My (non) answers between and below:
This case appears to be stalled, although Ethan Brown published an article on Medium, "
Who Killed the Jeff Davis 8" and recently released a book, "
Murder in the Bayou" on Amazon.
There were arguably four solid suspects, who were originally arrested for two of the eight murders:
Frankie Richard & Hannah Conor were arrested for the death of Kristen Lopez. They were eventually released due to conflicting statements. (
link)
Byron Chad Jones & Lawrence Nixon were arrested and charged with Ernestine Patterns murder. They were eventually released and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. (
link)
A combination of distrust in the midst of rumors as well as interconnectedness between investigators, victims, etc. results in an extremely complex case. This is compounded due to allegations of multiple killers and alleged police malfeasance.
Imo, if there were a means to untangle this particular Gordian Knot, it would involve developing a temporal relationship map, in conjunction with a geographical profile, so to speak.
A good place to begin is to comb through discussion threads from the blog "
Murder in Jeff Davis Parish," with the expectation of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Absolutely!
Cross Posted: (future posts will appear here)
We are a small group of concerned citizens, that have studied the Jeff Davis 8 case, using publicly available information for 10+ years, with thousands of hours of research and analysis committed. One of our many approaches is best described with an analogy and it is this:
In cases of infidelity, the cheating spouse will create a narrative to cover their whereabouts, who they were with, and to cover their time away. This narrative of course is built on a foundation of lie's, thus a false narrative. When the other spouse becomes suspicious, they will question parts of the narrative they are given, and whether they realize it or not, they attempt to deconstruct the narrative to get to the truth. It's a strategy in the pursuit of truth. We have in many cases, deconstructed existing narratives. It is a peeling back of layers to see what lies beneath..
In the series “Death in the Bayou: "The Jennings 8", in the introductory, at the 2:09 mark, an unidentified woman in a brown shirt says
“Don’t go by what no street say because the streets lie…all the streets lie…for the power of that drug”, this will turn out to be one of the most insightful statements although we did not recognize its significance early on. We find that the “lies on the streets” were not organic but intentionally placed there. By ignoring her advice, the Jennings 8 case has gone 21 years unsolved, because we have all been listening to “what the streets say”.
When you look at the Jennings 8 case from a high altitude, what do you see? We see reasonable doubt, or “shadows of doubt” at every turn. Without hard forensic evidence or a DNA match, a prosecutor will have an uphill battle navigating the reasonable doubt in the future. We do not believe this littering of reasonable doubt across the case field is organic.
In the terms of use of this platform it prohibits spreading rumors, but yet the Jennings 8 case is littered with rumors, so its hard to tell the difference between rumors and lies. The current narrative of the Jennings 8 case can be found in the book Murder in the Bayou by Ethan Brown, the Showtime series of the same name, the series “Death in the Bayou” with Paul Nixon, various podcasts, and news stories and this has created a bubble of uniform thought, that is not particularly healthy for the cases. Its more closely aligned with cognitive biases of “group think” and the “bandwagon effect”. Some wander off outside the bubble but often they get too far away for their thinking to be plausible in their analysis.
Where evidence tampering exists, you would be naïve to think that witness tampering, and case tampering is not also occurring. Witness tampering if often associated with court room activity, but witness tampering occurs far outside the boundaries of the court, that largely goes unnoticed.
Where others see corruption, missteps and incompetence we see acts of sabotage with an end goal of frame-ups to create suspects and sway public opinion. Its not just one or two pieces of evidence or examples we see a pattern of this sabotage of individuals and cases across the field. As we move forward we will cover each one.
It is a common belief that Jesse Ewing and nurse Nina Ravey are examples of whistleblowers trying to do the right thing and were punished for it. Those were in reality cases of sabotage of which will be covered.
In our next posting we will begin with the sub-case of the Jennings 8 involving the 1996 Silverado pickup purchased by Warren Gary from Connie Siler who sold it 21 days later for a significant profit. Below are the links that should be printed for study. It has been stated that what Gary did was not illegal but certainly unethical. This was first stated by Scott Lewis, reporter of the Jennings Daily News at the time and repeated by Ethan Brown in his book and has become a standard narrative and an example of police corruption. When you peel back the layers to see what is hiding beneath, you see a larger example of corruption that is far more sinister than anything Warren Gary did.
Louisiana Board of Ethics June 26, 2008 Opinion #2007-489 RE: In the matter of Warren Gary
Error
You will also need the following Louisiana Revised statutes printed and studied or you can reference them online.
The links to the referenced Louisiana Revised Statutes from the LABOE Report:
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1115)
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1116)
Once you study it, we are going to make some points you may have missed, and then you can go back and see what it is we see.
Cross Posted: (future posts will appear here)
We are a small group of concerned citizens, that have studied the Jeff Davis 8 case, using publicly available information for 10+ years, with thousands of hours of research and analysis committed. One of our many approaches is best described with an analogy and it is this:
In cases of infidelity, the cheating spouse will create a narrative to cover their whereabouts, who they were with, and to cover their time away. This narrative of course is built on a foundation of lie's, thus a false narrative. When the other spouse becomes suspicious, they will question parts of the narrative they are given, and whether they realize it or not, they attempt to deconstruct the narrative to get to the truth. It's a strategy in the pursuit of truth. We have in many cases, deconstructed existing narratives. It is a peeling back of layers to see what lies beneath..
In the series “Death in the Bayou: "The Jennings 8", in the introductory, at the 2:09 mark, an unidentified woman in a brown shirt says
“Don’t go by what no street say because the streets lie…all the streets lie…for the power of that drug”, this will turn out to be one of the most insightful statements although we did not recognize its significance early on. We find that the “lies on the streets” were not organic but intentionally placed there. By ignoring her advice, the Jennings 8 case has gone 21 years unsolved, because we have all been listening to “what the streets say”.
When you look at the Jennings 8 case from a high altitude, what do you see? We see reasonable doubt, or “shadows of doubt” at every turn. Without hard forensic evidence or a DNA match, a prosecutor will have an uphill battle navigating the reasonable doubt in the future. We do not believe this littering of reasonable doubt across the case field is organic.
In the terms of use of this platform it prohibits spreading rumors, but yet the Jennings 8 case is littered with rumors, so its hard to tell the difference between rumors and lies. The current narrative of the Jennings 8 case can be found in the book Murder in the Bayou by Ethan Brown, the Showtime series of the same name, the series “Death in the Bayou” with Paul Nixon, various podcasts, and news stories and this has created a bubble of uniform thought, that is not particularly healthy for the cases. Its more closely aligned with cognitive biases of “group think” and the “bandwagon effect”. Some wander off outside the bubble but often they get too far away for their thinking to be plausible in their analysis.
Where evidence tampering exists, you would be naïve to think that witness tampering, and case tampering is not also occurring. Witness tampering if often associated with court room activity, but witness tampering occurs far outside the boundaries of the court, that largely goes unnoticed.
Where others see corruption, missteps and incompetence we see acts of sabotage with an end goal of frame-ups to create suspects and sway public opinion. Its not just one or two pieces of evidence or examples we see a pattern of this sabotage of individuals and cases across the field. As we move forward we will cover each one.
It is a common belief that Jesse Ewing and nurse Nina Ravey are examples of whistleblowers trying to do the right thing and were punished for it. Those were in reality cases of sabotage of which will be covered.
In our next posting we will begin with the sub-case of the Jennings 8 involving the 1996 Silverado pickup purchased by Warren Gary from Connie Siler who sold it 21 days later for a significant profit. Below are the links that should be printed for study. It has been stated that what Gary did was not illegal but certainly unethical. This was first stated by Scott Lewis, reporter of the Jennings Daily News at the time and repeated by Ethan Brown in his book and has become a standard narrative and an example of police corruption. When you peel back the layers to see what is hiding beneath, you see a larger example of corruption that is far more sinister than anything Warren Gary did.
Louisiana Board of Ethics June 26, 2008 Opinion #2007-489 RE: In the matter of Warren Gary
Error
You will also need the following Louisiana Revised statutes printed and studied or you can reference them online.
The links to the referenced Louisiana Revised Statutes from the LABOE Report:
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1115)
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1116)
Once you study it, we are going to make some points you may have missed, and then you can go back and see what it is we see.
Cross Posted: (future posts will appear here)
We are a small group of concerned citizens, that have studied the Jeff Davis 8 case, using publicly available information for 10+ years, with thousands of hours of research and analysis committed. One of our many approaches is best described with an analogy and it is this:
In cases of infidelity, the cheating spouse will create a narrative to cover their whereabouts, who they were with, and to cover their time away. This narrative of course is built on a foundation of lie's, thus a false narrative. When the other spouse becomes suspicious, they will question parts of the narrative they are given, and whether they realize it or not, they attempt to deconstruct the narrative to get to the truth. It's a strategy in the pursuit of truth. We have in many cases, deconstructed existing narratives. It is a peeling back of layers to see what lies beneath..
In the series “Death in the Bayou: "The Jennings 8", in the introductory, at the 2:09 mark, an unidentified woman in a brown shirt says
“Don’t go by what no street say because the streets lie…all the streets lie…for the power of that drug”, this will turn out to be one of the most insightful statements although we did not recognize its significance early on. We find that the “lies on the streets” were not organic but intentionally placed there. By ignoring her advice, the Jennings 8 case has gone 21 years unsolved, because we have all been listening to “what the streets say”.
When you look at the Jennings 8 case from a high altitude, what do you see? We see reasonable doubt, or “shadows of doubt” at every turn. Without hard forensic evidence or a DNA match, a prosecutor will have an uphill battle navigating the reasonable doubt in the future. We do not believe this littering of reasonable doubt across the case field is organic.
In the terms of use of this platform it prohibits spreading rumors, but yet the Jennings 8 case is littered with rumors, so its hard to tell the difference between rumors and lies. The current narrative of the Jennings 8 case can be found in the book Murder in the Bayou by Ethan Brown, the Showtime series of the same name, the series “Death in the Bayou” with Paul Nixon, various podcasts, and news stories and this has created a bubble of uniform thought, that is not particularly healthy for the cases. Its more closely aligned with cognitive biases of “group think” and the “bandwagon effect”. Some wander off outside the bubble but often they get too far away for their thinking to be plausible in their analysis.
Where evidence tampering exists, you would be naïve to think that witness tampering, and case tampering is not also occurring. Witness tampering if often associated with court room activity, but witness tampering occurs far outside the boundaries of the court, that largely goes unnoticed.
Where others see corruption, missteps and incompetence we see acts of sabotage with an end goal of frame-ups to create suspects and sway public opinion. Its not just one or two pieces of evidence or examples we see a pattern of this sabotage of individuals and cases across the field. As we move forward we will cover each one.
It is a common belief that Jesse Ewing and nurse Nina Ravey are examples of whistleblowers trying to do the right thing and were punished for it. Those were in reality cases of sabotage of which will be covered.
In our next posting we will begin with the sub-case of the Jennings 8 involving the 1996 Silverado pickup purchased by Warren Gary from Connie Siler who sold it 21 days later for a significant profit. Below are the links that should be printed for study. It has been stated that what Gary did was not illegal but certainly unethical. This was first stated by Scott Lewis, reporter of the Jennings Daily News at the time and repeated by Ethan Brown in his book and has become a standard narrative and an example of police corruption. When you peel back the layers to see what is hiding beneath, you see a larger example of corruption that is far more sinister than anything Warren Gary did.
Louisiana Board of Ethics June 26, 2008 Opinion #2007-489 RE: In the matter of Warren Gary
Error
You will also need the following Louisiana Revised statutes printed and studied or you can reference them online.
The links to the referenced Louisiana Revised Statutes from the LABOE Report:
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1115)
Louisiana Laws - Louisiana State Legislature (Section 1116)
Once you study it, we are going to make some points you may have missed, and then you can go back and see what it is we see.
As you study the LBOE document keep in mind these important facts.
All worthless check cases are handled by the District Attorney’s Office using their own investigators and administrative staff. Warren Gary was in a different department with his own case load, in particular the Jennings 8 murders that was at the count of 3.
Incarcerating Connie Siler for a worthless check without due process was highly irregular and impounding her vehicle was also highly irregular. LE does not impound or confiscate property on bad check cases, at the time of arrest and can’t do it unless ordered by the court.
Connie Siler’s sentence was not 10 days, she was merely released to make restitution. Gary could have agreed to buy the vehicle on day 1 or any day for the next 9 days but did not which shows an initial disinterest. Connie Siler’s sentence then was contingent on Gary’s decision.
Lisa Allen was incarcerated for 90 days on the same charge and her attorney called it debtors prison, a violation of due process, a civil matter and a violation of civil rights. Lisa Allen sued for $30,000,000.00 and it was settled for an undisclosed amount. If Connie Siler would have had an attorney, he/she would have came to the same conclusion but Siler fled town instead.
At the time of the purchase of the truck by Warren Gary, Connie Siler was not an inmate, nor a suspect, nor a suspect in custody. She had been released.
Connie Siler was not being investigated for the Jennings 8 case, nor for the involvement of her truck on this “connection with an ongoing investigation” on March 20, 2007. That would not be known until December 12, 2007. She was being questioned for her bad check and may have been questioned about Kristen Lopez, whose body was found 2 days before, but she was not there for that.
The evidence that the truck supposedly had evidence in the Kristen Lopez murder would not come out until December of 2007.
Law enforcement personnel have been engaged in transactions with former inmates, and people who had brushes with the law on items across a wide spectrum of items including property, homes, vehicles, jewelry, guns, etc., that did not involve serial numbers on record as stolen or knowledge of being stolen. This had been going on for 50 years across 3 Sheriff’s because there was no law, state or federal, or local department policy to prohibit it. It is much like employees that work in public office including the tax assessor’s office that end up buying land from the people they deal with, and everyone else enriching themselves from their government positions.
Also a fact in the LBOE document you will notice is that Warren Gary never spoke directly to Connie Siler but went through intermediaries. How do you coerce or compel, someone into selling their vehicle, when they brought up the topic? The negotiations if there were any, went through intermediaries. The statement “a price was agreed upon” in the LBOE document is of no value because Gary did not act the first day so apparently the price was not right or Gary was not really interested.
Warren Gary did not act on the first day nor the next 9 days, which suggests that Gary was not interested in the 11-year-old vehicle with high mileage from the beginning. (“High mileage” definition is calculated using the standard of 10,000 average miles driven per year X 11 years = 110,000)
The actual profit made on the truck is an unknown because Gary had to get the truck ready for sale to bring premium dollar so he likely had to make repairs, new tires, change fluids, new battery. The question how much did Gary spend to get the truck ready for sale, so it would sell quickly has to be asked. Gary sold the vehicle in 21 days from purchase so you can interpret this quick turnaround anyway you like but also include that it is evidence he didn’t really want the truck.
While Ethan Brown points out the suspicion of Gary’s profit margin, he must be asked what his profit margin was off his book and the Showtime series?
The LBOE applied a law for “gifts and gratuities” to a private transaction making the profit Gary made a “gift” to him, but Gary did not get the benefit of the “gift tax”, he still had to pay the tax. The LBOE cannot make laws, that is up to the legislature, and more specifically the LBOE cannot make laws that impacts tax code, or set legal precedence by their decisions.
The LBOE was so confident in its decision that Gary acted unethically that on page 8 section (f) they made Gary agree not to seek judicial review of the findings and actions taken in this opinion. This means that if new evidence surfaces, Gary could not come back and request a judicial review, or file for any kind of appeal to overturn the decision. Preventing judicial reviews are largely unconstitutional and the LBOE does not have that authority to prevent it.
Gary signed off on the opinion, because he had no legal representation and he did not understand what was happening any better than anyone else. Gary did not have an attorney and was likely told he didn’t need one, when in fact he did.
There is no record of Warren Gary’s side of the story, and he never spoke of it publicly which suggests he either signed an NDA or was coerced into agreeing to one. Thus Gary could not talk about the case, nor pursue a judicial review, essentially prohibiting him from defending himself.
Does that sound constitutional to you?
In the book by Ethan Brown, Murder in the Bayou he states on page 103 that “Warren Gary left the Sheriff’s Office in 2012.
“He could not be located for further comment”. This wordplay usage of “further comment” suggests that Warren Gary was given opportunity to tell his side of the story once before when in fact, there is no mention of Gary’s previous interview details in the Ethan Brown book.
When Warren Gary bought the vehicle and the title transferred, it was his right of ownership, or property rights, to keep the truck, hold the truck and gift it to someone, strip it for parts, or sell it for a loss or profit, those were his rights. The LBOE overstepped their boundaries and meddled in Gary’s ownership rights to make their case. Their boundaries were in unethical behaviors related to the discussion up until the title transferred, but they had no case within that boundary, so they overstepped their boundaries, when they made his profit a gift from Siler to Gary which impacts tax law. The LBOE has no authority to make laws, or engage in ‘ex post facto’ law interpretations.
In short, the LBOE acted unethically to pursue a government employee for unethical behavior.
People who lean on the term “unethical”, by saying “it was not inherently illegal but definitely unethical”, fail to realize that in the absence of laws, policies, code of conduct policies, general guidelines, and nothing immoral then everything that defines “unethical” is absent, then its not unethical, you have to find another word to describe it.
The LBOE leaned on wordplay like “coercion, compelling, and abuse of office’, but failed to prove it in their own document. Not once did Warren Gary, in the LBOE document initiate a conversation. Connie Siler initiated the conversation on the first day, and then reminded Gary through the Warden that the truck was still for sale.
The evidence custodian, notified Warren Gary that the Silverado pickup would be towed away by a wrecker service the following day, and to pass this information along to the Warden who would remind Connie Siler. Warren Gary’s role as investigator ended with the incarceration of Siler, why then did the evidence custodian call Warren Gary, instead of the warden, her own husband? It was at this point she made herself a broker of the deal and then again when she accompanied Siler, Gary, and the warden to the bank to finalize the deal AFTER Siler was released from jail. So there were 2 brokers of the deal, not just one as pointed out by the LBOE.
The vehicle was in the custody of the evidence custodian for 10 days, yet the vehicle was never searched. Which is not of real significance until the very moment the evidence custodia says later that “we knew early on the vehicle may have had evidence”. Then the failure to search falls back on her.
The LBOE does not visit various law enforcement agencies looking for ethics violations. They act off of whistleblowers or formal requests to look into cases. They do not act on information from the media because if they did then they would have looked into other cases that everyone calls “corruption” or “police misconduct”. Simply look at all of the claims of ethical misconduct that the LBOE was absent on. Whoever the whistleblower was, is part of a bigger scheme to undermine Warren Gary, the chief investigator for the Jeff Davis 8 case.
Since bad check cases are handled by the District Attorney’s Office, and Gary was absent from the Lisa Allen bad check case, what was Gary doing at that first meeting with Connie Siler?
Gary had a large case load, investigating the Jeff Davis 8 murders and 2 days after the Kristen Lopez murder. People have to be careful with the answer here because the truck having evidence in it did not come to fruition until December 12, 2007.
The publics perception of corruption remains in tact, but now it begins to drift away from Warren Gary to now include the LBOE, the brokers of the deal, and likely the District Attorney’s Office and possibly a sitting judge that decided to incarcerate Siler. Unless someone along this chain, acted unilaterally in the decision to incarcerate Connie Siler of a worthless check without due process.
What does this all mean? Warren Gary did nothing illegal, unethical or even questionable but it was painted that way and a deliberate attempt to sabotage the lead investigator on the Jennings 8 case, and it worked. It also means when the case against Warren Gary collapses, the case against Jesse Ewing collapses with it, because the information from 2 inmates that Ewing interviewed provided the information about the truck sale to him, and this is the information handed over to the FBI, which is no longer evidence of any value.
We will cover later how these 2 inmates were not firsthand witnesses to the Gary/Siler transactions but learned of this information while they were in jail, when we step into the Ewing case.
We are not attempting to exonerate Warren Gary or Connie Siler for the sake of it. We are interested in exposing that sinister thing the lies beneath the surface.
