Speaker 1: When we initially released Ken Middleton's episode in March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, we were hoping that Jackson County District Attorney
Speaker 1: Jean Peters Baker would be moved to action. But it
Speaker 1: turns out it looks like Ken's son, Cliff Middleton, has
Speaker 1: exposed another conflict of interest for the Jackson County Prosecutor's office,
Speaker 1: and this one comes with a constitutional violation. When the
Speaker 1: trial prosecutor struck a bond agreement with the court from
Speaker 1: mister Middleton, there was a stipulation that he would not
Speaker 1: have access to his assets. This was a clear violation
Speaker 1: of his Sixth Amendment rights, as affirmed in two thousand
Speaker 1: sixteen by the Supreme Court, who decided in Louise versus
Speaker 1: United States that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the pre trial
Speaker 1: restraint of assets needed to retain a defendants council of
Speaker 1: choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction
Speaker 1: with criminal activity. Mister Middleton is hoping that the Court
Speaker 1: agrees that the actions of the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office
Speaker 1: to do just that to mister Middleton pre trial represented
Speaker 1: a conflict of interest that will disqualify that office and
Speaker 1: result in the appointment of a special prosecutor. A prosecutor
Speaker 1: who is free of this conflict, among others, would be
Speaker 1: able to apply the newly enacted s. B fifty three
Speaker 1: in order to grant Mr Middleton a new trial on
Speaker 1: his ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations and actual innocence claims.
Speaker 1: Cannon Cathy Middleton had properties in Blue Springs, Missouri, as
Speaker 1: well as Ken's family land back in Arkansas, where they
Speaker 1: hope to one day retire. On February twelfth, when he
Speaker 1: planned to clean a gun that he had brought back
Speaker 1: from Arkansas, Ken felt ill, laid the gun down and
Speaker 1: took a nap. Meanwhile, Cathy returned early from work to
Speaker 1: confront Ken about news of a regretful affair that had
Speaker 1: ended three years earlier. After grabbing the gun from where
Speaker 1: Ken had laid it down, Cathy made her way to
Speaker 1: the phone to call the alleged mistress. When tragedy struck.
Speaker 1: It is believed that it destroyed. Cathy mishandled the weapon
Speaker 1: in her left hand and shot herself in the head.
Speaker 1: Ken immediately called nine one one when first responders found
Speaker 1: him without a drop of blood or gunshot residue on him.
Speaker 1: A positive gunshot residute test of Cathy's left hand would
Speaker 1: have conclusively ruled her death as a tragic accident. However,
Speaker 1: her left hand test results went missing and the crime
Speaker 1: lab document was altered in what clearly appears to be
Speaker 1: evidence tampering, where the medical examiner and blood spatter expert
Speaker 1: willing to testify to an impossible scenario in which Ken
Speaker 1: was magically able to shoot Kathy from less than a
Speaker 1: foot away while remaining free of blood and g s R.
Speaker 1: Ken was sentenced to life plus two hundred years. Despite
Speaker 1: the mishandling of the crime scene, ballistics testing was still
Speaker 1: able to prove Ken's innocence. His conviction was overturned in
Speaker 1: two thousand four, but a jurisdictional technicality has held him
Speaker 1: in legal limbo ever since. Kennada's son, Cliff Middleton, join
Speaker 1: us to ask, how is it that, even though a
Speaker 1: new statute remedies that technicality, the current prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker,
Speaker 1: refuses to act. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: ronval Conviction. I'm your host, Jason Farm. You know, each
Speaker 1: week I have a pretty good idea of how I'm
Speaker 1: going to start the show. You know, usually there's one
Speaker 1: main focus, one main problem that we can talk about
Speaker 1: in any particular case. But this time, I don't even
Speaker 1: know where to start. When our friend Larry Garrison, who's
Speaker 1: actually known as the news Breaker, okay for his years
Speaker 1: of investigative reporting and his work through Silver Creek Entertainment,
Speaker 1: when he first told me in us here at Ron
Speaker 1: Conviction about the case of Ken Middleton, he had lived
Speaker 1: up to his nickname once again, I mean the Newsbreaker.
Speaker 1: So I'll start by saying that Ken Middleton has been
Speaker 1: in prison for over thirty years for being present during
Speaker 1: what they may well have known all along was just
Speaker 1: a tragic accident. And there's so many problems in this
Speaker 1: case that we could literally pick on any one of
Speaker 1: them and make an entire episode of the show just
Speaker 1: about that. I'm talking about ineffective assistance of council, false
Speaker 1: expert testimony, evidence tampering, incompetent investigator's official corruption, conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: can refusing freedom through an Alfred play write something that
Speaker 1: you never catch a guilty person doing. And that's something
Speaker 1: that happened seventeen years ago, almost eighteen now. Plus there's
Speaker 1: this insane jurisdictional technicality that has kept this innocent man
Speaker 1: in prison long past the time that I believe everyone
Speaker 1: knows that he should have ever been in there. So
Speaker 1: without further ado, at seventy seven years old, Ken is
Speaker 1: calling in from inside the prison walls in Missouri. Ken,
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry you're here because of the reason why
Speaker 1: you're here, but I'm very honored to have you on
Speaker 1: the show. Thank you appreciate it. And with Ken is
Speaker 1: his son and probably the most passionate advocate, Cliff Middleton.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us. Thank you so much for having
Speaker 1: me on. Jason, I really really appreciate it. And I
Speaker 1: know how hard this is going to be. I mean,
Speaker 1: like any other son, you love your dad and you
Speaker 1: just want this thing to end. Okay, let's go back
Speaker 1: in time and I'm gonna turn to you. Ken. This
Speaker 1: is early in Blue Springs, Missouri, and you're there with
Speaker 1: your wife Kathy. So tell us what was happening in
Speaker 1: 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. Kathy worked at eight D and
Speaker 1: T for twenty eight years, and two years you'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. Just
Speaker 1: to set the stage here. You had been at your
Speaker 1: place in Arkansas and you brought a handgun that you
Speaker 1: owned back 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 and 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 Coloratto elk hunt in the fall
Speaker 1: before and there's a big snow and rain and stuff
Speaker 1: in Coloraretto, and it got wet. So I picked it
Speaker 1: up and brought it back to Missouri her I was
Speaker 1: aimed to clean it. And when I got it out
Speaker 1: of the truck, I went in the house and sat down.
Speaker 1: I called Kathy at work, and she asked me how
Speaker 1: I was feeling. I said about the same. I wasn't
Speaker 1: feeling good, and I sat in a recliner and I
Speaker 1: went to sleep. And I had never cleaned the gun.
Speaker 1: So the next thing I knew is she was already home,
Speaker 1: and she picked up the gun out of the towel
Speaker 1: that had the gun laying on, and she was upset
Speaker 1: that somebody had told her that I was having affair
Speaker 1: with a woman, which was true, but it had been
Speaker 1: over for three years. And she walked over to the
Speaker 1: phone in the dining room to call a woman. So
Speaker 1: I got up and UH dizzy, And next thing I know,
Speaker 1: the tragedy had happened. And the tragedy that had happened
Speaker 1: is the matter of this dispute between the Middleton's and
Speaker 1: the state. Now Ken maintained his innocence in the matter,
Speaker 1: that this was a tragic accident in which Kathy visibly
Speaker 1: upset at the news of this affair, and on her
Speaker 1: way to the phone to confront your alleged mistress, Cathy
Speaker 1: was holding the gun in her left hand and accidentally
Speaker 1: shot herself on the left side of her forehead, splattering
Speaker 1: blood all over the wall. This version of events is
Speaker 1: supported by the ballistics and all the other physical evidence.
Speaker 1: And then there's what the state wants everyone to believe. Right,
Speaker 1: bear with me, because this is nuts. That Ken had
Speaker 1: somehow held Cathy up against the wall and shot her
Speaker 1: in the face, but somehow, miraculously was able to be
Speaker 1: completely clear of blood spatter or gunshot residue, not a
Speaker 1: trace on him. And we'll get into all of that
Speaker 1: a bit later. So back to this terrible tragedy. A
Speaker 1: gunshot rang out and Cathy was on the floor in
Speaker 1: a pool of blood. What a nightmare? Ken? What happened next?
Speaker 1: I've seen her on the floor and grabbed the gun
Speaker 1: and put it on the table and call nine one
Speaker 1: one immediately. I asked for the medics, and I had
Speaker 1: called them three times within a short period of time.
Speaker 1: And wanted to know who the paramedics was. And the
Speaker 1: third time, the operator told me to go outside, that
Speaker 1: the paramedics were there, and I looked out, and I
Speaker 1: told her that I had looked out and there wasn't
Speaker 1: nobody out there, and she convinced me to go outside
Speaker 1: that they were there. So I went out and the
Speaker 1: first thing I've seen was a copy behind the walls,
Speaker 1: screaming at me to get my hands in the air
Speaker 1: and turn around with my back to him at his
Speaker 1: gun pointed at me, and I've done as he said,
Speaker 1: and he'd come up behind me and searched me. I
Speaker 1: wanted to know who the paramedics were, and he ordered
Speaker 1: me back in the house and we went back in
Speaker 1: the house and he went in and checked on my wife.
Speaker 1: And I was just historical, and I guess I was
Speaker 1: done on my knees, and he jerked me up. And
Speaker 1: when he had done that fast, I've become dizzy, real dizzy,
Speaker 1: and I oh know, was ain't the blackout, So I said,
Speaker 1: as I ain't be sick, and I went down the
Speaker 1: hall to the bathroom and I went in and spliced
Speaker 1: water on my face, and then he took me outside
Speaker 1: and I had a real bad hurt and in my
Speaker 1: left arm and chess. Now, when the paramedics arrived, they determined, Kenna,
Speaker 1: you would have been hyperventilating, complaining of chess plains and
Speaker 1: the blood pressure was going crazy, and they convinced you
Speaker 1: to go to the hospital for an examination. They taught
Speaker 1: me to go into the hospital, and they took me
Speaker 1: to three medical hospitals, and then on the third one,
Speaker 1: I was forced in a mental hospital till the next day.
Speaker 1: They later tried to say that you had checked into
Speaker 1: that mental hospital to try to get away with murder,
Speaker 1: claimed by claiming in sanity defense. But we're getting ahead
Speaker 1: of ourselves here, and let's not leave out the fact
Speaker 1: that your dad was in and out of consciousness on
Speaker 1: his way to the hospital. And they took an e
Speaker 1: k G at the hospital and it showed that Kenna,
Speaker 1: you had recently suffered from a heart attack. Now here's
Speaker 1: another thing that I have trouble understanding. Are processing. The
Speaker 1: officers didn't write their statements until days later, and they
Speaker 1: did it by memory, right, And these statements that were
Speaker 1: taken from a hysterical man who had to be rushed
Speaker 1: to the hospital talking about you of course Ken, who
Speaker 1: was just trying to help figure out what happened, so
Speaker 1: the officers didn't bother to write it down. There were
Speaker 1: a couple police reports that were handwritten out that day,
Speaker 1: but the official reports that I have reviewed were written
Speaker 1: on I believe it was February twenty one, and Cathy
Speaker 1: died on the twelve. Now, in researching this case, I
Speaker 1: saw in the police reports where they kept on documenting
Speaker 1: instances in which Ken allegedly had done something with his hands,
Speaker 1: Like he mentioned splashing water on its face, right, They
Speaker 1: wrote down another instance where they said he wiped his
Speaker 1: hands on a 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. It's it's very obvious
Speaker 1: 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 JSON maybe today with crime shows and things.
Speaker 1: But he didn't know what they were testing him for.
Speaker 1: They took my shirt on the shirt and clothes and
Speaker 1: shoes and all and they did tested then come back negative,
Speaker 1: no blood or nothing on my long sleeve shirt. And
Speaker 1: the picture in the front had a house when I
Speaker 1: was over the stove shows the long sleeve shirt down
Speaker 1: to the risk. There was no blood, no gunshot resident
Speaker 1: on it. Right, And as the evidence clearly shows, she
Speaker 1: was shot from very close range, less than a foot away,
Speaker 1: and there's no way you can do that without being
Speaker 1: covered in blood and gunshot residue. But you weren't because
Speaker 1: you didn't kill her. And Cathy's gunshot residue tests would
Speaker 1: likely have corroborated Ken's version of events and showing that
Speaker 1: this was a tragic accident not homicide. Cliff, can you
Speaker 1: explain what I mean by that they swabbed both of
Speaker 1: her hands, that they four gunshot residue and the prime
Speaker 1: document that they fill out shows that they swabbed both hands,
Speaker 1: right and left hands and it shows they used two
Speaker 1: different kids to do that, one for the right hand
Speaker 1: and one for the left hand. Well, the next day,
Speaker 1: when the corner did the up see, the corner ruled
Speaker 1: in a homicide based on what the police were telling
Speaker 1: him unless other information come forward to prove otherwise. Now
Speaker 1: that gunshot residue was important information and took him nine
Speaker 1: days to turn the gunshot residue samples into the crime lab.
Speaker 1: And when they turned him into the crime lab, the
Speaker 1: document was altered to show only one kid and the
Speaker 1: left hand was wid it out to show they only
Speaker 1: tested the right hand when she was shot from eight
Speaker 1: to twelve inches away on the left side of her head.
Speaker 1: You really have to see this to believe it. And
Speaker 1: we're gonna link pictures of this in our episode because
Speaker 1: I'm looking at it right now and i still can't
Speaker 1: believe that I'm actually looking at what I'm looking at. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: the test of Cathy's left hand, the one in which
Speaker 1: she would have held the gun in order to shoot herself,
Speaker 1: the test of that hand disappeared or it wasn't tested
Speaker 1: on purpose. There's only two possibilities. The crime lab document
Speaker 1: that should have been for both of her hands was
Speaker 1: altered with white out. Okay, remember white out, it's unreal.
Speaker 1: This is like to show that only her right hand
Speaker 1: had been tested. And this is reinforced when you compare
Speaker 1: it with the g SR test document for Ken in
Speaker 1: the same handwriting okay, get ready for this, it states
Speaker 1: quote number of articles too, g SR test kits for
Speaker 1: right and left hands. End quote. But then on Cathy's
Speaker 1: g SR test document, in the same exact handwriting, it says,
Speaker 1: quote number of articles and whatever was there is white
Speaker 1: it out, right, just white it out, and the number
Speaker 1: one is in its place, And then it reads quote
Speaker 1: gunshot residue for right end quote, followed by another gob
Speaker 1: of white out and the word hand. So in all
Speaker 1: likelihood the white out is simply covering the words and left,
Speaker 1: as it would have been in a request for testing
Speaker 1: of both right and left hands, where now only one
Speaker 1: test for her right hand exists and the one that
Speaker 1: really matters the left hand is missing. Later on, after
Speaker 1: us convicted years later, we took their deposition and Geoff
Speaker 1: Rogers that wrote the report out he swore that he
Speaker 1: didn't put the white out on that because his own
Speaker 1: green paper, and he said that he wouldn't have whited
Speaker 1: it out. He had just build out a new report
Speaker 1: and we got Dave Link, the one that took it
Speaker 1: to the lab. Nine days later, he swore um down
Speaker 1: that he didn't do it. And he was asked, did
Speaker 1: he always take both hands of a close gunshot residue test?
Speaker 1: He said, yeah, us My attorney ask him years later
Speaker 1: in ninety seven, always, and he said absolutely. They whited
Speaker 1: out the left hand, and they whited out the number
Speaker 1: of articles. I mean, somebody literally just took white out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the left hand. If it would have come back positive,
Speaker 1: it would have been powerful evidence that she accidentally fired
Speaker 1: the gun herself. Our attorney told us that if that
Speaker 1: left hand come back positive, the corner would have changed
Speaker 1: his findings and they wouldn't have had a case against
Speaker 1: my father. It all would have ended right there. This
Speaker 1: episode is underwritten by A i G, a leading global
Speaker 1: insurance company. A i G is committed to corporate social
Speaker 1: responsibility and is making a positive difference in the lives
Speaker 1: of its employees and in the communities where we work
Speaker 1: and live. In light of the compelling need for pro
Speaker 1: bono legal assistance, and in recognition of A I G's
Speaker 1: commitment to criminal and social justice reform. The a i
Speaker 1: G Pro Bono program provides free legal services and other
Speaker 1: support to underrepresented communities and individuals. Now, this is a
Speaker 1: small town police department. My understanding is there hadn't been
Speaker 1: a homicide investigation in almost a decade. These people were
Speaker 1: not up to the task, and they started making mistakes
Speaker 1: more or less as soon as they walked into the house. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: And like so many other cases, I believe the police
Speaker 1: immediately focused on my father and had tunnel vision as
Speaker 1: they began to investigate this case. I'll start with the
Speaker 1: fact that they took photos that day of the alleged
Speaker 1: crime scene, and the photos allegedly did not come them out,
Speaker 1: And after Cathy's body was removed, they went back and
Speaker 1: restaged the crime scene and took new photos. By the
Speaker 1: time they had done this, my stepmother had already been
Speaker 1: taken out of the house, and the fire department had
Speaker 1: actually been called in to cut sheet rock out of
Speaker 1: the wall with blood spatter and things, and so the
Speaker 1: new pictures they took the sheet rock was already cut out,
Speaker 1: and they had drawn a diagram of the dining room
Speaker 1: where this happened, and the diagram didn't match the pictures.
Speaker 1: They had moved the dining room table all the way
Speaker 1: up against the wall to make it appear that there
Speaker 1: was a bigger area there when she was shot, right
Speaker 1: to make room for this alleged struggle that never even happened.
Speaker 1: When she went to use the phone. In every picture
Speaker 1: they took of this small dining room, they missed that
Speaker 1: phone Jason by a quarter of an inch. Another mistake
Speaker 1: that was made that day at the crime scene. According
Speaker 1: to the police reports, they unclothed my stepmother naked right
Speaker 1: there on the dining room floor and folded her clothes
Speaker 1: up and put them in bags and transported her to
Speaker 1: the morgue naked for them to unclothe her and alter
Speaker 1: any evidence that could have been gathered from that. Now,
Speaker 1: that goes against every protocol of any police department anywhere.
Speaker 1: Best I remember, the medical examiner said should come in
Speaker 1: fully clothing. So what they actually done was reclosed the
Speaker 1: poor the medical examiner examiner, that's exactly right. What the
Speaker 1: medical examiner reported didn't match the police reports. They unclothed
Speaker 1: her and at some point reclothed her, so they mishandled
Speaker 1: the scene and the evidence altered or disappeared, the key
Speaker 1: gunshot residue test of Cathy's left hand, and then they
Speaker 1: arrested you, and eventually you got out on bond, and
Speaker 1: even that was kind of odd. Prosecutor Peters agreed to
Speaker 1: ten thousand and he put a restriction on my bond.
Speaker 1: This says not the dispose of any martal or jointly
Speaker 1: held property without the permission of the prosecute attorney and
Speaker 1: the probate court. You got the State of Missouri coming
Speaker 1: after you with unlimited resources, and your life and liberty
Speaker 1: is on the line. My dad should have had access
Speaker 1: to every dining he had to save his life, right,
Speaker 1: And this also gets us to a crazy part of
Speaker 1: this whole story. So while you're facing Prosecutor Patrick Peters
Speaker 1: in this criminal trial against you, there's also a wrongful
Speaker 1: death civil suit filed against you by Cathy's sisters. And
Speaker 1: get this, Prosecutor Peters's father is part of the law
Speaker 1: firm behind that civil suit, so stands to benefit from
Speaker 1: the outcome. And of course you didn't even know that
Speaker 1: at the time. They had concealed it and they had
Speaker 1: said that he convinced them that he would convict me
Speaker 1: and the law firm would help keep me in prison.
Speaker 1: I'd like to point out that the Blue Springs Police Department,
Speaker 1: city attorney for Blue Springs was also in the same
Speaker 1: law firm as the prosecutor's father, So you had a
Speaker 1: triangle of a conflict of interest here that was hidden
Speaker 1: from from everyone. Every time we do an episode, I
Speaker 1: always think I've heard it all, I could say, even
Speaker 1: after doing two and fifty episodes of this show, I've
Speaker 1: never heard of that the prosecutor refers the family of
Speaker 1: the woman who died to his own father's law firm.
Speaker 1: Now everybody's compromised, right, because now there's a whole another
Speaker 1: for them to want to convict you with this crime
Speaker 1: so that everybody can make money. And they ultimately got
Speaker 1: a one point three five million dollar default wrongful debt
Speaker 1: judgment against my father. So now there's been this litany
Speaker 1: of errors, misconduct, malfeasance, stayed up, insanity. I'm going to
Speaker 1: call it what it is, it's insanity. And now finally
Speaker 1: it's time for the trial. It's February, a year after
Speaker 1: the incident. Basically, the cross of the States case against
Speaker 1: my dad was that he held her up against the wall,
Speaker 1: and shot her from a foot away from her face.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor put on his so called experts saying that
Speaker 1: she was two inches away from the wall, and that
Speaker 1: I had my arm across her chest and held her
Speaker 1: up against the wall and shot her. And blood's experts
Speaker 1: admitted that he had a weak's training, and he's self
Speaker 1: taught he had taken a forty hour core some blood
Speaker 1: spattered evidence. That's all the training that their expert had,
Speaker 1: These quote unquote experts had for forty hour training course
Speaker 1: that doesn't actually teach you anything except how to act
Speaker 1: like you know what you're talking about in court pretty much, right,
Speaker 1: But he didn't tell that there was no gun shot
Speaker 1: residue on my hands or long sleeve shirt, or blood
Speaker 1: or nothing else on my long sleeve shirt. And they
Speaker 1: said he put a bootprint on the wall, which was false.
Speaker 1: It had been there weeks prior, and in order for
Speaker 1: that bootprint to get there, his leg would have had
Speaker 1: to have been backwards at the knee and hyper extended
Speaker 1: in order to put that bootprint there. Right, you have
Speaker 1: this bootprint that was physically impossible to have been made
Speaker 1: in this scenario. But you know what, none of it
Speaker 1: freaking matters why they could have produced any other made
Speaker 1: up nonsense to try to support their theory. But without
Speaker 1: Ken being covered in blood and g SR, it's all
Speaker 1: pure drivel. Blood and GSR has to be present for
Speaker 1: us to even entertain these bullshit footprints. Not to mention
Speaker 1: the analysis from Bob Tressell, the renowned forensic crime investigator,
Speaker 1: that further clarifies just how bogus the state's theory was.
Speaker 1: We'll get into all of that a bit later, but
Speaker 1: unfortunately Ken didn't benefit from Bob Tressell's testimony or any
Speaker 1: of 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 gun. 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 and was asleep at the
Speaker 1: will if you will, and had none of the physical
Speaker 1: evidence examined by an expert, 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 gunshunk residue, not one word
Speaker 1: of them was like in that document out they never
Speaker 1: seen it. Without a proper defense, you're out there, mercy.
Speaker 1: Years later, in n and ninety six, he gave me
Speaker 1: a three Affidavid's of what he had failed to do.
Speaker 1: This is my trial attorney, Robert Duncan. I did not
Speaker 1: have any physical evidence in the case examined by a
Speaker 1: forensic expert, other than to speak to a gun expert
Speaker 1: about the gun. But I did not have him examined
Speaker 1: the gun. And then he gave another affidavit and he said, father,
Speaker 1: I believe my ability to defend Mr Middleton was empowered
Speaker 1: because I wasn't given information of the connection between the
Speaker 1: police department, the prosecutor, and the civil claims against Mr.
Speaker 1: Middleton seeking a substantial monetary recovery. This information, if for
Speaker 1: no other purpose, would have been admissible 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 false 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 Cathy's death, which is a clear cut example
Speaker 1: of perjury, which in Missouri in the murder case, that's
Speaker 1: the class A felony. And Peter's colluded with her because
Speaker 1: Peter's put it in the question would be simple for her, says, quote,
Speaker 1: quite a bit of holdings down in Arkansas that you
Speaker 1: and your family, including your sister, were unaware of. She says, yes.
Speaker 1: It should also be mentioned Jason that after the sister
Speaker 1: testified to that, the prosecutor instructed the police department to
Speaker 1: release eighteen thousand, seven hundred dollars worth of jewelry that
Speaker 1: was confiscated out of the house to the witness, So
Speaker 1: not only was it perjury, she was rewarded with eighteen thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred dollars worth of jewelry. And then eight years later,
Speaker 1: on March at twenty fifth nine, Mildred Anderson gave foreign
Speaker 1: testimony in her Arkansas lawsuit against Kenneth Middleton, which showed
Speaker 1: she clearly perjured herself in 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 would for a breaking hour
Speaker 1: and came back in and sentenced you to life without
Speaker 1: parole plus two hundred years. Well, I don't know how
Speaker 1: to describe it, but I was in shock, and until
Speaker 1: this outing, I never spent a day in jail in
Speaker 1: my life. And take you from being free in the
Speaker 1: country and working all my life to throw you in
Speaker 1: a cage is unbelievable. And I can't explain. Growing up
Speaker 1: as a kid, I would never in a million years
Speaker 1: dream that what happened to my dad would have happened
Speaker 1: to him. He just was, you know, a great father
Speaker 1: was He's been more of a father to me behind
Speaker 1: bars than most kids could ask for from a father
Speaker 1: on the street. And uh, it was devastating to our
Speaker 1: whole family. So now we moved to the post conviction
Speaker 1: and there's still more insanity to come. So it's and
Speaker 1: your appellate attorney is a man named Gerald Handley who
Speaker 1: was recommended by Bob Duncan. Well, that's not a good sign.
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 is an appeal that's filed back in
Speaker 1: front of the trial judge to evaluate your trial to
Speaker 1: make sure that you had a fair trial. That's where
Speaker 1: you bring your ineffective assistance of council issues if you
Speaker 1: have any. So you have ninety days to do that
Speaker 1: in Missouri or you don't get that hearing on ineffective
Speaker 1: assistance a council. And that's right back in front of
Speaker 1: the very trial judge that just set on your trial
Speaker 1: and convicted you. So you got a high burden to
Speaker 1: meet there, right, you got to prove that you had
Speaker 1: 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 Dad and get
Speaker 1: all of his issues in the appeal. He never met
Speaker 1: with my dad, never went over any of the issues,
Speaker 1: which the law requires him to do, and at the
Speaker 1: last minute, before the ninety days was up and you
Speaker 1: could get no extensions, my dad gets a letter from
Speaker 1: his attorney telling him to sign this affidavit that all
Speaker 1: of his issues are in the amended petition, even though
Speaker 1: my dad had never seen the petition. And if you
Speaker 1: didn't sign that affidavit and have it with your amended
Speaker 1: petition when you filed it, you were out. You couldn't
Speaker 1: even get a fifteen hearing. So my dad had to
Speaker 1: sign it and at least hope that his attorney was
Speaker 1: gonna put all of his issues in it. Well. We
Speaker 1: had to do a lot of finaglin to get that
Speaker 1: affidavit to him before Monday, and when we got it
Speaker 1: to him on Monday, Gerald Hanley and 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 called. Peters called
Speaker 1: Duncan to the stand, and Duncan testified this base answered
Speaker 1: Jesus questions, said I checked himself into the hospital while
Speaker 1: I was shaking the head. It was a lie because
Speaker 1: I was forced in that mental hospital. One of the
Speaker 1: records that Bob Duncan didn't get was the medical records
Speaker 1: from the mental ward. The prosecutions 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 Judgementina agreed and said, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: not ineffective assistance accouncil. He he didn't get them records
Speaker 1: because he voluntarily checked himself into a mental ward. Well
Speaker 1: that wasn't true, but Gerald Hanley never got the records either,
Speaker 1: so the judge never knew this, and so the hearing
Speaker 1: ended and no witnesses recalled, no expert testimony was given,
Speaker 1: and no evidence was presented to refute the state Gerald
Speaker 1: Hanley ended up being, and this is hard to believe,
Speaker 1: but he ended up being just as disinterested as Bob
Speaker 1: Duncan was before, and so predictably, Judge Messina rejected your appeal.
Speaker 1: It's insane. It's not because the appeal was invalid. It's
Speaker 1: because the lawyers didn't do their freaking jobs. And according
Speaker 1: to the law at that time, the trial courts jurisdiction
Speaker 1: over your case ended. So Cliff, eventually you all get
Speaker 1: a new attorney, Jonathan Lawrence, and there's a new law
Speaker 1: that gave you and your dad some hope, or maybe
Speaker 1: false hopes, but some positive things came about nonetheless, So
Speaker 1: can you tell us what happened next? In two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, a law come down that give courts the
Speaker 1: opportunity to reevaluate cases. If you could prove your fifteen attorney,
Speaker 1: Gerald Hanley, abandoned you on your the trial, courts could
Speaker 1: look at your case again. So my dad had done
Speaker 1: all this research on this and had done everything, and
Speaker 1: we get to Jonathan Lawrence, and Jonathan Lawrence at first
Speaker 1: didn't think we could do it, but once he read
Speaker 1: the case law, he said, yeah, I believe we can.
Speaker 1: So Jonathan Lawrence got involved and filed an eighty one
Speaker 1: page motion and convinced Judge Messina, who denied us back
Speaker 1: in ninety two, reopened my father's case and she held
Speaker 1: a two day evidentiary hearing in two thousand and four,
Speaker 1: And you finally have an attorney here who can do
Speaker 1: justice in your father's case, who gathered and presented some
Speaker 1: powerful expert testimony, including from investigator Chuck Gay, who had
Speaker 1: been at the courthouse for hearing but had been prevented
Speaker 1: from entering the courtroom. Now he finally had a chance
Speaker 1: to speak. Chuck Gay was a twenty five year police
Speaker 1: officer in Long Beach, California. He had actually talked to
Speaker 1: the FBI in different courses on crime scene investigation, and
Speaker 1: he testified to the crime scene photos not coming out.
Speaker 1: You can't restage a crime scene. That's absurd, unclothing her
Speaker 1: at the scene, all of these things. Crime scene preservation
Speaker 1: is what Chuck Gate testified to and how improper it was.
Speaker 1: The gunshot residue was a real big one with him.
Speaker 1: We found out a little more about the green document.
Speaker 1: So you have to realize before trial, when they give
Speaker 1: us that green document, it was just a copy, so
Speaker 1: it was on white paper. We really didn't know what
Speaker 1: it said underneath, but we knew something was wrong because
Speaker 1: the left hand was missing. And when our investigator after
Speaker 1: the trial went to go investigate that, the crime lab said,
Speaker 1: we didn't do that. They said, these are our documents.
Speaker 1: We used green owl. So they were pointing the finger
Speaker 1: at the police. They knew that that wasn't right. There
Speaker 1: was no in this, Jules or anything that would indicate
Speaker 1: who did it or or why they did it. Myself
Speaker 1: and our attorney in two thousand and six team went
Speaker 1: to the crime lab and and got this document and
Speaker 1: him and I both held it up to the light
Speaker 1: and you could see underneath the wide out on the
Speaker 1: number of articles and then underneath the other wide out
Speaker 1: 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 from both prosecution
Speaker 1: and defense. And of course the guy I'm referring to
Speaker 1: is Bob Tressel. 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: we began looking at the angles that the bullet took
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 approximately 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: seed 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 lane, 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 ricchet is off.
Speaker 1: We know it's going upward, so she has to have
Speaker 1: her upper body bent over or her head bent over
Speaker 1: towards the table in order to receive that gunshot one
Speaker 1: and there's only about two ft distance between the table
Speaker 1: and the wall, and so you've got to get two
Speaker 1: people almost directly in front of each other. But the
Speaker 1: gun's gotta be held way down low, and in order
Speaker 1: to get the distances that we saw, the gun has
Speaker 1: got to be almost on top of the table. So
Speaker 1: where can the shooter be at that point When we
Speaker 1: finally did all the calculations in order for someone to
Speaker 1: be directly in front of her. If a shooter was
Speaker 1: the one that fired this weapon, he would have to
Speaker 1: be under the table. That makes no sense whatsoever. There's
Speaker 1: no direct for rents of evidence either by blood tissue,
Speaker 1: gunshot residue, things of that nature that indicate that Middleton
Speaker 1: fired this gun, killing his wife. And so all of
Speaker 1: this powerful expert testimony has been heard. And to top
Speaker 1: it all off, there was one more witness that testified
Speaker 1: on your father's behalf. The former governor of Missouri. Yes,
Speaker 1: you heard that correctly. The former governor of Missouri, Joseph P. Teasdale,
Speaker 1: testified on Kent's be had and he had extensive trial
Speaker 1: experience as an assistant U. S attorney, prosecuting attorney, and
Speaker 1: as a trial lawyer. And he testified to the quote
Speaker 1: suspect conduct of the prosecutors and the quote ineffective performance
Speaker 1: of the defense council. And at the end of the testimony,
Speaker 1: former Governor Teasdale was asked what he would have done
Speaker 1: if this case had been presented to him in his
Speaker 1: capacity as governor, and he replied that this was the
Speaker 1: worst case of constitutional violations that he had ever witnessed
Speaker 1: in forty one years of practicing law, and that he
Speaker 1: and this is a direct quote, would clearly have pardoned
Speaker 1: Mr Middleton of all wrongdoing end quote. That's a strong statement.
Speaker 1: He had gotten familiar with Dad's case a few years before,
Speaker 1: and I reached out to him when we got this
Speaker 1: evidencurre hearing and asked him what his costs would be
Speaker 1: for him to come testify, and and he said, I
Speaker 1: don't want any money. I want to state dinner when
Speaker 1: your dad gets out of there. And it meant a
Speaker 1: lot to me. So finally, this information that you've been
Speaker 1: trying to get hurt for so many years, the ineffective
Speaker 1: Council of the Prosecutorial misconduct and complex 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 Kent's case.
Speaker 1: So this was all powerful evidence that the jury ever heard.
Speaker 1: After all this evidence was put forward, Judgementsina took it
Speaker 1: under advisement and would not rule on the case for
Speaker 1: 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 the 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 judge,
Speaker 1: my father refused the Alford plea. For him to turn
Speaker 1: that down with all appeals exhausted, that speaks volumes to
Speaker 1: his innocence. And on May twenty thousand five, Judgementsina came
Speaker 1: back and vacated King's conviction and granted him a new trial.
Speaker 1: So the same judge who denied him in nine two
Speaker 1: overturned his conviction. Judge Massina found eight different points of
Speaker 1: ineffective assistance a council on Bob Duncan. The man had
Speaker 1: three other capital murder cases overturned at the same time
Speaker 1: he was handling my dad's case. But just six days
Speaker 1: after this incredible news, you get a huge punch to
Speaker 1: the gun. What does the Jackson County Prosecutor's office do.
Speaker 1: They appealed the decision, so if he would plead guilty
Speaker 1: after that hearing, they were willing to let him go.
Speaker 1: But when he stood by his innocence and the trial
Speaker 1: judge agreed and overturned his conviction. They appealed it. They
Speaker 1: ruled that Judge Messina didn't have jurisdiction to issue that
Speaker 1: new trial. They never got to the merits or the
Speaker 1: facts that she ruled he was wrongfully convicted in violation
Speaker 1: of his sixth Amendment right to constitutional effective representation. They
Speaker 1: never got to any of that. They just said she
Speaker 1: didn't have jurisdiction. And this is now seventeen long years ago.
Speaker 1: It's it's crazy. I mean, the court heard the merits
Speaker 1: of his innocence and the sigh did he should get
Speaker 1: a new trial, But outside of the fifteen appellate proceedings,
Speaker 1: it was ruled that the trial court didn't have jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: So Ken has just been sitting there since two thousand four,
Speaker 1: awaiting a miracle or a change in the law so
Speaker 1: that his case could be heard again, and that finally
Speaker 1: happened in August, a new law was passed in Missouri
Speaker 1: that allows a case to go before the trial judge
Speaker 1: outside of hearing. So what that means is that if
Speaker 1: a prosecutor knows that a man is innocent, as the
Speaker 1: current prosecutor has implied in Ken's case, they're no longer
Speaker 1: jurisdictionally barred from doing something about it. Judgementsine has already
Speaker 1: ruled on this, and she's now an advisor to the
Speaker 1: current prosecutor, Jean Peters Baker and Baker already made use
Speaker 1: of this new law in Kevin Strickland's case in the
Speaker 1: fall of one, Yet strangely she is yet to act
Speaker 1: in Ken's case. It's it's mystifying and maddening at the
Speaker 1: same time. So, Cliff, what's going on with all of this? Now?
Speaker 1: This new law, Yes, it's about a prosecutor's right to
Speaker 1: file a motion, but it's also about a court's right
Speaker 1: to have jurisdiction to consider and here the matter. Well,
Speaker 1: now they're given the motion courts jurisdiction, but the prosecutor
Speaker 1: has to file it. So in our case, we've already
Speaker 1: proved everything there is with this statute. The statute lays
Speaker 1: out that upon the filing of such emotion, the court
Speaker 1: shall have a hearing and issue of findings and facts
Speaker 1: and conclusions of law on all issues presented. That's exactly
Speaker 1: what Judge Messina did. So we've already been successful at
Speaker 1: securing a new trial from my father. But the only
Speaker 1: thing we didn't have was jurisdiction. Well, now this new
Speaker 1: law gives the courts jurisdiction, but the prosecutor has been
Speaker 1: reluctant to file it. So now that this new law
Speaker 1: has passed, I believe the next steps are for Gene
Speaker 1: to file emotion conceding jurisdiction. That's it. We don't need
Speaker 1: anything else from her but a one page motion conceding
Speaker 1: jurisdiction and allow a court there in Jackson County to
Speaker 1: get to the merits of the trial Judge Edith Messina's
Speaker 1: order overturning my dad's conviction. For our audience out there
Speaker 1: listening now, is there something you'd like them to do?
Speaker 1: What can they do to help to write this horrible injustice? Yes,
Speaker 1: you'd go to our website at free hyphen Ken Middleton
Speaker 1: dot com. There's a wealth of very compelling documents that
Speaker 1: support everything we spoke about today. If we said it today,
Speaker 1: rest assured. You can go to our website and find it.
Speaker 1: And on the homepage right up front, there's a petition
Speaker 1: asking Jean Peters Baker to abide by her oath and
Speaker 1: follow the plain language of this new Missouri statute. It's
Speaker 1: as simple as a one page motion conceding jurisdiction so
Speaker 1: that my dad can once again prove his innocence and
Speaker 1: come home to the family that waits him. Right, we'll
Speaker 1: have that linked in the bio as well as a
Speaker 1: link to Silver Creek Entertainment. Um, I believe there's a
Speaker 1: film on the way about Ken's case, and it can't
Speaker 1: come soon enough as far as I'm concerned. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm both dreading 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 our audience. So Cliff, why don't you go first?
Speaker 1: And can we'll let you close us 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 Kim over
Speaker 1: to you. Well, what I'd like to say here that
Speaker 1: all the people that's listening, I would appreciate it more
Speaker 1: than words can explain. Anything they can do, sign petitions,
Speaker 1: signa letters to Baker to get her to follow the statute,
Speaker 1: anything anybody can do to have to clear and get
Speaker 1: the same justice that Kevin Strickland got. I would appreciate
Speaker 1: it more than words can say. Thank you for listening
Speaker 1: to ronfle 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 it's Jason flom Wrangful Conviction is the production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good podcasts and association with signal Company Number
Speaker 1: one