Audio of Police Interview With Ryan Frederick

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

This is the audio of the police interview with Ryan Frederick taken 30 minutes after the raid. It was played at Frederick’s trial yesterday.

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

47 Responses to “Audio of Police Interview With Ryan Frederick”

  1. #1 |  Obieone | 

    Did I hear correctly in this taped interview that the detective stated they knew his house had been broken into, when in fact Mr. Frederick never reported this to them? How did they know?

  2. #2 |  HTownTejas | 

    That’s pretty antithetical to what the way police and prosecutors describe him, and to what they say happened.

    He keeps repeating that he thought someone was busting into his door and he thought they were coming to kill him. Well, they were busting through this man’s door and there’s a very high likelihood he would have been killed. So what’s the importance of distinguishing between whether they are cops or criminals after the fact?

    I have a really hard time sympathizing with cops who dress and act like criminals (dressing in black, busting through doors), when homeowners respond to these cops as if they were criminals.

  3. #3 |  Jesse | 

    I have never felt sorrier for this man. This whole thing is a crying shame and the police and prosecutors should be ashamed.

  4. #4 |  Don Tabor | 

    I suggest you take a second listen to the recording, focusing instead on the demeanor and wording of the interrogator instead of Frederick, and see if it does not sound to you like someone who is making excuses, or trying to justify his actions, rather than someone filled with righteous wrath.

  5. #5 |  Mike | 

    If anyone is aggressive here, it’s the cop. And it’s interesting that he knows Frederick’s home was broken into, that he says “you can’t just shoot through a door” before saying, “oh yeah, we did bust in a panel”. This shows that the police were covering their asses within minutes of the raid. They knew they screwed up.

    This recording is shattering with the raw pain that he shows for what happened. I just don’t know that the jury is going to listen now that they think he’s a drug dealer.

    Thank God we’re recording more and more of these interrogations. Can you imagine what his chances would be if it were the only the cops describing his attitude in the police station?

  6. #6 |  Bill | 

    Don, I completely agree with you. In the last Agitator post on this matter, I commented at length on the interview, and noticed the same thing. At worst, he is trying to rationalize and convince Frederick of his view of the incident. At best, he is not a very competent interviewer, as he actually spent more time telling Frederick what (he says) happened and providing information to Frederick as opposed to getting Frederick’s account or building a rapport with Frederick so that Frederick might be more inclined to make incriminating statements. He goes from telling Frederick things he didn’t know (that the police knew about the burglary, that the police knew about his having a gun, and also strongly inferring that the police knew that pot plants were stolen, which seems to impeach the police claim that they didn’t know Wright was one of the burglars) to lecturing him, neither of which is something that should happen in an interview.

  7. #7 |  Mike H | 

    The sooner we realize that our lifestyles are being legislatively tailored to suit the needs of police and facilitate intrusion and invasion by the state, the quicker we can put an end to these kinds of misunderstandings.

    The following rules should be posted on every streetcorner:
    No masks in public (unless you carry a badge*), no weapons to defend your person or property (*see above), no tinted windows, no dogs (unless employed to sniff for contraband and bring down fleeing suspects), no privacy and nothing less than complete transparency (unless you have unlimited taxpayer-funded resources and the weight of a massive bureaucracy backing you up).

  8. #8 |  Marty | 

    This man has been torn from his family and locked up for 23 hours a day while these assholes fabricate a case against him.

    I would love to hear a recording of Ebert vomiting and crying as he’s led off to serve his unspecified length sentence of 23 hours a day of solitary confinement, with an hour of recreation time with his snitches.

    We could let RF decide when he’s fulfilled his sentence.

  9. #9 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Yep. This recording seems to be made for public (ie: jury) consumption and yet, if I were on that jury, I would put myself in Ryan’s place every time he said the words “my door was being busted in” (which he said repeatedly).

    And when the interrogator started arguing with him about what constitutes a door being broken down (“only one panel was broken in”), he lost me completely. Only a complete fucking moron would split hairs and say that because only one panel was broken in, he couldn’t KNOW it was someone attempting to gain entry and threaten his life. Apparently one is supposed to wait until they’re a quivering lump of lifeless flesh lying in a pool of blood before they draw that conclusion.

    This trial is about one thing: Transferring the responsibility for gross police incompetence to someone else. It represents a complete vacuum of integrity on the part of the department and the prosecutor. I hope the state loses the case and the media splatters it across the headlines, calling it exactly what it is.

  10. #10 |  mattincincy | 

    Thanks Radley. #4 and #7 you guys took the words right out of my mouth. How many times did the cop ask “what was missing, what was missing when you were broken into?” Just BEGGING him to admit he had the devils weed.

  11. #11 |  Mike H | 

    Yep. This recording seems to be made for public (ie: jury) consumption…

    I got a whiff of that too, Dave. Consider the editorial impact of bookending the recording between the cop’s Miranda statement and Ryan’s request for a cigarette. In between, various claims by the interviewing officer about “fair warning” were acoustically highlighted using volume bumps. Talk about prejudicial.

  12. #12 |  ktc2 | 

    To those of you just realizing that the police knew about the burglary and wondering how they could still use that info for a warrant, here’s the police story (as in fictional):

    1) They knew their informant was in the house 3 days prior.
    2) They knew the house was burglarized the same day their informant was there.
    3) Their informant told them the house was burglarized the same day he was there.
    4) The police didn’t know it was their informant who did the burglaring (sp?).

    Yeah, I know total bullshit that any person with a few functioning brain cells can see is a lie. But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

    These prosecutors and police are the real criminals here. They have no shame or conscience. You know, if they had admitted after the fact that it was their procedures and policies that caused this a real solution could already be in place to prevent it from happening again. But they can’t do that they would rather send an innocent man to death row or life in prison than admit what is so glaringly obvious.

  13. #13 |  Bill | 

    Right on, ktc2, but I will add:

    3.5) The police knew, somehow, what was stolen: Note in the interview when Winkelspecht (sp?) asks Frederick specifically if any marijuana plants were missing.

  14. #14 |  Ben | 

    Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

  15. #15 |  Nick T | 

    Yeah, not that I have any direct experience but it seems to me that interrogations 101 dictates that the cop should have played the sympathy card. Maybe thrown out a line like “we screwed up, cops can’t just come busting through your door, even if they are law enforcement…. You didn’t care one bit that it might have been cops, cuz you got a right to defend your home… it was loud you were confused, and you heard us yell, and so you kinda knew it was the cops right?”

    And just inch him up to the conclusions you want him to say.

  16. #16 |  Big Chief | 

    That was sickening to listen to, hearing someone in that much pain. It makes me even more furious that this man is being prosecuted/persecuted.

    The comments about it not being OK to fire blindly through doors reminds me of the story Radley carried about the woman and child shot blindly through a door by a cop, who I believe was found not guilty of anything worth indicting, much less a trial. Disgusting, what we’ve come to.

  17. #17 |  Michael Chaney | 

    It’s frightening to hear a hardened cop-killer like Ryan describe how he’d waited, yes, WAITED!!! for days for those cops to show up so he could shoot one. His maniacal laughter as he recounts those fatal shots are *exactly* what we would expect after hearing the prosecution’s description of him, and the statements he later made to those totally believable snitches. He had become stoned out of his mind, probably to lower his self-control and make the act easier.


    If I was that corrupt prosecutor I would have *eaten* that tape to keep it from being played in court.

    One thing that does strike me here – make sure if you ever end up in a situation like this to also ask the cop “Why did you beat me up?” at that interview- if they did so. It’s clear that this is a good way to get other facts into the court room that wouldn’t otherwise be permissible.

  18. #18 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #17 Michael Chaney

    If I was that corrupt prosecutor I would have *eaten* that tape to keep it from being played in court.

    Has the prosecution rested? It seems like they should have by now, but I was under the impression that they were still on stage. I may have missed that detail in the news reports I’ve read.

  19. #19 |  Stephen | 

    Wow, now I am even more on RF’s side.

    Hopefully there are at least 2 or 3 jurors with a mind and heart.

  20. #20 |  John Wilburn | 

    Dave (#18)

    Yes, everyone has rested – I finished writing up my notes (in two parts) about 2:00 this morning (and sent them to Doc Tabor at so I might have failed to mention one or two things – like closing arguments start Monday, 2/2/09 at 1:00 p.m., and what fucking planet I was on…

    (it’s been a long two weeks)

  21. #21 |  Lucy | 

    The cops’ comments are such bullshit. “You can’t just shoot blindly through a door…I can’t shoot unless my life is in danger.”


    It’s only fair, though. Ryan Frederick is just a mere mortal, not a COP.

    That audio makes me sick to hear. Makes me want to give him a hug, and kick the cops. How could you not find this credible? His house was broken into three days before, he had more reason to be nervous, he is completely freaked out on that tape. If this turns into another Cory Maye case, I am going to start punching every so-called political activist who doesn’t even think about the drug war and every pot smoker who feels like it’s fine as long as it’s not them that I see.

    (I also felt like screaming, noooooo, don’t trust them with your dogs!)

  22. #22 |  ktc2 | 


    They rested but then for some inexplicable reason the judge allowed them to bring in new testimony/witnesses AFTER they rested. Maybe the judge felt sorry for them because of how pathetic their case is.

  23. #23 |  supercat | 

    Yeah, not that I have any direct experience but it seems to me that interrogations 101 dictates that the cop should have played the sympathy card.

    The cops messed up in their conduct of the raid. In a recorded interview, I really don’t see how the cops would help their case by admitting mistakes. If the cops admit that they failed to do something they should have done to convince RF that they were cops, that leaves a huge opening for Ryan’s attorney to argue that it is reasonable for a homeowner to believe that people who don’t act like cops probably aren’t. The only counter for that argument would be to insist that people cannot reasonably expect cops to act reasonably. I suppose a prosecutor might conceivably try that, but I doubt any would really want to go on the record with such a totalitarian anarchist viewpoint.

  24. #24 |  supercat | 

    #22: In a court proceeding, the prosecution starts by introducing any and all relevant witnesses, then the defense does likewise. If any defense witnesses have made statements that the prosecution thinks it can disprove, the prosecution is entitled to bring witnesses for that specific narrow purpose (called rebuttal). If the defense thinks it can disprove statements made by the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses, it will be allowed to bring in witnesses to rebut those. Theoretically rebuttal witnesses could go back and forth multiple times, though generally they wouldn’t.

    As an example, suppose that Alex Adams is accused of a crime; his attorney calls Brad Barker as an alibi witness to testify that when the crime took place AA and BB were watching a football game at Brad’s house. The prosecution, who knows that AA plans to call BB as a witness, has checked out BB’s story and found that Charles Cooper and David Daniels were playing golf with BB at the time he was supposedly watching football with AA.

    Unless or until BB is called as an alibi witness for AA, the fact that he was playing golf with CC and DD is totally irrelevant to the case; the prosecutor would thus not be allowed to ask CC or DD about their actions with BB. Once the defense has called BB as an alibi witness, however, the prosecutor would be entitled to call CC and DD and ask them about their actions with BB, since the defense would have made those issues relevant. Note that the prosecutor would be limited to asking questions which were both (1) irrelevant prior to the defense presentation of its case, and (2) relevant after the defense presentation, though such limits are only enforced to the extent demanded by the defense attorney (if the defense attorney objects to questions which violate either of the above criteria, the judge should block them from being asked; if the defense attorney does not object, the questions may be asked and answered).

  25. #25 |  scott clark | 

    what about the part where the cop says something like “what if the guy breaking in didnt have a gun and just wanted to take your money” then ryan frederick is like “you can’t defend yourself?” Here is LE telling a dude you have to submit to a criminal invader. Crazy

  26. #26 |  Bill | 

    Isn’t the cop who conducted this interview Det. Winkelspecht (hope I spelled that right), the one who was in Georgia for training with the BATF? I’d heard on the site that he is not simply getting training there, but will be working for them. If so, then his ideas about self-defense and his keen interviewing skills will soon be federal assets, paid for by your tax dollars, and could soon be coming to a town near you.

  27. #27 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Never, never, never, never, never, never make a statement to the police about anything without your lawyer present. You are too shook up after an incident and they WILL use it against you later. THEY aren’t shook up and know exactly what they want to get you to say.

    If threatened with arrest, fine.

    Learn something from Tony Soprano. “Contact my lawyer to set up an interview meeting at your cop shop.”

  28. #28 |  Rock | 

    Another get out of jail free card for cops: “we were lying in the interview about knowing his house had been broken into. Supreme Court has ruled that it’s ok for us to lie if it’s in the course of trying to get a confession.” SWEET DEAL! That means you can know about all sorts of illegal activities, probably even be the cause of many of them, say as much to ANYONE, but then claim “I was lying as part of my job.” NICE!!!!!!

  29. #29 |  Michael | 

    I have to admit, Ryan did not give them what they wanted! My wife went through the same type of interrogation, with multiple lies told, to her to get her to snitch on innocent people! She stuck to the truth and ended up with probation!

  30. #30 |  Don Tabor | 

    Det. Winkelspecht has left the Chesapeake Police Dept to work for the BATF.

    Oh, joy.

    Surely he won’t get into any mischief there.

  31. #31 |  Greg N. | 

    This idea that you can’t “just shoot blindly” if someone kicks in your front door is preposterous, and I can only hope every juror is thinking, “I’d shoot first, too.”

    Can the cop really think that we have to wait until we see a gun before we can fire on an intruder? “What if he just wanted to steal your money?”

    This is nauseating and almost too painful to think about. They just can’t possibly convict.

  32. #32 |  Warren | 

    1) They knew their informant was in the house 3 days prior.
    2) They knew the house was burglarized the same day their informant was there.
    3) Their informant told them the house was burglarized the same day he was there.
    4) The police didn’t know it was their informant who did the burglaring (sp?).


    And yet these are the guys we’re supposed to let investigate crimes.

  33. #33 |  Greg N. | 

    I also love the part where the cop in the beginning says they know Frederick’s house was broken into, and then a few minutes later some cop starts questioning whether that’s true. “So someone broke in but they didn’t take anything? That’s what you’re telling me?”

    This is the kind of conviction that should cause riots in the street. Unfortunately, most people will probably think he deserves prison.

    Radley, what’s the legal standard: is it assumed a suspect has constructive knowledge (“reasonably should have known”) if police can prove they knocked and announced, or is the burden on the prosecution to prove Frederick actually knew it was police?

  34. #34 |  Cynical In CA | 

    Ryan Frederick is a martyr.

    He is suffering so that the truth may be known.

    The truth is that there are two classes of individuals in the world: there are those that are protected by the State and those that are not.

    Let the truth be spread far and wide so that the healing may begin, for it cannot begin without acknowledging the truth.

  35. #35 |  Lorraine Sumrall | 

    #34 Cynical in CA nailed the crux of it: there most certainly now are two classes in this country. Either you’re associated with the State, i.e. law enforcement and their personnel, courts and their personnel, lawyers and their attendant personnel, State government, corrections, etc. or you’re NOT. I told my boss (an attorney) not long ago that I was going to have to get a law degree just to be able to more effectively protect myself from the State. I’m just praying that the jurors in this case have themselves had a run in with the cops that has enlightened them to the imbalance of power the State now exercises daily against the citizenry.

  36. #36 |  Jo Nathan | 

    The action of the police makes no sense in this case. They knew RF’s house had been broken into, and they knew he had a gun. So they perform a nighttime SWAT team raid, bashing in the door? Unholy fucking of mothers! Seems like they were looking to create a problem situation. I would have thought those facts would cause the police to try to allay RF’s anxiety, using exactly the opposite sort of tactics.

  37. #37 |  Lorraine Sumrall | 

    I should have said I work for the defense, not the State! Let me clarify that.

  38. #38 |  ggg | 


  39. #39 |  SusanK | 

    #33 Greg N.:
    My understanding is that knowing it was a cop is an essential element of the case against Mr. Frederick. That means the State has to prove he knew he was shooting at a cop, and it can’t just be assumed. It can be inferred from circumstantial evidence that he knew cops were there, hence the snitches saying Ryan knew the cops were coming and wanted to shoot him one, but it does need to be proven.
    Proving that police knocked and announced is one thing, proving that the defendant knew it was the police knocking and announcing is another.

  40. #40 |  Greg N. | 

    Thanks, SusanK! That makes me feel better, albeit just slightly. I won’t feel good until we hear “not guilty.”

  41. #41 |  Billy Beck | 

    “Context: the sum of all cognitive elements that conditions the acquisition, validity, or application of any item of human knowledge.”

    The cop to Frederick: “Do you understand that you can’t just shoot blindly through a door?” (emphasis added: as if this guy just suddenly decided — for no reason — to take a poke through that door with a bullet, at random.)

    The principal problem here is that they cannot or will not think. That should be the most horrifying fact of all, because that’s why this shit will not stop.

    My god. What the fuck are we going to do?

  42. #42 |  Nate | 

    So sad… this does not sound like a cold-blooded cop killer.

  43. #43 |  Judi | 

    Me+ at home + someone bursting through the door = BANG!

    Why was Ryan even charged?


    Cops + bursting through door unannounced = STUPID.

    As comic Bill Engvall says, “I just HATE STUPID PEOPLE….here’s your SIGN!”

  44. #44 |  Adam | 

    Holy crap. I can’t believe some of the crap that cop said. “What if somebody kicks in your door and they just want to take your money but they don’t have any guns or anything?” So when someone is kicking the door to MY house in, I should wait for them to finish and see if they plan on assaulting just my property or me and my family as well before I defend myself. Total d-bag. Is it a sad situation for both him and the cop? Yes. Did he do anything criminal? No, especially if it was one of those infamous no knock paramilitary style raids. However, if the police did announce themselves and then proceeded to break in the door anyway I could understand an argument for manslaughter, but still not murder. Murder implies malice and I have seen no evidence of any sort of malice.

  45. #45 |  N.U.G.U.N. | 

    “What if it was just a guy breaking in to rob your house. Unarmed, didn’t have a gun.”

    Than hopefully he has 6 friends to carry his coffin. Because if you enter my home, I’ve got no where else to retreat. And if you entered by force, I am going to assumed you were armed.

    My argument, the perpetrator was cleared armed. He was either strong enough, or wield a tool empowering enough to break down my door. That is my proof for disparity of force before the jurors.

  46. #46 |  N.U.G.U.N. | 

    This guy needs a better lawyer….where is his lawyer?

  47. #47 |  Steve K | 

    NUGUN, His first mistake was not lawyering-up when he was brought in for questioning. No way in hell would I have conversation with police while I was in hysterics after being invaded by those f***ers. I would sit catatonically until they either provided a lawyer or let me call my own. Unfortunately, you can all see what happens to people who believe that the police are there to help. They will lie, trick and coerce until they get what they want. ALWAYS lawyer-up. If you lawyer-up, heres what happens: You talk to your lawyer, then the lawyer speaks to the police for you in a way that doesn’t incrimate you, while you gaze at them silently. Or even better, the lawyer secures your release and finds out what the police know, then gives a statement on your behalf.

Leave a Reply