Appeals Court Reveals Second Murder Confession in Hartman Murder

In a ruling made public today, the Alaska Appellate Court has shot down the efforts of inmate Jason Wallace to keep his confession to the murder of John Hartman out of court.

Although the exact statements of Jason Wallace related to his participation in the 1997 murder for which the Fairbanks Four were convicted and remain incarcerated have yet to be revealed to the public, the ruling confirms that Jason Wallace made statements to “an investigator working for his attorney which, if true, would tend to exculpate four defendants who were previously convicted of the same crime that J.W. described.” Wallace, currently incarcerated for another murder and represented by Fairbanks attorney Jason Gazewood who was most recently in the news after being held in contempt of court, has fought the release of his confession since the Alaska Innocence Project entered them under seal as part of a Post Conviction Relief filing based on actual innocence on behalf of the Fairbanks Four. Marvin Roberts, Eugene Vent, Kevin Pease, and George Frese were arrested and convicted of the Hartman murder in October of 1997. the four young men were convicted despite a wealth of alibi evidence and with no physical evidence of any kind linking them to the victim or each other.

Jason Wallace has been fingered as an alternate suspect in the Hartman killing since at least 2004, but a substantial statement related to his involvement proved elusive. Finally, in a sworn affidavit to the Alaska Innocence Project dated in 2008, high school acquaintance of Wallace Scott Davison detailed the statements about the killing Wallace had made to him just days after the murder. Davison was absolutely bullied and berated by the State of Alaska for coming forward.

According to oral arguments made during a recent misconduct hearing on the case, in 2011 William Holmes, a Fairbanks man serving a double life sentence in a California prison for unrelated murders, developed a relationship with correctional officer and chaplain Joseph Torquato. Holmes told Torquato about his life in Alaska and his troubled past. On December 5th, 2011 Holmes detailed to Torquato his role in the stomping murder of a young boy for which four innocent men were imprisoned. Torquato was so compelled by the statements of William Holmes that he went home the same night and used the internet to research similar murders in Alaska. He came upon the Hartman case, and the next day when he saw Holmes he asked him, “Does the name Hartman mean anything to you?” to which Holmes replied, “Do you mean John Hartman?” The inmate confirmed that the murder he had confessed to the previous day was indeed the Hartman murder. Torquato implored Holmes to come forward to Fairbanks authorities, but he refused.

The correctional officer then took the information to his supervisor and together the two composed what is now referred to in proceedings as the “Torquato Memo.” Torquato sent the written account of the confession by Holmes to the Fairbanks Police department. They forwarded it to the District Attorney’s office. Ultimately, neither party took action.

The State’s failure to disclose the confession of Holmes when first received was the subject of the July 30th hearing in Fairbanks Superior Court, where the state argued that the wording of the Code of Ethics as written in 2011 should have allowed the prosecutor to withhold the confession, although they conceded that such conduct would not be acceptable in 2014. They further argued that because the Fairbanks Four had been convicted by 2011 that they did not have any remaining constitutional due process rights.

Counsel for the Fairbanks Four argued that there were indeed state and federal constitutional rights violated through the withholding of the Holmes confession, and that the ethical obligation to disclose the confession was so clear that it was “offensive to justice” to have withheld it. Attorneys for the Fairbanks Four discussed the harm that had come to the four men’s case as a result of the State’s decision to hide the Holmes confession. Among other things, they cited the 2014 deaths of two witnesses who had heard confessions from Marquez Pennington. Had the State revealed the confession as obligated, the argued, the witnesses may have been alive to testify that Marquez Pennington made admissions in the case as well. This small comment was the first reference to yet a third confession – the confession of Marquez Pennington. 

A decision as to whether the actions of the District Attorney violated the rights of the men known as the Fairbanks Four is forthcoming from Judge Paul Lyle.

Despite the State decision to withhold the confession, it eventually came out. Holmes confessed directly to the Alaska Innocence Project. In 2012, Holmes mailed a detailed and handwritten confession to his role in the killing of John Hartman in which he named Jason Holmes, Marquez Pennington, Shelmar Johnson, and Rashan Brown. The five teenagers, according to Holmes, went out that night hoping to assault “drunk Natives” for fun, and after being unable to find the ideal victim happened upon John Hartman. According to Holmes Jason Wallace was the ringleader of the vicious assault, but all four of the other men he named attacked and killed Hartman, while Holmes served as driver. (Read the Holmes confession HERE). IMG_7092

The Holmes confession provided answers long-sought by the Fairbanks Four and their families and friends who for nearly two decades have insisted on their innocence. It also corroborated the affidavit of Scott Davison, and became the centerpiece of the 2013 Alaska Innocence Project filing for Post Conviction Relief on behalf of the men. Also contained in the filing were statements made by Jason Wallace said to “corroborate the confession of William Holmes.”

The statements by Wallace, potentially subject to attorney-client privilege, were filed under seal and it was never known if they would be made public. Jason Wallace can, and likely will, appeal the decision to release his confession to the Alaska Supreme Court, although it seems unlikely that they would opt to hear the case. The decision by the Court of Appeals only applies to the narrow issue of whether or not the judge CAN consider it for admission. It is still possible that Judge Lyle will not declare it admissible. It is possible that he may admit it and keep it confidential.

This wins a battle, but the war is long.

story1Whatever the legal meanderings of this case through the maze of a truly sick justice system, we have as much faith today as we did when we wrote our first post. The first time anyone ever used the term “Fairbanks Four” we used it with this promise beside it  –  “This is story of injustice, a plea for help, for understanding, and above all a story of faith in the power of stories, of the truth. Writing this blog is an act of faith, a testimony to the power of the truth, spoken, read. We may not be experts in journalism, in law, or many other things. But the contributors here come from Alaska, from a culture that has a long tradition of storytelling, and a belief that the truth holds incredible power. This is a long story, and we will have to tell it the old way, the slow way, in pieces as they come.”

This story is unfolding as we knew it would and know it will because we have known the ending since the beginning. This blog is still a story, told in pieces as they come. Today, this is a new piece of a long story. This movement is still a plea for help. We need you to share this story and do what you can to right a wrong.

Above all, it is still an act of faith and we have absolute faith in the good of people like you and the power of the truth.

Deranged State of Alaska Insists that Innocent Men Should Remain in Prison

queenofheartsThe State of Alaska filed their response to the Innocence Project filing that rejected their claims. You can and should read about that HERE. Because, honestly, the state’s response is so stupid that it isn’t even fun to write about and probably no picnic to read about either. And it has left me thinking about the crazy, mean Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. Remember her? I am feeling pretty convinced that if we put her in charge of the justice system in the State of Alaska we would be making a fair trade in terms of ethics and competence. But at least we would have painted roses and maybe a catchy theme song.

The State of Alaska started this response period of with….wait for it….yet another request for an extension! When they requested an extension I had high hopes that they may have something at least new to say. Alas, it appears they needed more time to simply regurgitate their last filing, with the spelling errors mostly cleaned up, and the rather embarrassing, tasteless, dishonest attack on a witness removed.

But the basics are the same. The State of Alaska is willing to have an evidentiary hearing on the Fairbanks Four case. They just don’t want any of the evidence to be allowed in. They surmise that in this evidence hearing they do not want any evidence that will bring Alaskans “closure” on this issue. Apparently, they honestly believe their citizens are so unaware or stupid that we will accept an evidence hearing without the evidence as closure and go on with our lives, pretending that they didn’t lock up innocent children. Pretending that they didn’t leave serial killers on our streets. Pretending that they didn’t lie, hide, cheat, and bribe. We cannot have justice, so they offer “closure” through a review of evidence with no evidence allowed.

I can see why – it is evidence likely to set innocent men free. It is evidence likely to make it crystal clear that the Fairbanks Police Department chief hid a murder confession. That the DA hid a murder confession. That the courts are still hiding what appears to be a separate murder confession. That witnesses were harassed. That witnesses were bribed. And, most horrifyingly, that if the people sworn to seek and uphold justice in 1997 had tried even a little bit to do that, not only would four innocent men be free, but at least five other lives could have been saved, perhaps more. It’s the brutal and unflinching truth, and the truth is the rattling skeleton in the State of Alaska’s gleaming mansion of lies.

The State argues that the confession of William Holmes should be thrown out and considered hearsay. We discussed that at length HERE the last time they made the argument.

The State argues that the scientific evidence should not be allowed in because progression in the forensic sciences is not relevant to post conviction relief filings. I mean, who needs science, right? The progression in the sciences has more than doubled our life expectancy and led to such revelations as the world not being flat, the existence of space, and the cure to the diseases that used to kill nearly all of us. But, scientific progress isn’t for the State of Alaska.

In a nutshell, the state believes a confession of murder from the murderer is “hearsay” and that modern science has no place in a courtroom. Even though the filing is full of words and legal references (as a matter of fact, in one jewel of a statement they attempt to discuss precedent by citing an unpublished opinion that they then acknowledge does not set precedent), all I can picture is that crazy queen. Our system indeed seems that absurd, deranged, and sick with power. It would be easy to make fun of that for 5,000 words. Yet, the state opinion is so ridiculous it is essentially a parody of itself. And, they are spending your tax dollars to do this absurd work, much more slowly than necessary!

In the end, there is nothing funny about it. This isn’t a movie and it isn’t a joke. Lives are at stake, and our justice system is sick, sick, sick. It remains sad, it remains shocking, it remains heartbreakingly painful that the State of Alaska is so invested in protecting themselves from embarrassment that there is no limit to the lives they will ruin, deaths they will turn a blind eye to, and lows they will stoop to. But, it has been made clear that they have no plan to change their tactic.

It’s an election year. Alaskans, you might want to ask your politicians about this issue. Surely, we can do better than this.

 

State of Alaska Responds to Fairbanks Four Claim of Innocence

clockTick, tock. Tick, tock.

Life is about time. Time is all we have, really. And time is what the State of Alaska has stolen from so many, and what they are always wanting more of.

In the last hours of the last day remaining of the six month extension the State of Alaska was granted to review the Alaska Innocence Project’s motion for post conviction relief based on actual innocence for the Fairbanks Four, the State of Alaska has finally responded.

In September the Alaska Innocence Project and attorney Colleen Libby filed motions claiming that George Frese, Eugene Vent, Marvin Roberts, and Kevin Pease were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. The state responded to that claim (which spanned some 131 pages) with a 23 page response which focuses largely on legal technicalities and little on the inherent accuracy of the claim that the Fairbanks Four are innocent, and that five other men are actually responsible for the violent beating death of John Hartman.

In general the response by the state reads like a typical attack by a prosecutor made on the arguments of opposing counsel. The response appears to be hastily written, with typos and a very conversational tone. It is not an thorough nor is it an independent review of the case and the claims of innocence by the Fairbanks Four, which is what the State of Alaska assured the Alaskan public is what they would receive at the end of the long extension (HERE).

In fact, the complexity of the case and the need to be thorough were cited as primary reasons for the long extension request. Senators Begich and Murkowski both wrote open letters to the governor (HERE and HERE) stating the importance of a thorough and independent review. Murkowski demanded that “no stone be left unturned.” In response, the State of Alaska overturned no stones. In fact, they only attempted to bury the stones. Begich asserted that “there can be no excuse for not having acted quickly in pursuit of justice and fairness for all involved.” In response, the State of Alaska acted slowly in pursuit of vague and poorly crafted arguments that this case should be kept out of court, with no indication that these arguments were in the interest of justice nor fairness.

We will highlight some of the most important and striking statements made by Alaska Prosecutor Adrienne Bachman on behalf of the State, and respond to them here. In this post we will focus on a few of her most important and central arguments. In the days to come we will continue to provide specific responses to the many statement made by the State. For tonight we will highlight the principle attacks on the Holmes confession. Quotes from the filing are in bold.

“As reported at the court’s last status hearing, investigation into the allegations made in the petitions is not complete.”

Let us begin by clarifying the roles of the State and Innocence Project. The Innocence Project is a legal non-profit. They function as a neutral third party who conducts independent reviews and investigations of cases that are referred to them and pass the initial screening process, during which it is determined that there exists a credible indication that the case may be one of wrongful conviction. They then complete a review and investigation and produce findings. In the case of the Fairbanks Four there has only ever been one independent investigation. That investigation was done by the Innocence Project, and the findings of that investigation were made public through the filing of a post conviction relief motion.

The State of Alaska was tasked only with reviewing and verifying the information in the PCR filing made by Alaska Innocence Project. The Innocence Project is staffed by one attorney, run by a volunteer board, and funded through donations and grants alone. They investigated a case that originated in 1997, reviewed all original materials, investigated the assault of Hartman, procured at least one direct confession, and filed their findings in less than eighteen months. By contrast, the State of Alaska has scores of attorneys at their disposal, access to the use of Alaska State Troopers, police, Alaska Bureau of Investigation, and millions of dollars in their budget for this fiscal year alone. Yet, they were unable to thoroughly review the work of one attorney in an eight month period. This is cause for concern. Furthermore, they failed to even scratch the surface of the task given them, which was to complete a review of the Alaska Innocence Project findings and investigate the evidence contained within. Instead of investigating the information to verify its accuracy they simply crafted an argument to keep the information out of court.

Let us also clarify what exactly the Fairbanks Four are asking for. They have filed a motion for post conviction relief that asks the state to vacate their convictions. It does not ask for immediate exoneration and release. It asks for convictions that were obtained with incomplete information, fictional information, fabricated testimony, coached and bribed testimony, and junk science to be vacated. The state could comply with that request and proceed into a trial. If the State of Alaska could convict them today with all available information admitted into trial, they could vacate these convictions and return to court to have an honest and fair trial, kinda like the one promised to all Americans in the constitution. It is not the release of the Fairbanks Four the State of Alaska is arguing against, it is their right to have a jury of their peers determine their guilt or innocence in a court of law. For eight months the State of Alaska has, with its virtually limitless resources, produced a document that not only fails to fulfill its expressed purpose, but is by their own admission “not complete.”

 

Bachman makes numerous and vigorous assertions that the testimony of William Holmes (HERE) is not in fact a confession, but hearsay.

“What the petitioners present amounts only to hearsay allegations that a third person, Jason Wallace, made incriminating statements about assaulting John Hartman…and hearsay is not admissible evidence.”

Webster Dictionary defines the two words in question here as:

Hearsay. noun. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Confession. noun. a written or spoken statement in which you say that you have done something wrong or committed a crime.

The confession by William Holmes is a firsthand account of his actions, motivations, intentions, movements, and observations the night John Hartman was killed. He confesses to driving into downtown Fairbanks that night with a group of friends for the express purpose of assaulting someone. He expresses that he intended to harm someone, and to drive the car necessary for all parties to flee the scene of these assaults. He further states that after learning John Hartman had died from the assault that he told his accomplices to not talk about the assault.

William Holmes confesses his crime. He confesses his sins. In fact, Holmes first attempted to provide this confession to the Fairbanks Police and through them, the District Attorney and state. They then hid the information and did nothing with it. Read about that HERE.

When the State of Alaska interviewed William Holmes about his involvement with the Hartman murder he maintained his guilt and the guilt of the other parties named. Without the ability to disprove his claim it appears that Adrienne Bachman chose the only method left to her in attempting to uphold the Fairbanks Four conviction, which was not to address whether or not the confession was true, but simply to craft an argument that it was technically not a confession.

The legal definition of hearsay is more complex, but in essence the same in spirit and application. Bachman’s assertion that the Holmes statement is purely hearsay is absurd. If her version of hearsay were to be applied that would mean that essentially a person could agree to drive their friend to go stab someone. They could wait outside until the friend came back out, bloody with a knife in hand, and said “I just finished stabbing so-and-so, let’s get out of here,” and that person’s testimony would not be allowable in court. I am not attorney, but I don’t need a legal degree to tell you, that is stupid. And if it is the best that the combined brainpower, money, resources, and attorneys at the department of law can produce in eight months, we should all be very concerned.

Bachman goes on to poke holes in the credibility of Holmes and Davison’s statements by explaining that they should not be believed because they did not come forward to get any leniency for themselves. As in, they had nothing to gain by coming forward, so we should not believe them.

Um…….okay, I officially have a headache.

In reality, the fact that neither Holmes nor Davison had anything to gain in coming forward lends credibility to their statements. If they had been offered some kind of leniency or reward or personal gain their statements would be less credible. But apparently at the department of law doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do is unheard of. Somehow, I am not surprised. They themselves seem much more interested in taking action for personal gain or to avoid responsibility for their actions than in doing the right thing. Which is disturbing. Because that means that the State of Alaska is apparently less ethical than a petty criminal and a triple murderer.

Perhaps the most interesting element of this filing is not what is in it, but what is NOT in it.

Bachman makes many personal attacks on Davison. Apparently when she was unable to dismantle the factual nature of his statements she opted to take a stab at intimidating and humiliating him to weaken his will. Remember, this young man had nothing to gain and everything to lose. She attacks him over and over as a person, yet does not bother to attach evidence that her claims are factual.

Bachman makes many comments about interviews and evidence that she does not introduce or include.

Bachman insinuates that she has ‘many’ witnesses, yet does not name even one.

What this filing fundamentally contains is a lot of grasping at straws, and very few facts. It is heavy on attempts to attack the truth through technicalities and light on any actual truth of its own.

Funny thing about the truth – it outlasts us all. Time reveals it. Funny thing about darkness – light banishes it.

The State of Alaska had an opportunity to seek justice instead of ego. Fundamentally, it is disappointing that they did not take that opportunity. No matter how hard they try to make this case go away, it will remain. No matter how hard they try to bury the truth, it will emerge. It is not disappointing because their approach will destroy the truth – it won’t. This battle will be long, but truth will prevail. It is disappointing because life gives human beings opportunities to choose between what is status quo and what is right. Those opportunities are gifts, and they failed to receive it. And at the end of the day, that is sad, because there is nothing so rewarding in life as to listen to your better angels and take a stand for good.

justiceAdrienne Bachman is only a person. In all reality she is just a person with a job, following rules, and taking orders from department heads and bosses. Orders from above.

We are taking orders from above, too. Perhaps it is time that she seeks a power higher than the one whose orders she followed today.

 

 

 

 

William Holmes Confession in Hartman Murder Supported by Others, Evidence

decadeSince the moment the Fairbanks Four were arrested for the murder of John Hartman in 1997 the case has been plagued by questions, community concern, and accusations of corruption. As the years passed the movement to exonerate the men convicted in the locally notorious beating death has not faded, but grown larger and more persistent. These efforts have raised funds for rewards, appeals, litigation costs, awareness campaigns, and to support the work of the Alaska Innocence Project. Many events, speeches, news articles, television specials, and rallies have been held over the course of the sixteen years that the Fairbanks Four have been incarcerated, and the case has long been a line dividing the residents of Alaska’s “Golden Heart City” between those who believe the four are innocent and those who do not. In all the years that the case has worked its way through the Alaska court system and the court of public opinion, there is no question that the most explosive development in the Hartman murder and plight of the Fairbanks Four has been the confession of convicted killer William Holmes, who names himself and four other men as the true perpetrators of the murder of John Hartman.

Holmes ConfessionThe handwritten confession, received by Alaska Innocence Project in late 2011, is the most shocking revelation of the application for a post conviction relief file on behalf of the “Fairbanks Four” on September 25, 2013. However, the handwritten three page confession is only a fraction of the contents of the 138-page filing. (READ CONFESSION).

 

Following the filing the State of Alaska’s representatives, Jason Skidmore on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office and Fairbanks Police Chief, were dismissive of the confession. Their criticism was essentially that the confession was not credible given the source – that the character of a known murderer was suspect and Holmes had nothing to lose. In this post we seek to counter that position and give a brief overview of the supporting statements of others and documentation that bolster the validity of Holmes’ confession.

In the days and weeks to come we will take a more detailed look at each of these piece of the Alaska Innocence filing. But for now, we want to outline the contents of the filing that corroborate the confession.:

1.) The affidavit of Scott Davison, who provided a statement to Alaska Innocence Project in 2008. In his sworn affidavit Davison details the confession that Jason Wallace gave to him in 1997 in the days after the murder of John Hartman. The details of the confession Davison recalls and the confession of Holmes, each given without the knowledge of the other and some 14 years apart, match closely. Scott came forward with no motivation (reward was not yet in place) beyond doing the right thing.

2.) The DMV records supporting that Holmes in fact owned and was driving the vehicle he describes in the confession. When a confession is not credible, small details are incorrect. For example, a person fabricating a confession often does something like name a car that they owned, but not at the time of the crime.

3.) Records from the FNSB School District affirming that the five accused were, as Holmes claims, classmates. They all attended Lathrop Highschool, as did EJ Stevens and Chris Stone, the last two people to see Hartman alive. Again, this is the kind of small detail that a false confession often misses.

4.) The filing also indicates that sealed statements made by Jason Wallace likely corroborate the confession of William Holmes. Reporter Brian O’Donoghue recently wrote an article that addressed this sealed statement in detail. His speculation, backed up by jailhouse interviews with Wallace and some thinly veiled comments from a few local public defender’s, is essentially that Wallace confessed to the Hartman murder sometime around 2002-2004 to his public defender, but that the attorney has kept quiet under the guise of attorney-client privilege. Unless and until a judge orders the “sealed” evidence to be opened, its contents cannot truly be know. But O’Donoghue’s work provides a strong hint to the contents of the evidence under seal. Read the article HERE.

5.) The details in the confession of William Holmes closely match what is known about the crime, victim’s injuries, and crime scene. Holmes describes spotting Hartman as he turned off of Barnette Street. He describes how Jason Wallace stomped Hartman over and over, despite the protests of the others present. He describes how, as Marquez Pennington rifled through the contents of Hartman’s pockets, the boy was shaking and then went limp. Hartman was found with the contents of his pockets scattered about, his wallet missing, laying face up with his knees on the curb, torso in the street, his baggy pants down near his knees, and other clothing in place. Hartman was displaying deceberate posturing, a body state that is indicative of severe brain injury, and often brain death. It is likely that the moment when Hartman stopped shaking was the moment of brain death. His belongings were scattered as they rifled through his pockets. His position was consistent with the assault type.

6.) Holmes does not mention a sexual assault. There was early police speculation and a “satanic panic’ style community belief that Hartman was sexually assaulted. In reality there was no determination of sexual assault by anyone besides one under-qualified nurse who likely mistook the anal dilation associated with brain trauma for a sign of sexual assault. The state medical examiner and other experts brought in to look for indications of sexual assault found none. The fact is that the physical evidence of the crime never supported a claim of sexual assault, although the press and community clung to it. Given that there is more evidence that Hartman was not sexually assaulted than that he was, there is credibility in a confession that does not contain this element.

7.)  Holmes states that Jason Wallace, the ‘ringleader’ in the account give by Holmes, had a substantial amount of blood on his clothes and shoes. Although the crime scene was described as bloodless by police, and had not been seen until the image on this blog was unearthed (HERE), the nature of Hartman’s injuries, statements by the people who found him, and recollection of responding EMTs always lead most who considered it to assume that whoever committed the crime would have had a substantial amount of DNA evidence on themselves and any getaway vehicle.

8.) The Holmes confession meets all litmus tests used to determine if a confession is legitimate. He provides details on location, the victim, the motivation, and shares the chilling details that have remained with him through the years. He does all of the talking, and is not prompted with leading questions or supplied details to repeat. No one forgets a murder. Holmes has spent the last eleven years without access to the internet, to news about this case, with no contact with the others he names, and had to draw his confession from memory alone, and memory that was a decade and a half old. That he was able to provide so much detail is indicative credibility. The experience of participating in a killing as a teenager would be traumatic. Even though he says “mentally, I lived as if that night never happened,” the details were likely so clear and accessible because they were so traumatic and remained vivid.

The filing corroborates every independent and verifiable statement made by Holmes. However, the State of Alaska has still chosen to question the credibility based on the character of William Holmes as well as the “nothing to lose” factor (Holmes is serving a double life sentence for unrelated killings). We would like to address both attacks on the credibility of the confession.

First, let us say that the ONLY credible confession of murder comes from a murderer. When a false confession of murder is elicited it is, in fact, not particularly credible (read about that HERE). It is a sad irony that the Fairbanks Chief of Police would make the statement that confessions of murder by known murderers is not the kind of confession he finds credible, in light of the fact that the FPD was quite willing to take confessions in this case from innocent men that were clearly not credible. It is impossible to receive a credible confession of murder from anyone except a killer. That three of the five men named have committed other murders does not detract from the credibility of the confession, it strengthens it. It is a tragic revelation. The moment that John Hartman stopped shaking these men became killers. Three of the five went on to become serial killers. That these men are capable of the crime is clear. We find this unimaginably sad, but also very true.

The second attack on the credibility of the confession is that Holmes has nothing to lose by confessing. He is serving a double life sentence, so it is absolutely true that the threat of additional time is probably not the kind of disincentive that it would be for a free man. That said, Holmes lives in a maximum security prison in California, which has the highest rate of murder of incarcerated men by incarcerated men in the country. It is well-known that in prison culture the most hated and attacked prisoners are snitches and child molesters (there are thousands of killings and articles and studies to underscore that, look on your own if you like, HERE is a relatively random one if you would like to read about snitching in prison).

William Holmes, 1997

William Holmes, 1997

The reality is that William Holmes has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. He has put his life on the line, and although we will not defend his character, he has risked the only thing he still has – his life. Assuming he is not killed for snitching, he has certainly sentenced himself to a life of isolation, fear, and assault.  It is impossible to say what motivated Holmes, but the most likely one is perhaps the most simple – for 16 years he has lived knowing that innocent men are in prison for a crime they did not commit and he chose to right that wrong. He has committed the sin of murder, and there is nothing he can do to bring the people he killed back to their families. But he does have the ability to do what he can to end his part in the ongoing victimization of the Fairbanks Four. For all of these many years people have hoped, prayed, and dreamed that the hearts of whoever killed John Hartman would be called to come forward. We choose to believe that those prayers certainly can permeate concrete and pass through prison walls, and that they reached William Holmes and called him to do the right thing.

If Holmes came forward just to clear his conscience, he would hardly be the first. Many wrongful convictions have been resolved after the true perpetrator confesses (read those stories HERE and HERE). Sadly, initial reactions to the confessions that eventually freed the innocent in those cases were met with the same predictable response that the State of Alaska has expressed in the Fairbanks Four case.

It is extremely uncommon for a prisoner, even a lifetime prisoner, to arbitrarily confess to a crime he did not commit. Voluntary false confessions are rare as well. It is reasonably common for the wrongfully convicted to be cleared or unsolved crimes to be solved when a perpetrator voluntarily confesses years later. These confessions usually come from prison cells, because the perpetrator went on to commit similar crimes and were eventually caught.

William Holmes’s confession is credible. And, contrary to the sentiment expressed by the state of Alaska, no one has to take his word for it in isolation. The confession is backed up by hard corroboration, the matching statements of others given at other times without collaboration, and mounds of anecdotal evidence that indicates that this is what a credible confession looks like. (Read about credible confessions HERE).

Regardless of his past misdeeds, William Holmes made a decision to tell the truth. And, as we have said many times, the truth will prevail. The truth will FREE THE FAIRBANKS FOUR.

 

*Footnote – it remains necessary, although painful, to write about the details of the last moments of John Hartman’s life. To those who knew and loved him, we are sorry if our words bring you pain. We have posted about that HERE and encourage all of our readers to pray for John, his family, and remember to honor his memory as best you can.

True Murderer Comes Forward – A Letter from William Holmes

story1We have a long tradition of letting people tell their own story.

Today, the Innocence Project walked into the courthouse and filed a motion for Post Conviction Release on behalf of George Frese, Eugene Vent, Marvin Roberts, and Kevin Pease. These men have maintained their innocence for almost sixteen years, and today definitive evidence of their innocence has been made public.

This court motion contained a lot of information – testimony by experts that George’s boot did NOT match the wounds on the victim, proof that Arlo Olson lied, proof that it would be scientifically impossible for someone to have seen what he claimed. But, the most important thing it contained, in our view, is a story. A handwritten confession, by a man named William Z. Holmes who confesses in detail the murder of John Hartman.

We have said many times that we believe people can feel the truth, see it, sense it, recognize it. And that is why we believe so strongly in the power of truth told by those who hold it. We believe the best we can do to help any injustice is to make a space where people can tell their truth. There will be plenty of articles, news, updates, and headlines about this case today, we will let them fill their purpose, and fill ours.

With that in mind, below is the handwritten confession of William Z. Homes. We will let that stand alone for today. You can judge for yourselves if it is the truth. We believe it is.

We believe in redemption. That anyone can do all they are able to change themselves during their time upon this Earth and that no matter how dark or low a place life takes us to that we can still seek light. So, we publish this with a great sadness for the heartbreaking manner in which John Hartman died, but also a hope for the individuals who did kill him, and every single one of those who helped to hide the truth and further lies, that they may use this time to come forward and begin what must be a very long journey toward redemption.

This day could have never come without the faith, hope, and hard work of many, and we thank you all. Our journey to justice is far from over, but today we begin a walk down a new road.

This is a sad story. Listen, listen.

Image

photo (1)

photo (2)