shows that they
Speaker 1: swabbed both hands, right and left hands, and it shows
Speaker 1: they used two different kids to do that, one for
Speaker 1: the right hand and one for the left hand. Well,
Speaker 1: the next day when the corner did the autopsy, the
Speaker 1: corner ruled it a homicide based on what the police
Speaker 1: were telling him, unless other information come forward to prove otherwise.
Speaker 1: Now that gunshot residue was important information and took him
Speaker 1: nine days to turn the gunshot residue samples into the
Speaker 1: crime lab, and when they turned them into the crime lab,
Speaker 1: the document was altered to show only one kid and
Speaker 1: the left hand was wide it out to show they
Speaker 1: only tested the right hand when she was shot from
Speaker 1: eight to twelve inches away on the left side of
Speaker 1: her head. You really have to see this to believe it.
Speaker 1: And we're going to link pictures of this in our
Speaker 1: episode because I'm looking at it right now and i
Speaker 1: still can't believe that I'm actually looking at what I'm
Speaker 1: looking at. Okay. So, the test of Cathy's left hand,
Speaker 1: the one in which she would have held the gun
Speaker 1: in order to shoot herself, the test of that hand disappeared,
Speaker 1: or it wasn't tested on purpose. There's only two possibilities.
Speaker 1: The crime lab document that should have been for both
Speaker 1: of her hands was altered with white out. Okay, remember
Speaker 1: white out. It's unreal. This is like to show that
Speaker 1: only her right hand had been tested. And this is
Speaker 1: reinforced when you compare it with the g s R
Speaker 1: test document for Ken in the same handwriting okay, get
Speaker 1: ready for this. It states quote number of articles too.
Speaker 1: G SR test kits for right and left hands end quote.
Speaker 1: But then on Cathy's GSR test document, in the same
Speaker 1: exact handwriting, it says, quote number of articles and whatever
Speaker 1: was there is white it out right, just white it out,
Speaker 1: and the number one is at its place, and then
Speaker 1: it reads quote gunshot residue for right end quote, followed
Speaker 1: by another gob of white out and the word hand.
Speaker 1: So in all likelihood the white out is simply covering
Speaker 1: the words and left as it would have been in
Speaker 1: a request for testing of both right and left hands,
Speaker 1: where now only one test for her right hand exists
Speaker 1: and the one that really matters the left hand is missing.
Speaker 1: Later on, after us convicted years later, we took their
Speaker 1: deposition and Geoff Rogers that wrote the report out he
Speaker 1: swore that he didn't put the white out on that
Speaker 1: because his own green paper, and he said that he
Speaker 1: wouldn't have whited it out. He had just filled out
Speaker 1: a new report and we got Dave Link, the one
Speaker 1: that took it to the lab. Nine days later. He
Speaker 1: swore up down that he didn't do it, and he
Speaker 1: was asked did he always take both hands of a
Speaker 1: close gunshot residue test? He said yes. My attorney asked
Speaker 1: him years later in ninety seven always, and he said absolutely.
Speaker 1: They waited out the left hand, and they waited out
Speaker 1: the number of articles. I mean somebody literally just took
Speaker 1: white out. Yeah, the left hand. If it would have
Speaker 1: come back positive, it would have been power full evidence
Speaker 1: that she accidentally fired the gun herself. Our attorney told
Speaker 1: us that if that left hand come back positive, the
Speaker 1: corner would have changed his findings and they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: had a case against my father. It all would have
Speaker 1: ended right there. This episode is underwritten by A i G,
Speaker 1: a leading global insurance company. A I G is committed
Speaker 1: to corporate social responsibility and is making a positive difference
Speaker 1: in the lives of its employees and in the communities
Speaker 1: where we work and live. In light of the compelling
Speaker 1: need for pro bono legal assistance, and in recognition of
Speaker 1: A I g's commitment to criminal and social justice reform,
Speaker 1: the A i G pro Bono Program provides free legal
Speaker 1: services and other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a small town police department. My understanding is
Speaker 1: there hadn't been a homicide investigation in almost a decade.
Speaker 1: These people were not up to the task, and they
Speaker 1: started making mistakes or less as soon as they walked
Speaker 1: into the house. Yes, yes, And like so many other cases,
Speaker 1: I believe the police immediately focused on my father and
Speaker 1: had tunnel vision as they began to investigate this case.
Speaker 1: I'll start with the fact that they took photos that
Speaker 1: day of the alleged crime scene, and the photos allegedly
Speaker 1: did not come out, And after Cathy's body was removed,
Speaker 1: they went back and restaged the crime scene and took
Speaker 1: new photos. By the time they'd done this, my step
Speaker 1: mother had already been taken out of the house, and
Speaker 1: the fire department had actually been called into cut sheet
Speaker 1: rock out of the wall with blood spatter and things,
Speaker 1: and so the new pictures they took the sheet rock
Speaker 1: was already cut out, and they had drawn a diagram
Speaker 1: of the dining room where this happened, and the diagram
Speaker 1: didn't match the pictures. They had moved the dining room
Speaker 1: table all the way up against the wall to make
Speaker 1: it appear that there was a bigger area there when
Speaker 1: she was shot, right to make room for this alleged
Speaker 1: struggle that never even happened when she went to use
Speaker 1: the phone. In every picture they took of this small
Speaker 1: dining room, they missed that phone Jason by a quarter
Speaker 1: of an inch. Another mistake that was made that day
Speaker 1: at the crime scene. According to the police reports, they
Speaker 1: unclothed my stepmother naked right there on the dining room
Speaker 1: floor and folded her clothes up and put them in
Speaker 1: bags and transported her to the morgue naked for them
Speaker 1: to unclothe her and alter any evidence that could have
Speaker 1: been gathered from that. Now, that goes against every protocol
Speaker 1: of any police department anywhere. Best I remember, the medical
Speaker 1: examiner said she'd come in fully clothing, So what they
Speaker 1: actually done was re closer the poor the medical examiner examiner,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. What the medical examiner reported didn't match
Speaker 1: the police reports. They unclothed her and at some point
Speaker 1: reclothed her, so they mishandled the scene, and the evidence
Speaker 1: altered or disappeared, the key gunshot residue test of Cathy's
Speaker 1: left hand. And then they arrested you, and eventually you
Speaker 1: got out unfond and even that was kind of odd. Right,
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Peters agreed to ten thousand, and he put a
Speaker 1: restriction on my bond. This says not to dispose of
Speaker 1: any martal or jointly held property without the permission of
Speaker 1: the prosecute attorney and the probate court. You got the
Speaker 1: State of Missouri coming after you with unlimited resources, and
Speaker 1: your life and liberty is on the line. My dad
Speaker 1: should have had access to every dime he had to
Speaker 1: save his life, right And this also gets us to
Speaker 1: a crazy part of this whole story. So while you're
Speaker 1: facing Prosecutor Patrick Peters in this criminal trial against you,
Speaker 1: there's also a wrongful death civil suit filed against you
Speaker 1: by Cathy's sisters. And get this, Prosecutor Peters's father is
Speaker 1: part of the law firm behind that civil suit, so
Speaker 1: stands to benefit from the outcome. And of course you
Speaker 1: didn't even know that at the time. They had concealed it,
Speaker 1: and they had said that he had convinced them and
Speaker 1: he would convict me, and the law firm would have
Speaker 1: keep me in prison. I'd like to point out that
Speaker 1: the Blue Springs Police Department, city attorney for Blue Springs
Speaker 1: was also in the same law firm as the prosecutor's father,
Speaker 1: So you had a triangle of a conflict of interest
Speaker 1: here that was hidden from from everyone. Every time we
Speaker 1: do an episode, I always think I've heard it all,
Speaker 1: I could say, even after doing two d and fifty
Speaker 1: episodes of this show, I've never heard of that. The
Speaker 1: prosecutor refers the family of the woman who died to
Speaker 1: his own father's law firm. Now everybody's compromised, right, because
Speaker 1: now there's a whole another motive for them to want
Speaker 1: to convict you with this crime so that everybody can
Speaker 1: make money. And they ultimately got a one point three
Speaker 1: five million dollar default wrongful debt judgment against my father.
Speaker 1: So now there's been this litany of errors, misconduct, malfeasance,
Speaker 1: straight up insanity. I'm gonna call it what it is,
Speaker 1: it's insanity. And now finally it's time for the trial.
Speaker 1: It's February, a year after the incident. Basically, the crux
Speaker 1: of the States case against my dad was that he
Speaker 1: held her up against the wall and shot her from
Speaker 1: a foot away from her face. The prosecutor put on
Speaker 1: his so called experts saying that she was two inches
Speaker 1: away from the wall and that I had my arm
Speaker 1: across her chest and held her up against the wall
Speaker 1: and shot her and blood. Experts admitted that he had
Speaker 1: a weak's training, and he's self talk. He had taken
Speaker 1: a forty hour course on blood spattered evidence. That's all
Speaker 1: the training that their expert had, These quote unquote experts
Speaker 1: had for forty hour training course that doesn't actually teach
Speaker 1: you anything except how to act like you know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about in court pretty much, right. But he
Speaker 1: didn't tell that there was no gun shot residue on
Speaker 1: my hands or long sleeve shirt, or blood or the
Speaker 1: nails on a long sleeve shirt. And they said he
Speaker 1: put a bootprint on the wall, which was false. It
Speaker 1: had been there weeks prior, and in order for that
Speaker 1: bootprint to get there, his leg would have had to
Speaker 1: have been backwards at the knee and hyper extended in
Speaker 1: order to put that bootprint there. Right, you have this
Speaker 1: bootprint that was physically impossible to have been made in
Speaker 1: this scenario. But you know what, none of it freaking matters.
Speaker 1: Why they could have produced any other made up nonsense
Speaker 1: to try to support their theory. But without Ken being
Speaker 1: covered in blood and g SR, it's all pure drivel.
Speaker 1: Blood and gs are has to be present for us
Speaker 1: to even entertain these bullshit footprints. Not to mention the
Speaker 1: analysis from Bob Trussell, the renowned forensic crime investigator. That
Speaker 1: further clarifies just how bogus the state's theory was. We'll
Speaker 1: get into all of that a bit later, But unfortunately
Speaker 1: Ken didn't benefit from Bob Wrestl's testimony or any of
Speaker 1: this being pointed out at the original trial. Ken's attorney,
Speaker 1: Bob Duncan, couldn't be bothered to do an investigation, not
Speaker 1: even a thorough examination of the kund cliff. What else
Speaker 1: did the state present? They also put on evidence that
Speaker 1: the gun would take ten pounds of pressure I believe
Speaker 1: it was without the hammer pulled three and a half
Speaker 1: pounds with the hammer pulled. Well, the gun needed to
Speaker 1: be examined in the exact state it was found in,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't. They had dismantled it and put it
Speaker 1: back together before testing it, so if there was any
Speaker 1: problems with the gun, they fixed it when they put
Speaker 1: it back together. Bob Duncan was asleep at the wheel,
Speaker 1: if you will, and had none of the physical evidence
Speaker 1: examined by an expert in hadn't interviewed any witnesses. He
Speaker 1: was totally unprepared for the case to even go to trial.
Speaker 1: Did I hear this correctly? That he didn't even make
Speaker 1: an opening statement. He reserved one and he forgot to
Speaker 1: give it. I couldn't get him to do nothing. They
Speaker 1: didn't see nothing about the gunshunt residue. Not one word
Speaker 1: of them was lighten that document out. They never seen
Speaker 1: it without a proper defense, you're out there, Mercy. Years later,
Speaker 1: in ninety and ninety six, he gave me three affidavid's
Speaker 1: of what he had failed to do. This is my
Speaker 1: trial attorney, Robert Duncan. I did not have any physical
Speaker 1: evidence in the case examined by a forensic expert, other
Speaker 1: than to speak to a gun expert about the gun.
Speaker 1: But I did not have him examined the gun. And
Speaker 1: then he gave another affidavit and he said, father, I
Speaker 1: believed my ability to defend Mr Middleton was impowered because
Speaker 1: I wasn't given the information of the connection between the
Speaker 1: police department, the prosecutor, and the civil claims against mister
Speaker 1: Middleton's seeking a substantial monetary recovery. This information, if for
Speaker 1: no other purpose, would have been admits as impeachment evidence
Speaker 1: showing the bias of the police and some of the witnesses.
Speaker 1: So Cathy's sister, Mildred Anderson gave Voss testimony for the
Speaker 1: prosecution to show motive that Ken had secret assets in
Speaker 1: Arkansas that no one in the family was aware of.
Speaker 1: And we know this is just another lie because Mildred
Speaker 1: Anderson later said she admitted that she and the rest
Speaker 1: of the family actually did know about all of the
Speaker 1: assets before Kathy's death, which is a clear cut example
Speaker 1: of perjury, which in Missouri in a murder case at
Speaker 1: the class A felony, and that Peter's colluded with her
Speaker 1: because Peter's put it in the question would be simple
Speaker 1: for her, says, quote, quite a bit of holdings down
Speaker 1: in Arkansas that you and your family, including your sister
Speaker 1: were unaware of. She says, yes. It should also be
Speaker 1: mentioned Jason that after the sister testified to that, the
Speaker 1: prosecutor instructed the police to part man to release eighteen thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred dollars worth of jewelry that was confiscated out
Speaker 1: of the house to the witness. So not only was
Speaker 1: it perjury, she was rewarded with eighteen thousand, seven hundred
Speaker 1: dollars worth of jewelry. And then eight years later, on
Speaker 1: March at twenty fifth, ninety nine, Mildred Anderson gave foreign
Speaker 1: testimony in her Arkansas lawsuit against Kenneth Middleton, which showed
Speaker 1: she clearly perjured herself in n and her sister corroborated it. Wow. Okay,
Speaker 1: So I gotta ask about what must have been the
Speaker 1: worst day all of your life, which of course is
Speaker 1: the day that the jury went out for a breaking
Speaker 1: an hour and came back in and sentenced you to
Speaker 1: life without parole plus two hundred years. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: know how to describe it, but I was in shock.
Speaker 1: And until this outing, I never spent a day in
Speaker 1: jail in my life. And take you from being free
Speaker 1: in the country and working home alive to throw you
Speaker 1: in a cage. It's unbelievable. And I can't explain. Growing
Speaker 1: up as a kid, I would never in a million
Speaker 1: years dream that what happened to my dad would have
Speaker 1: happened to him. He just was, you know, a great
Speaker 1: fathers because he's been more of a father to me
Speaker 1: behind bars than most kids could ask for from a
Speaker 1: father on the street. And uh, it was devastating to
Speaker 1: our whole family. So now we moved to the post
Speaker 1: compiction and there's still more insanity to come. So it's
Speaker 1: and your appellate attorney is a man named Gerald Handley
Speaker 1: who was recommended by Bob. Well, that's not a good time.
Speaker 1: And one of the first things we come to is
Speaker 1: that what's called appeal, Cliff, can you explain that to
Speaker 1: us and get us started here. After trial, the first
Speaker 1: appeal that you have in the state of Missouri is
Speaker 1: your post conviction fifteen is an appeal that's filed back
Speaker 1: in front of the trial judge to evaluate your trial
Speaker 1: to make sure that you had a fair trial. That's
Speaker 1: where you bring your ineffective assistance of counsel issues if
Speaker 1: you have any. So you have ninety days to do
Speaker 1: that in Missouri or you don't get that hearing on
Speaker 1: ineffective assistance a council. And that's right back in front
Speaker 1: of the very trial judge that just set on your
Speaker 1: trial and convicted you. So you got a high burden
Speaker 1: to meet there, right, You got to prove that you
Speaker 1: had an unfair trial and your attorney didn't do his job.
Speaker 1: Our appellent attorney at that time had a ninety day
Speaker 1: window to follow an amended petition for da AT and
Speaker 1: get all of his issues in the appeal. He never
Speaker 1: met with my dad, never went over any of the
Speaker 1: issues which the law requires him to do. And at
Speaker 1: the last minute, before the ninety days was up and
Speaker 1: you could get no extensions, my dad gets a letter
Speaker 1: from his attorney telling him to sign this affidavit that
Speaker 1: all of his issues are in the amended petition, even
Speaker 1: though my dad had never seen the petition. And if
Speaker 1: you didn't sign that affidavit and have it with your
Speaker 1: amended petition when you filed it, you were out. You
Speaker 1: couldn't even get a fifteen hearing. So my dad had
Speaker 1: to sign it and at least hope that his attorney
Speaker 1: was gonna put all of his issues in it. Well,
Speaker 1: we had to do a lot of finaglin to get
Speaker 1: that affidavit to him before Monday, and when we got
Speaker 1: it to him on Monday, Gerald Hanley filed a three
Speaker 1: page motion on my dad's life, procedurally defaulting all of
Speaker 1: his issues on appeal. So because that attorney procedurally defaulted
Speaker 1: all of his issues, the facts and the merits of
Speaker 1: his case were never heard. And when we went to
Speaker 1: the evidentiary hearing, I had nine witnesses out in the hallway.
Speaker 1: When I got to the courthouse, the witnesses that knew
Speaker 1: Pat Peters through trial, seeing Pat Peters talking to the
Speaker 1: uniform guard, and the guard took a post at the
Speaker 1: door and wouldn't let none of my witnesses in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: I didn't know what happened to him till I got
Speaker 1: back to the jail and made some calls. Peters called
Speaker 1: Duncan to the stand, and Duncan testified this basically answered
Speaker 1: Peter's questions, said I checked himself into the hospital while
Speaker 1: I was shaken the head. It was a live because
Speaker 1: I was forced in that metal hospital. One of the
Speaker 1: records that Bob Duncan didn't get was the medical records
Speaker 1: from the mental ward. The prosecution's theory was that it
Speaker 1: was trial strategy for Duncan did not get the medical
Speaker 1: records because the prosecution had a witness that would have
Speaker 1: said Dad told him, if you want to get away
Speaker 1: with murder, you check yourself into a mental ward after
Speaker 1: you do it. So Judge Messina agreed and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's not ineffective assistance Accouncil. He he didn't get them
Speaker 1: records because he voluntarily checked hisself into a mental ward.
Speaker 1: Well that wasn't true. But Gerald Hanley never got the
Speaker 1: records either, so the judge never knew this, and so
Speaker 1: the hearing ended and no witnesses were called, no expert
Speaker 1: testimony was given, and no evidence was presented to refute
Speaker 1: the state. Gerald Hanley ended up being and this is
Speaker 1: hard to believe, but he ended up being just as
Speaker 1: disinterested as Bob Duncan was before. And so predictably, Judge
Speaker 1: Messina rejected your twenty nine fifteen appeal. It's insane. It's
Speaker 1: not because the appeal was invalid. It's because the lawyers
Speaker 1: didn't do their freaking jobs. And according to the law
Speaker 1: at that time, the trial court's jurisdiction over your case ended.
Speaker 1: So Cliff, eventually you all get a new attorney, Jonathan Lawrence,
Speaker 1: and there's a new law that gave you and your
Speaker 1: dad some hope, or maybe false hopes, but some positive
Speaker 1: things came about nonetheless, So can you tell us what
Speaker 1: happened next? In two thousand one, a law come down
Speaker 1: that give courts the opportunity to reevaluate cases. If you
Speaker 1: could prove your fifteen attorney, Gerald Hanley, abandoned you on
Speaker 1: your the trial courts could look at your case again.
Speaker 1: So my dad had done all this research on this
Speaker 1: and had done everything, and we took it to Jonathan Lawrence,
Speaker 1: and Jonathan Lawrence at first didn't think we could do it,
Speaker 1: but once he read the case law, he said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe we can. So Jonathan Lawrence got involved and
Speaker 1: filed an eighty one page motion and convinced Judge Messina,
Speaker 1: who denied us back in ninety two, to reopened my
Speaker 1: father's case. And she held a two day evidentiary hearing
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four, and you finally have an
Speaker 1: attorney here who can do justice in your father's case,
Speaker 1: who gathered and presented some powerful expert testimony, including from
Speaker 1: investigator Chuck Gay, who had been at the courthouse for
Speaker 1: the hearing but had been prevented from entering the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Now he finally had a chance to speak. Chuck Gay
Speaker 1: was the twenty five year police officer in Long Beach, California.
Speaker 1: He had actually talked to the FBI in different courses
Speaker 1: on crime scene investigation, and he testified to the crime
Speaker 1: scene photos not coming out. You can't restage a crime scene.
Speaker 1: That's absurd, unclothing her at the scene, all of these things.
Speaker 1: Crime scene preservation is what Chuck Gay testified to and
Speaker 1: how improper it was. The gunshot residue was a real
Speaker 1: big one with him. We found out a little more
Speaker 1: about the green document, so you have to realize before trial,
Speaker 1: when they give us that green document, it was just
Speaker 1: a copy, so it was on white paper. We really
Speaker 1: didn't know what it said underneath, but we knew something
Speaker 1: was wrong because the left hand was missing. And when
Speaker 1: our investigator after the trial went to go investigate that,
Speaker 1: the crime lab said, we didn't do that. They said,
Speaker 1: these are our documents. We used green out, so they
Speaker 1: were pointing the finger at the police. They knew that
Speaker 1: that wasn't right. There was no initials or anything that
Speaker 1: would indicate who did it or or why they did it.
Speaker 1: Myself and our attorney in two thousand and six team
Speaker 1: went to the crime lab and and got this document
Speaker 1: and him and I both held it up to the
Speaker 1: light and you could see underneath the white out on
Speaker 1: the umber of articles, and then underneath the other wide
Speaker 1: out off to the side, you could see the word left.
Speaker 1: And he gave us an affidavit that that was the
Speaker 1: worst alteration of official documents he had ever seen in
Speaker 1: thirty two years. I believe a practicing law and you
Speaker 1: also had testimony from a ballistics expert proving that the
Speaker 1: scenario presented by the state was physically impossible. And this
Speaker 1: guy was no slouching. He had overseen over eight hundred investigations,
Speaker 1: and importantly he had been an expert for both prosecution
Speaker 1: and defense. And of course the guy I'm referring to
Speaker 1: is Bob Tressell. I'm Bob Trestle. I'm a forensic crime
Speaker 1: scene investigator. When I first looked at the case, the
Speaker 1: bullet was found across the room after it had struck
Speaker 1: the door frame, ricocheted up to the ceiling and over
Speaker 1: to on the other side of the dining room. So
Speaker 1: it began looking at the angles that the bullet hook
Speaker 1: in striking the door frame exiting the door frame. Their
Speaker 1: lab came up with what we call a muzzle to
Speaker 1: target or the barrel of the whip and having to
Speaker 1: be approfesimately eight inches from her face where the bullet entered.
Speaker 1: So then we started looking at the gun. The guns
Speaker 1: of three seven magnum you get the length of the
Speaker 1: barrel chamber in the grip area. So although the barrels
Speaker 1: set inches from her face, the gun is almost fourteen
Speaker 1: inches and total length away from her face. And then
Speaker 1: we started looking at the wounds themselves pretty well, a
Speaker 1: straight shot gunshot when with little deviation on the upward
Speaker 1: or downward plane, and with the bullet not deviating very
Speaker 1: much right or left, the shot had come from directly
Speaker 1: in front of her the upper trajectory, because we know
Speaker 1: where it strikes on the wall, and then rick schat
Speaker 1: is off, we know it's going upward. So she has
Speaker 1: to have her upper body bent over or her head
Speaker 1: bent over towards the table in order to receive that
Speaker 1: gunshot one and there's only about two ft distance between
Speaker 1: the table and the walls, and so you've got to
Speaker 1: get two people almost directly in front of each other.
Speaker 1: But the gun's gotta be held way down low, and
Speaker 1: in order to get the distances that we saw, the
Speaker 1: gun has got to be almost on top of the table.
Speaker 1: So where can the shooter be at that point when
Speaker 1: we finally did all the calculations in order for someone
Speaker 1: to be directly in front of her, if a shooter
Speaker 1: was the one that fired this weapon, he would have
Speaker 1: to be under the table. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1: There's no direct forensic evidence either by blood tissue gunshot residue,
Speaker 1: things of that nature that indicate that Middleton fired this gun,
Speaker 1: killing his wife. And so all of this powerful expert
Speaker 1: testimony has been heard. And to top it all off,
Speaker 1: there was one more witness that testified on your father's behalf,
Speaker 1: the former governor of Missouri. Yes, you heard that correctly.
Speaker 1: The former governor of Missouri, Joseph P. Teasdale, testified on
Speaker 1: Kensby had and he had expensive trial experience as an
Speaker 1: assistant U. S attorney, prosecuting attorney, and as a trial lawyer.
Speaker 1: And he testified to the quote suspect conduct of the
Speaker 1: prosecutors and the quote ineffective performance of the defense council.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the testimony, former Governor Teasdale
Speaker 1: was asked what he would have done if this case
Speaker 1: had been presented to him in his capacity as governor,
Speaker 1: and he replied that this was the worst case of
Speaker 1: constitutional violations that he had ever witnessed in forty one
Speaker 1: years of practicing law, and that he, and this is
Speaker 1: a direct quote, would clearly have pardoned Mr Middleton of
Speaker 1: all wrongdoing end quote. That's a strong statement. He had
Speaker 1: gotten familiar with Dad's case a few years before, and
Speaker 1: I reached out to him when we got this evidency
Speaker 1: hearing and asked him what his costs would be for
Speaker 1: him to come testify, and and he said, I don't
Speaker 1: want any money. I want to state dinner when your
Speaker 1: dad gets out of there. And it meant a lot
Speaker 1: to me. So, finally, this information that you've been trying
Speaker 1: to get hurt for so many years, the ineffective Council
Speaker 1: of the Prosecutor, of misconduct and conflicts of interest, the
Speaker 1: botched investigation and alter reports, You're finally able to get
Speaker 1: that before the judge, and even a more conservative judge,
Speaker 1: Judge Massina, could not deny the merits of Ken's case.
Speaker 1: So this was all powerful evidence that the jury never heard.
Speaker 1: After all this evidence was put forward, Judge Messina took
Speaker 1: it under advisement and would not rule on the case
Speaker 1: for eleven more months. Two weeks after the hearing was over,
Speaker 1: the prosecutors come to my dad with an Alfred plea.
Speaker 1: If he would plead to an Alfred plea and plead
Speaker 1: guilty to second degree, he could walk out of prison
Speaker 1: of Freeman. But even though all of his appeals were
Speaker 1: exhausted and we were setting in front of very conservative
Speaker 1: judge my father refused the offered plea for him to
Speaker 1: turn that down. With all appeals exhausted, that speaks volumes
Speaker 1: to his innocence, and on May twenty five, Judgementina came
Speaker 1: back and vacated ken conviction and granted him a new trial.
Speaker 1: So the same judge who denied him in overturned his conviction.
Speaker 1: Judge Massina found eight different points of ineffective assistance at
Speaker 1: council on Bob Duncan. The man had three other capital
Speaker 1: murder cases overturned at the same time he was handling
Speaker 1: my dad's case. But just six days after this incredible news,
Speaker 1: you get a huge punch to the gun. What does
Speaker 1: the Jackson County Prosecutor's office do? They appeal the decision.
Speaker 1: So if he would plead guilty after that hearing, they
Speaker 1: were willing to let him go. But when he stood
Speaker 1: by his innocence and the trial judge agreed and overturned
Speaker 1: his conviction, they appealed it. They ruled that Judge Messina
Speaker 1: didn't have jurisdiction to issue that new trial. They never
Speaker 1: got to the merits or the facts that she ruled
Speaker 1: he was wrongfully convicted in violation of his sixth Amendment
Speaker 1: right to constitutional effective representation. They never got to any
Speaker 1: of that. They just said she didn't have jurisdiction. And
Speaker 1: this is now seventeen long years ago. It's it's crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, the court heard the merits of his innocence
Speaker 1: and decided he should get a new trial, but outside
Speaker 1: of the appellate proceedings, it was ruled that the trial
Speaker 1: court didn't have jurisdiction. So Ken has just been sitting
Speaker 1: there since two thousand four, awaiting a miracle or a
Speaker 1: change in the law so that his case could be
Speaker 1: heard again, and that finally happened in August on a
Speaker 1: new law was passed in Missouri that allows a case
Speaker 1: to go before the trial judge outside of hearing. So
Speaker 1: what that means is that if a prosecutor knows that
Speaker 1: a man is innocent, as the current prosecutor has implied
Speaker 1: in Ken's case, they're no longer jurisdictionally barred from doing
Speaker 1: something about it. Judgementine has already ruled on this, and
Speaker 1: she's now an advisor to the current prosecutor, Jean Peters
Speaker 1: Baker and Baker already made use of this new law
Speaker 1: in Kevin Strickland's case in the fall one, yet strangely
Speaker 1: she is yet to act in Ken's case. It's it's
Speaker 1: mystifying and maddening at the same time. So, Cliff, what's
Speaker 1: going on with all of this? Now this new law, Yes,
Speaker 1: it's about a prosecutor's right to follow a motion, but
Speaker 1: it's also about a court's right to have jurisdiction to
Speaker 1: consider and here the matter. Well, now they're given the
Speaker 1: most courts jurisdiction, but the prosecutor has to follow it.
Speaker 1: So in our case, we've already proved everything is with
Speaker 1: this statute. The statute lays out that upon the filing
Speaker 1: of such emotion, the court shall have a hearing and
Speaker 1: issue of findings and facts and conclusions of law on
Speaker 1: all issues presented. That's exactly what Judge Messina did. So
Speaker 1: we've already been successful at securing a new trial from
Speaker 1: my father, but the only thing we didn't have was jurisdiction. Well,
Speaker 1: now this new law gives the court's jurisdiction, but the
Speaker 1: prosecutor has been reluctant to file it. So now that
Speaker 1: this new law has passed, I believe the next steps
Speaker 1: are for Gene to file a motion conceding jurisdiction. That's it.
Speaker 1: We don't need anything else from her but a one
Speaker 1: page motion conceding jurisdiction and allow a court there in
Speaker 1: Jackson County to get to the merits of the trial
Speaker 1: Judge Edith Messina's order overturning my dad's conviction. Cliff for
Speaker 1: our audience out there listening now, is there's some thing
Speaker 1: you'd like them to do. What can they do to
Speaker 1: help to write this horrible injustice. Yes, you'd go to
Speaker 1: our website at free hyphen Ken Middleton dot com. There's
Speaker 1: a wealth of very compelling documents that support everything we
Speaker 1: spoke about today. If we said it today, rest assured.
Speaker 1: You can go to our website and find it. And
Speaker 1: on the homepage right up front, there's a petition asking
Speaker 1: Jean Peters Baker to abide by her oath and follow
Speaker 1: the plain language of this new Missouri statute. It's as
Speaker 1: simple as a one page motion conceding jurisdiction so that
Speaker 1: my dad can once again prove his innocence and come
Speaker 1: home to the family that waits him. Right, we'll have
Speaker 1: that linked in the bio, as well as a link
Speaker 1: to Silver Creek Entertainment. Um I believe there's a film
Speaker 1: on the way about Ken's case, and it can't come
Speaker 1: soon enough as far as I'm concerned. I you know,
Speaker 1: I'm both reading and really looking forward to watching it.
Speaker 1: So check that out click on the link in the bio.
Speaker 1: And now, guys, we have a tradition here and it's
Speaker 1: really my favorite part of the show. It's called closing arguments.
Speaker 1: And closing arguments is very simple. It works like this.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna turn my microphone off, kick back in
Speaker 1: my chair with my headphones on. You'll turn the volume
Speaker 1: up a little bit and just listen to anything else
Speaker 1: you'd like to say, anything at all you have to
Speaker 1: say to a So, Cliff, why don't you go first?
Speaker 1: And Ken, we'll let you close this out. I'd like
Speaker 1: to thank you for using your celebrity to bring awareness
Speaker 1: to wrong for convictions, given a voice to the voiceless.
Speaker 1: It's an amazing thing what you're doing. It's encouraged other
Speaker 1: celebrities like Kim Kardashian and John Grisham and Johnny Depp
Speaker 1: and you know a lot of others to take up
Speaker 1: the cause and stand up for justice. And so i'd
Speaker 1: like to thank you again. Jason and now ken over
Speaker 1: to you. Well, what I'd like to say here that
Speaker 1: all of the well let's listening. I would appreciate it
Speaker 1: more than words can explain. Anything they can do, sign petitions,
Speaker 1: sign letters to Baker to get her to follow the statute,
Speaker 1: anything anybody can do to have the clearer and get
Speaker 1: the same justice. If Kevin Strickland got I would appreciate
Speaker 1: it more than words can say. Thank you for listening
Speaker 1: to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production team
Speaker 1: Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburn, and Kevin Wardis, with
Speaker 1: research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production was
Speaker 1: supplied by three time OSCAR nominating composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms.
Speaker 1: You can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: at its. Jason flopp Raleval Conviction is the production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number
Speaker 1: one h