CONVICTION OVERTURNED IN - Helen Sailor Murdered in Elkhart, 11/29/2002 *Guilty*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

FrostedGlass

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
6,353
Reaction score
30,361
Appeals court overturns 2005 murder conviction due to false testimony
...
Andrew Royer and Lana Canen were charged with killing 94-year-old Helen Sailor in her apartment. Royer and Canen were convicted and sentenced to 55 years in prison.
...
During Canen's post-conviction relief proceeding, an Indiana State Police latent print examiner determined the fingerprint attributed to Canen belonged to one of the victim's home health aides, not Canen. It was the only piece of physical evidence tying her to the scene. She was released in 2012.

**************
Court: Man entitled to new trial in killing of woman, 94
The court found that the Elkhart police detective who interrogated Royer, now 45, disregarded his mental disability and fed him details of Sailor’s murder during interrogation. Royer had confessed in 2003 after being interrogated for two days.

***************************
Appeals court overturns 2005 murder conviction due to false testimony
The filing is based on evidence uncovered by innocence clinics at three law schools, said Elliot Slosar, an attorney for Royer. Slosar is with The Exoneration Project at the University of Chicago Law School.

“An epidemic exists in Elkhart, Indiana, where individuals are wrongfully convicted as a result of police corruption and uninspiring advocacy by defense counsel,” Slosar said. “Mr. Royer’s wrongful conviction is another product of the systemic failure in Elkhart.”
 
James Royer
20D03-0309-MR-00155 Conviction
20A-PC-00955 Appeal

Lana Canen
20C01-0409-MR-00118 Conviction
20A05-0511-CR-00661 Appeal
20D01-1401-CT-000019 Dennis Chapman, Mark Daggy

Here are a number of good articles on this case from Indiana Lawyer
Helen Sailor - The Indiana Lawyer

Elkhart man revives efforts for new trial in 2002 murder
July 11, 2019 | Olivia Covington
A mentally disabled man serving a 55-year prison sentence for an Elkhart murder 17 years ago that he maintains he did not commit is reviving his efforts for post-conviction relief, presenting new evidence in a petition he claims exonerates him.
Read More

Elkhart wrongful conviction case latest in county’s justice system
August 21, 2018 | Olivia Covington
An effort to exonerate a man with limited mental capacity who was convicted of murder 13 years ago is the latest in a string of criminal cases that have put a spotlight on the extraordinary number of wrongful convictions in Elkhart County.
Read More


Elkhart man moves to withdraw wrongful conviction petition
August 7, 2018 | Olivia Covington
A mentally disabled man challenging his conviction in a 2002 Elkhart murder has moved to withdraw his petition to vacate judgment in favor of filing a successive petition for post-conviction relief.
Read More

Judge grants gag order against exoneration attorney
July 6, 2018 | Olivia Covington
A northern Indiana judge has agreed to enter an injunction against a Chicago attorney accused of making “extrajudicial statements” in defense of a mentally-disabled man currently serving time for an Elkhart murder.
Read More

Prosecutor wants gag order against exoneration lawyer
July 2, 2018 | Olivia Covington
The Elkhart County prosecutor is accusing a Chicago attorney who is leading the charge to overturn a mentally disabled man’s conviction for an Elkhart murder of violating Indiana professional conduct rules, arguing comments the attorney made at a press conference were “extrajudicial statements” that could jeopardize his pro hac vice status.
Read More

Woman exonerated in murder loses appeal over fingerprint errors
January 27, 2017 | Olivia Covington
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to allow a plaintiff to seek money damages against an Elkhart County detective who incorrectly identified latent fingerprints as those of a woman convicted of murder in 2002. The panel ruled that despite his training, the detective was still considered an expert on fingerprint identification.
Read More
 
This case, IMO, is wrong on so many levels.

From the link above: Elkhart wrongful conviction case latest in county’s justice system
[snips]
The petition makes much of Royer’s allegedly coerced statement, notably alleging for the first time that Royer’s interrogation was video-recorded. But those recordings were withheld from the defense, the petition says, a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

Finally, the petition alleges both Porter and Johnson have recanted their testimonies, which they allegedly say are the result of police coercion. (Porter even received the $2000 reward that had been offered.)

Earlier in Royer’s appellate process, Wieneke said she told Sutherlin she thought his best chance at exonerating Royer would be to find evidence pointing to another killer. Slosar’s petition includes such evidence, naming two possible suspects: Larry Wood and Tony Thomas.
Both men were at the apartment complex on the day of the murder, and the petition alleges Wood also confessed to strangling Sailor. But this alleged evidence wasn’t presented at trial, a fact Sutherlin said indicates ineffective assistance of counsel, and the petition says proves Elkhart police failed to properly investigate the case.
 
Finally!

State of Indiana v. Andrew M Royer
Case Number 20A-PC-00955
Court Court of Appeals
Type PC - Post-Conviction (Non-Capital) Appeals
Filed 04/28/2020
Status 08/12/2021 , Closed
*****************
Andrew Royer - National Registry of Exonerations
(snips)
"On July 19, 2021, the prosecution dismissed Royer’s case. Royer’s exoneration culminated years-long collaboration by the Notre Dame Exoneration Justice Clinic, IU McKinney Wrongful Conviction Clinic, and the Exoneration Project."

Here are a couple of paragraphs about the problems with false confessions:
(snips)
"In 2007, Royer filed a post-conviction petition seeking a new trial, claiming that his trial attorney provided an inadequate legal defense, primarily because he did not obtain a false confession expert. During a hearing held in 2011, Dr. Richard Leo, a false confession expert, testified that Royer's interrogation shared a number of characteristics with interrogations resulting in false confessions, including factual inconsistencies between the confession and facts presented at trial, as well as the duration and environment of Royer's interrogations.

Royer’s trial defense attorney said that although he received names of false confession experts from Dr. Courtney, he did not consult with them. Instead, he said he focused on whether Royer was given his antipsychotic medication prior to the interrogation, as well as how Royer came across in the recordings of his confession. In addition, since the prosecution’s theory was that Canen influenced Royer to commit the crime, it was important for the defense not to portray Royer as someone easily susceptible to influence, including by police. The defense lawyer also said that juries in that county were generally skeptical of expert witnesses."
 
Elkhart officer who gave false testimony in Royer case now facing termination - The Indiana Lawyer

September 16, 2021 | Olivia Covington
{snips}
Elkhart Police Chief Kris Seymore has recommended that Lt. Carl Conway be terminated from the northern Indiana police force based on his conduct in the case against Andrew Royer. Royer was convicted in 2005 of the murder of 94-year-old Helen Sailor, but he was granted a new trial in 2020, and the state dropped the murder case against him earlier this summer.
...
Seymore charged Conway with misconduct including:
Immoral conduct under Indiana Code § 36-8-3.5-17(b)(2)(F).
Conduct injurious to the public peace or welfare under I.C. 36-8-3.5-17(b)(2)(G).
Conduct unbecoming a member under I.C.36-8-3.5-17(b)(2)(H).
“No measure of discipline for your conduct can restore your credibility within the criminal justice system,” Seymore wrote. “As a result, your termination is the only appropriate discipline that can be had.”
...
Conway has been on paid administrative leave since April. According to the South Bend Tribune, he is scheduled for hearing before the merit commission in early October.
 
Elkhart police officer who lied in murder case resigns
Marek Mazurek South Bend Tribune
Oct. 6, 2021
[snips]
ELKHART — Carl Conway, an Elkhart detective accused of lying in court when describing the interrogation of a mentally disabled man in a nearly two-decade-old homicide, has resigned from the department.
...
Conway admitted during a 2019 hearing that he did offer Royer details about the crime, including that Sailor, the victim, was hit on the head, that a liquid was poured on her body and that towels were used to clean up the scene, and then thrown away.
...
(In a statement from Royer's legal team)
"We applaud the City of Elkhart and Elkhart Chief of Police for seeking Conway's termination," the statement read. "But if they are committed to true accountability, they should seek the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to prosecute Lt. Conway for his criminal misconduct and investigate whether any others should face charges relating to Andy Royer's wrongful conviction."
...
According to Seymore’s letter to the merit commission, Conway's history includes being recommended for a one-day suspension after he "misrepresented material facts” in a complaint he filed against a fellow officer. He also received two written reprimands in 2005 for reporting to a drug test 15 days late and for using a fellow officer’s identification number to make long-distance calls to his girlfriend.

Conway was also removed from the homicide unit in 2004 after he questioned a person as a suspect in a homicide, but told the person's attorney he was only being questioned as a witness, the chief's letter says.
 
BBM
Exonerated Elkhart man files lawsuit against prosecutor & nine police officers
...
"The lawsuit includes the names of nine Elkhart Police Officers: Carlton Conway, Mark Daggy, Paul Converse, Peggy Snider, Todd Thayer, Michael Sigsbee, Joel Bourdon, Brett Coppins, Dennis Chapman. The lawsuit also includes Elkhart County Prosecutor Vicki Becker, the City of Elkhart, Elkhart County and the Elkhart County Prosecutor’s Office."
...
“While Andy’s wrongful conviction is a travesty of justice, it did not occur in isolation. Andy is the fifth Elkhart exoneree, a startling statistic for a community of this size. Andy’s case demonstrates a pattern of police misconduct in the halls of the Elkhart Police Department and the Elkhart County Prosecutor’s Office.”

*******************
There is a link to his lawsuit in this article. It's 61 pages long and I'll probably go through it and post some of the main points over the next few days.
Andrew Royer, wrongfully convicted of murder, files lawsuit against city of Elkhart and Elkhart County Prosecutor
 
The lawsuit is totally filled with accusations; if they are all true, then IMO heads should roll. The following one bothers me a lot. This is copied from the link found in the article I posted above.

Initial Investigation Produces Two Viable Suspects, Both of Whom Were
Ignored By Defendants in Their Quest to Frame Plaintiff

40. Defendant Todd Thayer and Detective De’Andre Christian of the
Elkhart Police Department led the initial investigation into Ms. Sailor’s death.
41. The initial investigation into Ms. Sailor’s death led to two viable
suspects: Larry Wood and Tony Thomas.
42. Larry Wood lived in the Highrise at the time of Ms. Sailor’s death
and was questioned almost immediately after her body was discovered.
43. Mr. Wood conveyed to Detective Hammel and Defendant Thayer that
on the day of the murder he saw Ms. Sailor dropped off at her apartment in the
late afternoon and opened the door to the Highrise for her. Although Mr. Wood
initially denied going into Ms. Sailor’s apartment, he later admitted that he may
have ridden the elevator with her, walked her to her apartment, and even assisted
her inside.
44. Detective Hammel and Defendant Thayer further learned during this
interview that Mr. Wood was the delivery person for Seifert Drugs and was
responsible for delivering prescription medication to Ms. Sailor and the other
residents in the Highrise.
45. Detective Hammel and Defendant Thayer searched Mr. Wood’s
residence during their initial encounter with Wood. There, the detectives
discovered a bowl on his countertop that appeared to have some residue of red
juice or punch. A reddish substance – similar to that found in Mr. Wood’s sink -
was discovered on Ms. Sailor’s body.
46. The officers also found a pair of Mr. Wood’s shoes that had an oily
residue on them—similar to that found at the crime scene—and noticed that there
was a blood stain on the inside of the shoe.
47. Luminol testing confirmed the bloodstain on Mr. Wood’s shoe.
48. Mr. Wood appeared to be “very nervous” and asked Detective
Christian and Defendant Thayer if he was in trouble.
49. Mr. Wood was taken to the Elkhart Police Department on December
12, 2002 for questioning. There, Mr. Wood “fell to his knees and began to cry” just
prior to entering the interrogation room.
50. At 9:45 a.m., Mr. Wood signed a waiver of Miranda rights form in the
presence of Defendant Coppins. That same day, Mr. Wood answered a series of
questions posed to him.
51. Mr. Wood then failed a truth verification examination.
Initial Investigation Produces Significant Evidence Implicating
Convicted Murderer Tony Thomas in Ms. Sailor’s Death

52. The initial investigation also produced evidence implicating Tony
Thomas—a convicted murderer lurking in the Highrise on the day of the
murder—in Ms. Sailor’s death.
53. Detective Christian spoke to a number of witnesses who directly
implicated Mr. Thomas in the murder and placed him on a Highrise elevator at
the same time that Ms. Sailor was last seen entering an elevator.
54. At the time of Ms. Sailor’s murder, Mr. Thomas’ grandmother,
Alberta Wolfe, lived in Apartment 300 of the Highrise complex. Ms. Wolfe was
out of state for Thanksgiving and had provided Mr. Thomas with a key.
55. By the time of Ms. Sailor’s death, Mr. Thomas had already served
more than a decade in an Arkansas prison for murder.

56. Detective Christian obtained affidavits from Eunice “Judy” Miller
and James Cassity on December 9, 2002 during the initial investigation.
57. At the time of Ms. Sailor’s death, Eunice Miller was a resident on the
Highrise. On Thanksgiving Day 2002, Ms. Miller was at her apartment with Mr.
Cassity. Detective Christian learned that Mr. Thomas was in bad shape when he
knocked on Ms. Miller’s door around 2:00 p.m. A distraught Mr. Thomas revealed
that he had been living in his car for three months.
58. Ms. Miller ultimately invited Mr. Thomas to Thanksgiving dinner.
After Mr. Thomas left, Ms. Miller asked Mr. Cassity to hide her purse because of
Mr. Thomas’ bizarre behavior. Ms. Miller revealed to Detective Christian that
“something was not right with Tony” on the day that Ms. Sailor was killed.
59. Mr. Cassity corroborated Ms. Miller’s account to Detective Christian.
60. Detective Christian was informed that when Thomas eventually
returned, he was “belligerent,” “sniffling,” and apparently high.
61. Mr. Thomas was wearing a green army jacket, jeans, and black
slippers on November 28, 2002. Ms. Miller was able to positively identify Mr.
Thomas in a photo array.
62. Mr. Cassity informed an Elkhart Detective in December of 2002 that
he believed Tony Thomas was responsible for the murder of Ms. Sailor because he
was so belligerent and irrational on the day of the murder. This information was
never documented nor disclosed in a police report.
63. Another Highrise resident, Robert Hogan, signed an affidavit for
police about a “suspicious” person on the Highrise elevator around 5:30 p.m. on
Thanksgiving.
64. At the time he arrived on the elevator, Mr. Hogan saw a black male
wearing a green army coat and army hat. Based on the descriptions provided by
Ms. Miller and Mr. Cassity, police correctly believed that the description matched
Tony Thomas.
65. Mr. Hogan informed the police that Mr. Thomas stopped on each
floor, where he poked his head out of the elevator and looked around the hallway.
After each stop, Mr. Thomas claimed he had the wrong floor and remained on the
elevator after Mr. Hogan exited. Mr. Hogan believed Mr. Thomas was a
disoriented “crack-head.”
August 2003 Report Refers to Undisclosed Interview
and Polygraph of Thomas in 2002

66. Though the State has never disclosed any report or recording
regarding questioning of Tony Thomas, according to an August 8, 2003 report, an
interview did take place.
67. Detective Christian also disclosed in this report that she believes
that Mr. Thomas was given a truth-verification exam, but no documentation has
ever been disclosed regarding such a test.
 
So - since Royer has been released - are the LE going to after this Wood guy? I hope so - after reading your above post @FrostedGlass !!
If they are, I haven't seen anything about it. I'm posting about the prosecutor's role in this next. Then I'll try to summarize all the other details.

There's a small park beside the highrise where the murder took place. I used to eat lunch there and think about Helen and the terror she must have experienced (she was blind). I was so glad when justice was served and hoped those responsible would rot in prison for the rest of their lives. And now, here we are...
 
Pg 19 - 24
Acting In Her Investigative Capacity, Defendant Becker Participates
in the Interrogation of Mr. Royer Prior to Initiation of Charges

126. Various Defendants from the Elkhart Police Department watched Mr.
Royer’s coercive interrogation through a closed-circuit monitoring system in
Defendant Converse’s office. Those Defendants include, but are not limited to,
Defendant Converse, Defendant Snider, and Defendant Daggy.
127. Defendant Daggy now admits that the interrogation of Mr. Royer was
“super leading” and among the worst he has ever seen....
129. Defendant Snider also had concerns about the interrogation given Mr.
Royer’s mental capacity. Mr. Royer was the only person in Defendant Snider’s
entire career who she felt was an innocent person charged with a crime he did not
commit. Defendant Snider never disclosed her observations and beliefs to Mr.
Royer’s defense prior to trial.
130. Defendant Vicki E. Becker, then an Elkhart County deputy prosecutor,
joined Defendants Daggy, Snider, and Converse in watching the interrogation
through the closed-circuit monitoring system.
133. At the time Defendant Becker joined the interrogation, no probable
cause existed to charge Mr. Royer with any crime.
134. Defendant Becker participated in the interrogation while aware that
Mr. Royer was mentally disabled.
135. Defendant Becker took no steps to intervene nor ensure that Mr.
Royer’s disability was accommodated.
136. Defendant Becker took no steps to stop Defendant Conway from using
psychologically coercive interrogation tactics on Mr. Royer
137. Defendant Becker never disclosed to the defense that she was a
participant and witness to Mr. Royer’s interrogation prior to trial. In fact,
Defendant Becker withheld this information for 18 years until she divulged in a
2021 media interview that she saw “quite a bit of it” and “was in and out of the
room” during Mr. Royer’s interrogation.
138. Defendant Becker withheld the fact that she was a witness, in part, to
conceal the egregious misconduct that she not only witnessed but was actually a
part of.
139. With respect to Plaintiff’s interrogation, Defendant Becker acted as an
investigator of the Elkhart Police Department, and she repeatedly advised, urged,
and ordered the Police Officer Defendants to continue the abusive and coercive
interrogation of Mr. Royer even though it was plain to all involved that the
interrogation was highly improper, and that Mr. Royer was innocent.
141. A booking sheet documents that Mr. Royer was placed under arrest for
the murder at 5:30 p.m. on September 3, 2003. At that time, Defendant Conway
requested that Mr. Royer not be moved to the Elkhart County Sheriff’s department
until further notice because he was “going to interview him the next day.”
142. Defendant Becker and the Police Officer Defendants made
arrangements to ensure that the interrogation could continue on September 3, 2003
through September 4, 2003.
144. Prior to the time that Mr. Royer repeated either of the false
confessions, the Defendants knew that there was no legitimate evidence connecting
him to the Sailor homicide.
145. In addition, Defendants knew of strong evidence that put Mr. Royer at
home on the night of the crime. Knowing that they lacked probable cause to charge
Mr. Royer with Ms. Sailor’s murder, Defendants decided to manufacture another
statement for Mr. Royer the following day.
Members of the Elkhart Police Department and Prosecutor’s Office
Believed That Mr. Royer’s Confessions Were So Inconsistent and
Unreliable That They Were Insufficient to Form Probable Cause

153. Based on the fabricated, coerced, and illegally obtained evidence
described above, Defendant Snider initiated charges against Mr. Royer in
September 2003.
154. Around that time, conversations took place in the Elkhart County
Prosecutor’s Office regarding the coercive nature of Mr. Royer’s interrogations and
the unreliability of the statements obtained. Though it was never disclosed,
Elkhart County Prosecutor Curtis Hill had concerns about Mr. Royer’s interrogation
and declined to sign the charging documents against Mr. Royer.

155. In his place, Defendant Becker authorized charges against Mr. Royer
for the murder of Ms. Sailor on September 8, 2003 – nearly five days after
Defendants initially manufactured Mr. Royer’s false confession.
156. Defendant Becker did so knowing that probable cause did not exist for
the initiation of charges.
 
Last edited:
The case in the Indiana Northern District Court is Royer v. City of Elkhart, et al., 3:22-cv-00254
Elkhart man cleared of murder conviction suing city, county officials for constitutional violations - The Indiana Lawyer
[snip]
In a 61-page complaint, Royer alleges nine violations of the U.S. Constitution and federal law, including:
• Due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the due process clause of the 14th.
• Coercive interrogation tactics in violation of his rights under the Fifth and 14th.
• Deprivation of liberty without probable cause under the Fourth and 14th.
• Supervisory liability under Section 1983.
• Failure to intervene under Section 1983.
• Conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights under Section 1983.
• A Monell claim under Section 1983.
• Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Royer also raises seven state-law claims, including:
• Negligent supervision.
• Breach of duty in hiring, training and supervising – negligence, against both the city and county.
• Breach of duty in hiring — willful and wanton conduct, against both the city and county.
• Respondeat superior.
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
 
Pg 7
The Crime
35. At approximately 5:30 p.m. on November 28, 2002, Larry Converse and
his wife dropped off Helen Sailor at the door of the Waterfall Highrise Apartments.
36. Carolyn Hoffer, a certified nursing assistant, called Ms. Sailor about
ten times between 8:45 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. that same evening to remind Ms. Sailor
that she would be coming the next morning. Ms. Sailor was 94 years-old and Ms.
Hoffer assisted in caring for her. Ms. Sailor did not answer the calls.
37. Around 7:00 a.m. the following morning, Ms. Hoffer arrived at the
Highrise and tried to “buzz” into the building. Again, Ms. Sailor did not respond.
38. Ms. Hoffer eventually called the Converse family, who later arrived at
the Highrise with a key in hand. Upon entering the apartment, Ms. Hoffer and the
Converses found Ms. Sailor’s body.
39. Mr. Royer had absolutely nothing to do with this heinous crime.

Page 11
The Formation of the Elkhart Police Department’s First Homicide Unit
68. By the summer of 2003, the Sailor homicide investigation had turned
cold.
69. In August of 2003, the Elkhart Police Department started a homicide
unit. At the time, the unit consisted of: (1) Defendant Lt. Paul Converse; (2) Sgt.
Bill Wargo; (3) Defendant Det. Peggy Snider; (4) Defendant Det. Mark Daggy; and
(5) Defendant Det. Carl Conway.
70. The Sailor investigation was the unit’s first investigation.
71. The Unit’s supervisor – Lt. Paul Converse – was related to Ms.
Sailor. Instead of being walled off from the investigation, as should have been
done in any legitimate law-enforcement agency, Defendant Converse supervised
the investigation into Sailor’s death.
72. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Conway was assigned to lead the
homicide investigation. Other Defendants assisted him along the way
Defendants’ Obsession with Lana Canen Turns Focus of Investigation
Away From Tony Thomas and Larry Wood
74. Defendant Daggy had been investigating Ms. Canen prior to Ms.
Sailor’s death for a string of burglaries in the Waterfall Highrise.
77. By late August 2003, Defendant Daggy convinced Defendant Conway
to turn the investigation towards Lana Canen.

Not a Shred of Evidence Implicated Mr. Royer
Prior to September 2, 2003

78. Prior to September 2, 2003, not a single piece of evidence implicated
Andrew Royer in the Sailor homicide.
 
Pg 13
Defendant Conway Fabricates Nina Porter’s False Statement
81. On September 1, 2003, Nina Porter was driving a car with Lana Canen
when Elkhart Police Officer Ben Kruszynski pulled her over for a traffic stop. At
the time of this encounter, Ms. Porter was recently released from prison, on parole
and probation, and under the belief that she faced eight years in custody if she
violated her probation or parole.
82. At this traffic stop, Lana Canen was arrested; Ms. Porter however, was
given a traffic citation and allowed to go home.
83. At no point during this interaction with the Elkhart Police did Ms.
Porter volunteer information regarding Helen Sailor, Lana Canen, or Mr. Royer.
85. The next day, September 2, 2003, Detective Conway arrived at Ms.
Porter’s house and informed her that there was an outstanding warrant for her
arrest and took her into custody.
88. When Ms. Porter maintained that she knew nothing about the Sailor
homicide and that Ms. Canen had never confessed to her, Defendant Conway
informed her that she would be in trouble if she didn’t cooperate.
90. When Ms. Porter maintained that she knew nothing about the Sailor
homicide, Detective Conway threatened to have her children taken away if she
didn’t provide a statement.
93. While the recorder was off, Defendant Conway fabricated a false
statement for Ms. Porter implicating Ms. Canen and Mr. Royer in the murder of
Helen Sailor.
94. Prior to giving a recorded statement, Defendant Conway informed Ms.
Porter that she would receive a monetary reward in exchange for her cooperation.
97. Defendants Daggy and Sigsbee later paid Ms. Porter the $2,000
reward. Defendant Daggy admits that Ms. Porter was paid the reward because she
testified consistently with the statement obtained during the underlying
investigation.

PG 25
Fabricated Latent Print Opinion
160. During the underlying investigation, Elkhart officers recovered a
partial latent print lift from a pill container in Ms. Sailor’s residence. Initially,
the Elkhart Police Department sent the latent to the Indiana State Police
Laboratory.
161. By August 29, 2003, the Elkhart Defendants provided physical
evidence to Defendant Chapman, including fingerprint standards and lifts for
comparison.
162. By October 2003, Defendant Bourden, removed all the latent print
evidence from the Indiana State Police laboratory and requested that it be sent to
Defendant Chapman for comparison.
163. Defendant Chapman conducted a comparison of standards from Mr.
Royer and Ms. Canen to the latent recovered from the crime scene.
164. The comparison excluded Mr. Royer from contributing the print.
165. The comparison excluded Ms. Canen from contributing the print.
167. At least one Elkhart Defendant also provided Defendant Chapman
with their theory of the murder to bias his fingerprint analysis and obtain the
fabricated false opinion. Specifically, Defendant Chapman was informed that Ms.
Canen was the suspect and the brains behind the murder. Defendant Chapman
was also informed that Mr. Royer was too simple to think up the plan that was
carried out.
168. The Elkhart Defendants plan to pressure Defendant Chapman into
fabricating a false opinion implicating their suspects was successful.
169. In 2004, Defendant Chapman fabricated a report falsely stating that
“the latent print from the med tub is the left little finger of Lana Canen…The only
identification was the left little finger of Lana Canen on the Med Tub.”
170. The latent print recovered from the medicine tub never matched
Lana Canen.
172. Defendant Chapman’s false and fabricated report also opined that
“the other fingerprint cards were then checked but none had a similar pattern.”
Included in those exemplars was the standard of Pamela Kruder, a home
healthcare aide to Ms. Sailor. Defendant Chapman’s 2004 opinion excluding
Kruder was also false and fabricated.
173. The Indiana State Police Laboratory has since analyzed the latent
print recovered from the medicine bottle and determined that it matches the left
middle finger of Ms. Kruder. Importantly, this is the same latent print that
Defendant Chapman previously claimed was a match to Ms. Canen’s left pinky
finger in 2004. This is further evidence of Defendant Chapman’s fabricated false
opinion.
179. Defendant Chapman and the Elkhart Defendant Officer also
withheld from the prosecution and defense at trial that Defendant Chapman: (1)
was never qualified nor trained to conduct latent print comparisons with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation nor the Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department; (2)
had a lack of qualifications and training to conduct latent print comparisons; (3)
was fed information about the Defendants’ theory of the investigation prior to
forming a false and fabricated opinion; and (4) was pressured by the Elkhart
Defendants into forming an opinion.

PG 28
Defendant Chapman Was Recruited by the Elkhart Police Department to
Provide False Latent Print Opinions in Other Cases
181. But Defendant Chapman’s fabricated latent print opinions in this
case did not occur in isolation.
182. Defendant Chapman was used to provide latent print opinions on
behalf of the Elkhart Police Department dating back to the 1990s.
183. Defendant Chapman was just a hired gun that the Elkhart
Defendants used when the Indiana State Police Laboratory was not providing
satisfactory results in criminal investigations.
184. When that occurred, the Elkhart Defendants would withdraw the
evidence from the Indiana State Police Laboratory and transfer it to Defendant
Chapman, who they were confident would provide them with an opinion that was
consistent with their theory of the investigation.
 
Another man, Keith Cooper, was also wrongfully convicted of a crime in the Elkhart Co. court system. He spent 7 years in prison and was finally pardoned in February 2017 by Gov. Eric Holcomb. He has the same attorney as Royer has.

They reached a settlement today: $7.5 million! I'm going to attempt to follow Royer's case through the courts; I'll be really curious as to how things turn out for him.

Keith Cooper's attorney, Elliot Slosar, said it is the largest wrongful conviction settlement in Indiana history and that the lawsuit “exposed the systemic pattern of police and prosecutorial misconduct that exists in Elkhart, Indiana."
“Mr. Cooper’s wrongful conviction did not happen by accident nor was it an aberration. Through this case, he has paved the way for other wrongfully convicted people from Elkhart to get a fair chance at justice," Slosar said in a news release.
Elkhart Police reach $7.5 million legal settlement
 
@Niner I don't know how much info I'll get from Pacer without a monthly contract but here's a start. The South Bend news will probably follow this if/when it goes to trial. I hope they live stream it so Elkhart Co folks can get the actual facts.

Royer's federal charges against Prosecutor Vicki Becker and the others:

Tuesday, August 09, 2022
minutes Pretrial Conference - Interim Tue 08/09 12:16 PM
TELEPHONIC PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 8/9/2022 before Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr. Pla appeared by atty Campbell, Slosar. Dft appeared by atty will, Ranum, Roberts, Smith, Miller, Pope, DeBoni, Jordan. Order to be entered (slm)



Indiana Northern District Court
Judge:Jon E Deguilio
Referred:Michael G Gotsch, Sr
Case #:3:22-cv-00254
Nature of Suit440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Case Filed:Mar 30, 2022
 
For some reason I do not have notes for this case... I am not going to follow it with my items that I post - if that is okay with you?

I looked on all my sheets & can't find this case.

But I will read your updates on it! :)
 
For some reason I do not have notes for this case... I am not going to follow it with my items that I post - if that is okay with you?

I looked on all my sheets & can't find this case.

But I will read your updates on it! :)
I just tagged you because I thought you had an interest in it, not to add to your looooog list of cases. I've never followed a federal case before; maybe the only info I can find is from news sources.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
2,103
Total visitors
2,234

Forum statistics

Threads
605,379
Messages
18,186,331
Members
233,339
Latest member
unconscous
Back
Top