Video of the Second Police Interview With Ryan Frederick

Saturday, January 31st, 2009

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

50 Responses to “Video of the Second Police Interview With Ryan Frederick”

  1. #1 |  ktc2 | 

    After hearing this video the fact that they can still go forward with murder charges proves sufficently in my mind that they, the prosecutors and police involved, are all completely soulless, conscienceless suckers of Satan’s cock.

  2. #2 |  Dave Krueger | 

    I hoped his attorney asked the cops, when they testified, if they believed his story. If their answer was no, they would look cold and foolish. If their answer was yes, then they shouldn’t be in court.

  3. #3 |  Rick Caldwell | 

    I saw the entire video in court. Just as he did in the audio of the first interview in the van, he vomits after this clip ends, when he starts reflecting on the fact that he killed another human being. I knew that was in there from RF’s testimony, and it still sent chills down my spine.

  4. #4 |  T. Reed | 

    Jesus. On a subjective basis, who can watch these videos and think that this guy is a cop killer?

    It is objective fact that RF was not waiting to ambush these cops. Such a person would be better armed and better dressed. Such a person would have cleared his house of contraband.

    So the state’s theory has to be that RF was a spur of the moment cop killer. It is odd that such a killer managed to control his violent impulses for his entire life (RF has no criminal record).

    It is odder still that, after the shooting, when RF hears “police, police”, RF immediately gives himself up.

    God help this guy.

  5. #5 |  T. Reed | 

    I urge all readers to read Tidewater Liberty blog entry: “Call for disbarrment”. It has to do with representations made Ebert–that there were no still pictures taken at the reinactment when, in fact, there is video evidence that still pictures were taken. I would like to hear “the other side” of this story. If there is no “other side”, Ebert should be referred to the VA Bar.

  6. #6 |  Bob | 

    This shit is chilling.

    The officer basically lumped every citizen who owns a firearm into a criminal catagory.

    I believe, that in his mind, that’s part of the justification for high speed raids with no announcement or prior warning. Get in, pacify all targets, collect contraband. Things like “Announce rules” are just nuisances stopping him from doing his ‘job’, which, in his mind, is to bust into houses and arrest criminals. With ‘criminals’ being everyone in a house he’s told to bust into.

    I do not want this guy ‘protecting’ me. I am far more afraid of this guy than I am of any possible crook. Why? Because I can defend myself in court against a crook, it’s a fair playing field.

    But this guy can break into my house, hold me at gunpoint with no better reason than “Some other cop said you were a criminal” and will not hesitate to kill me if I fail to be 100.0% compliant with whatever stupid ‘orders’ he feels like yelling at me.

    So… The other day, I opened my front door and there was a package there. I was expecting something to be delivered soon, but had received no tracking info via e-mail yet.. so I thought “Woo! They shipped my stuff early!”

    So I grabbed the box, and carried it to my kitchen table, where I grabbed a knife and started cutting the tape…

    Then it hit me! “Crap, this is exactly what happened to Cheye Calvo just prior to having a dozen armed SWAT thugs explode into his house, slaughter his dogs, and proceed to shout orders that, if he didn’t instantly follow to the letter, would be used as justification for killing him.” The only difference was that Cheye is a little guy in his boxer shorts, where as I’m 6’2″, look like an Axe Murderer, and was holding a knife. The headlines write themselves!

  7. #7 |  AJP | 

    The debate over the policy governing these raids has to come to a head, and unfortunately it will probably only do so if a jury acquits RF or someone in a similar situation. In the absence of an acquittal, those who support business as usual will dismiss any criticism, arguing that if a jury thinks the shooter was a criminal, that was the end of it.

    This case highlights perfectly what is going on, and the State just doesn’t want to admit it: When an officer gets shot while executing a warrant, the State treats it like a strict liability offense (i.e., they treat it like a product liability case, where fault is not an issue). In the State’s mind, a cop is dead, and therefore the shooter should pay, and at that point, they only thing they care about is conjuring up a strategy that will gain a conviction.

  8. #8 |  MacK | 

    It sounded like Ryan asked for a lawyer about halfway into this interview why did it continue? The cop just says at some point you will talk to one.

  9. #9 |  ktc2 | 

    MacK,

    They don’t have to stop interrogating you because you ask for a lawyer. It’s your obligation to shut up and wait, and you better believe they’re going to do everything in their power to make you talk. They can make up lies about you, “evidence”, “expert reports”, “witnesses”, etc. all to make you feel like you have zero chance so much so that many confess to things they didn’t do because they don’t see any other option.

    I remember reading about one recent SCrOTUmS case where a cops continuous barrage of interrogation of a man in horrendous pain in critical condition at an ER was upheld as a legitimate confession when he eventually told the cop what he wanted to hear to get him to stop.

  10. #10 |  Judi | 

    Since when did Virginia become Mississippi’s SISTER state? Surely they had read from the same book…or did they simply transfer the same guys who interrogated Cory Maye to question Ryan? Guess the transferred the Grand Jury members too!

    Maybe this shit is contagious. Geesh Radley, do they have a vaccination for this? I know there’s not one for STUPIDITY.

    Any first grader could see this kid is innocent of the charges and acted as any prudent person would.

    I can assure you that if the cops burst into my home unannounced, I will be your NEXT topic.

  11. #11 |  Judi | 

    By the way, I was thinking the cops had to cease and desist questioning once the suspect invokes his right to have an attorney present.

    How about it Radley?

  12. #12 |  Judi | 

    ktc2…”the prosecutors and police involved, are all completely soulless, conscienceless suckers of Satan’s cock.”

    LMAO, I think even old SATAN would pass on this one!

  13. #13 |  Robin | 

    You see Ryan, the problem is, when you have a gun, and point it, and pull the trigger, a bullet comes out and goes places.

  14. #14 |  ktc2 | 

    Judi,

    That’s what I was always told too, but it seems that bit of law is as solid as the fourth amendment at this point.

  15. #15 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #13 Robin

    You see Ryan, the problem is, when you have a gun, and point it, and pull the trigger, a bullet comes out and goes places.

    Which is precisely why it’s inexcusable to intentionally and unnecessarily put someone in a position where they’re almost guaranteed to feel threatened enough to do exactly that.

  16. #16 |  Robin | 

    #15, Dave Krueger–No, I totally agree. You’ve got me all wrong. What I wrote was more or less what the cop was saying to Frederick in this interview. I just thought it was funny watching the cop struggle to find some sort of solid ground on which Frederick might seem totally culpable. But maybe finding humor in this is a bit inappropriate.

  17. #17 |  Robin | 

    Funny isn’t the right word, perhaps tragic. I’m a little ashamed at being so callous, and I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

  18. #18 |  Bill | 

    I got you, Robin, and sometimes, it’s necessary to find humor in these situations (though maybe quotation marks woul’ve helped). I also thought the interviewer’s diatribe was ridiculous , and particularly his comment right before the one you quote, when he said something like, “This is the problem when people have handguns.”

    The problem is, he’s right. In a society where police are allowed to engage in this type of conduct, handguns ARE a problem. Which is to say, police conduct of this type, violent paramilitary raids to enforce laws against victimless crimes, are not compatible with a free society. If Ryan really didn’t hear the announcement, he was certainly within his rights to answer the door gun in hand. Had he then waited till the door was fully breached, he almost certainly would have been shot dead by the cops–assuming, of course, that their aim is substantially better than their investigative skills. The cops would not have been charged; they would have gotten medals.

    To put it bluntly, killing Det. Shivers probably saved Ryan Frederick’s life.

    Incidents like this will continue unless we either disarm our citizens or stop these raids. Which sounds like a better idea?

  19. #19 |  pam | 

    Ryan just seemed believable. I don’t see any reason not to believe what he was saying wasn’t true. Why would he be lying? There didn’t seem to be any holes in his story/”confession”/”statement”, without lawyer present.

  20. #20 |  Aresen | 

    Please, please, please let me read a post here in the next couple of months with the title:

    ‘RYAN FREDERICK ACQUITTED’

  21. #21 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Never, never, never, never give a statement to the cops. Don’t think that you’ll make it better. Never talk unless you’re lawyer is in the room and you’ve already spent a full day talking to him about what the statement is.

  22. #22 |  AJP | 

    I normally am of the “Boyd Durkin” school of thought about giving voluntary statements, and have advised most clients accordingly. But this may be the very rare case where Ryan’s willingness to give a statement works to his benefit. He certainly seemed candid and believable, and the statement he gave presumably provided a roadmap for his trial testimony.

    My question is this – Does anyone know how Ryan did during cross-examination? If he held up and stuck to his prior statement, I think the fact that he has been consistent and cooperative from the very start may actually help him with the jury.

  23. #23 |  Sky | 

    Mack asked the same question I have.

    It was my understanding of the law that once a “suspect” invokes his right to speak with an attorney all questioning is supposed to stop. In the video, the cop pauses for a moment after Ryan asks the question like he knows the questioning should go no further, then decides Ryan doesn’t realize he doesn’t have to talk to them without an attorney present. Then the cop goads Ryan to continue talking to them by saying; oh at some point we will let you talk to an attorney.

  24. #24 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #16 Robin

    #15, Dave Krueger–No, I totally agree. You’ve got me all wrong. What I wrote was more or less what the cop was saying to Frederick in this interview. I just thought it was funny watching the cop struggle to find some sort of solid ground on which Frederick might seem totally culpable. But maybe finding humor in this is a bit inappropriate.

    Oops. Sorry, Robin. I didn’t pick up the context. I think sarcasm is perfectly appropriate. Lord knows I do enough of it.

  25. #25 |  SusanK | 

    Having done a few jury trials in my time, can anyone who watched the trial tell me how the jury looks? What I’m looking for is
    1. Who is the jury paying more attention to?
    2. Have any of the jurors shown signs of irritation with either side?
    3. Are any of the jurors showing any emotion at all?
    Nothing is harder than trying to read a jury during a trial. It’s miserable, and I have always been wrong, but I have found that the side that the jury is paying attention to seems to be the side that wins (or at least gets a hung jury).

  26. #26 |  Brass | 

    To hell with “this type of raid.” That’s not the point, sheeple. They kicked down the man’s door over vegetation. Vegetation that is less dangerous than 10 gallons of whiskey, which is entirely legal to own. The war on drugs is as much bull as the war on alcohol in the 20’s. There is violence over drugs, as there was over alcohol, precisely BECAUSE they are/were BANNED.

    I have never used anything but OTC and prescription medication, and I will be the first to tell you that the “war on drugs” is bull. It is based on asinine logic, and causes more violence than it prevents.

  27. #27 |  Bob | 

    “Never, never, never, never give a statement to the cops. Don’t think that you’ll make it better. Never talk unless you’re lawyer is in the room and you’ve already spent a full day talking to him about what the statement is.”

    Kids need to be taught this from an early age, instead… they’re taught about “Officer Friendly” who is there to help them. Then when they find themselves on the chair in the interrogation room, they don’t realize that the cops are just working them for a confession, not trying to find the ‘truth’ or anything else.

  28. #28 |  CEH | 

    I know there is some criticism about the initial detective’s interview of RF, I’d just like for some posters to remember that his friend and co-worker was killed in front of him just moments before. Perhaps that could explain his seemingly deficient interviewing skills. It’s amazing how cops are supposed to be more than human when they interact with others. Let’s pray we have robots to do law enforcement one day and then we won’t have to worry about abuses of discretion or good jugement or anything like that. If the elements of the crime are there, you’re getting arrested, whether you have a legitimate excuse or not. God forbid you don’t cooperate, you’ll get a laser beam up your ass. (I’ve had a few beers, please forgive the levity).

  29. #29 |  freedomfan | 

    Whew! That was pretty intense. It seems to me that a jury would have to be very sympathetic to what Frederick was saying there. I agree that the police looked pretty bad coming out of those two clips. Especially the cop whose basic message was “you can’t defend yourself when someone is clearly busting through your door”. I know that the question going through my mind was, “So, do I actually have to wait until an armed invader has a gun to my head before I can start defending myself?”

    And in the audio interrogation, though the cop kept trying to imply the Frederick fired blindly through the door just because someone was knocking on it, RF was very insistent (and correctly so) that they were already bashing in the door when he fired. The cop grudgingly conceded, “one panel was gone”, as though that makes it ambiguous whether RF was right to be afraid. IMO, when violence has caused any significant damage to the door, it is being bashed in.

    Like others, I was sickened by that cop’s remark that RF owning a handgun is what caused this. The police deciding to violently break into someone’s home at night is what caused this. And, the cause before that is militarization of civilian law enforcement. And, the cause before that is criminalization of consentual behavior. And, so on down the line.

    And, while I am a big fan of the “don’t talk to the cops, ever, even if you are innocent” school of thought, I think this is a case where RF’s statement will work in his favor. Unless it turns out that the prosecution can point out a bunch of things that he said that weren’t true, it’s almost impossible not to believe this guy was reasonably afraid for his life when he fired that gun.

  30. #30 |  Bob | 

    CEH:

    First, there is no reason to believe the interviewer was there at the scene. While Shivers was probably a friend or acquaintance of his, that just means someone more level headed should have been called in.

    Here’s the problem: THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME WERE NOT THERE. There was no probable cause to raid this guy’s house. The cops went out of their way to CREATE a situation where one of their own was killed. They decided “Hey! We’re gunna roll this guy through the ringer because we might be able to get an arrest that will look good on our records.” They figured the risk was minimal… That there were several possible outcomes:

    One: The informant was a dirtbag and no contraband would be found. Oh well! Better luck on the next fishing trip!

    Two: Drugs! Score! Big time arrest and sweet, sweet, rewards for the team!

    Three: There was no three. Risk and failure were almost certainly never considered. The police seem to live in a fantasy land where they can do no wrong.

    You either have the rights as guaranteed in the FUCKING CONSTITUTION or you do not. The cops here are saying you do not, you must supplicate yourself to every whim of law enforcement for whatever reason, even when those reasons egregiously violate your constitutional rights.

  31. #31 |  CEH | 

    Bob,

    WTF are you talking about? Are you at all familiar with the case, the media coverage, the synopsis on TidewaterLiberty? There was PC to be there, the warrant is deemed valid, RF admitted to growing and giving marijuana to his friends. Not on those tapes of course, that was a year ago, but on the stand last week he did. Det. Winklespecht was there at the scene, behind Det. Shivers. Inform youself before you post.

  32. #32 |  claude | 

    Kerry Dougherty strikes again.

    http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/sure-let’s-treat-prisoners-decently-honey-buns

  33. #33 |  Gonzo | 

    This is absolutely goddamn gutbucket ballshrivelingly terrifying. Fuck me. When the cop in the first interview was trying to come up with that hypothetical, “what if someone busted down your door…” i was convinced he was going to end with “…and give you muffins! happens every day, son.”

    But the hypothetical unarmed person who is just going to, i assume, ask very nicely for your money is much more plausible.

    Is there a transcript of the second interview? I can’t make it out worth a damn on my lousy speakers.

  34. #34 |  Bob | 

    “Bob,

    WTF are you talking about? Are you at all familiar with the case, the media coverage, the synopsis on TidewaterLiberty? There was PC to be there, the warrant is deemed valid, RF admitted to growing and giving marijuana to his friends. Not on those tapes of course, that was a year ago, but on the stand last week he did. Det. Winklespecht was there at the scene, behind Det. Shivers. Inform youself before you post.”

    Dude. Growing small quantities of Mary Jane is … misdemeanor shit at best. Hardly warranting a Knock and Announce style raid.

    Instead, they would have you believe they were investigating a dealer who was growing large quantities of weed for sale. And yet… could produce not even a single shred of evidence to that effect.

    There was simply NO probable cause that should have resulted in a raid of any kind. Perhaps a visit by Officer Friendly, to politely ask him to come answer some questions… but not a raid.

    THEREIN LIES THE RUB. “the warrant is deemed valid”… A warrant SO LACKING in the basics. A warrant based on the unverified word of a known criminal.

    What part of “Violation of rights” isn’t clear?

  35. #35 |  TomMil | 

    I fear that the audacity of of the police and the prosecutor in this case could cause a juror (or more) to convict out of fear of becoming their next target. These people are scarier than any mafia or urban street gang. If “The Crips” are after you, you can at least look to some avenue of law enforcement for assistance (however hollow that comfort may be). Who protects you from law enforcement – this criminal conspiracy is operating under color of law.

  36. #36 |  Judi | 

    My son (whose father is a police officer who left us when my son was 6 yrs old for a butt ugly 17 y/o bimbo from hell and has refused to even speak to our son all these years) is 19 years old now and a squeaky clean kid. (I wish I were)

    I have taught him that if he ever gets pulled over, to place BOTH hands on the steering wheel in view of the officer, to be polite and do follow the officers instructions.

    I also taught him the GOLDEN RULE of police questioning and that is to REMAIN SILENT except to ask for an ATTORNEY regardless of anything they say.

    My son’s goal is to go into law enforcement (no influence from his sperm donor of course) and to someday move up to a federal agency.

    He is WELL aware of the under-handed tactics police use and is determined to change that even if it’s only in his small way.

    It surprises me that of all the CRIME shows on T.V. that people still do stupid crap like resist arrest, TALK to the COPS even after being Mirandized…etc.

    GEESH, people learn everything ELSE be watching the boob-tube, when are they going to get a CLUE and do something that would BEHOOVE themselves?

    By the way, the 17 y/o threatened to KILL my young son ‘to get him out of the way’ yet my EX married her and SHE is a COP now too! Ain’t that sweet?

    My ex couldn’t grab his ass cheeks if Crazy Glue were on both hands….guess it wasn’t his ass he was grabbing…lol.

    Knowing BOTH of them like I do…well I am surprised they are smart enough to turn the key in the ignition on their police cruiser, let alone interrogate someone appropriately.

    With unscrupulous people like this wearing BADGES, people like Ryan and Cory Maye didn’t stand a chance from the git-go.

  37. #37 |  Dave W. | 

    “Never, never, never, never give a statement to the cops. Don’t think that you’ll make it better. Never talk unless you’re lawyer is in the room and you’ve already spent a full day talking to him about what the statement is.”

    First of all, it looks like Ryan Frederick helped, rather than hurt himself by talking to the police without a lawyer present. I agree with you that you are generally better off not talking, but (perhaps ironically) this is one of those rare cases where talking to the police with no lawyer was the best thing he could have done at the time.

    Second, it doesn’t matter if he invoked a lawyer halfway through the interrogation — there is nothing harmful to exclude.

  38. #38 |  Greg C | 

    What the hell is wrong with this Kerry Dougherty lady? Ryan eating donuts and gaining weight means that he was on coke and meth for weight control? Even if he used coke or meth, does that mean he is guilty of murder? Did Ryan really testify that he got stoned every day? Really? Well, obviously that means he’s guilty of intentionally murdering a cop. Throw away the key and take away the donuts!

  39. #39 |  John Wilburn | 

    Claude (#31)

    I posted this comment, in response to Ms. Dougherty’s article about Mr. Frederick’s weight gain;

    “Ms. Dougherty –

    It never ceases to amaze me that you have a job. As usual, confirmation of your bias and ignorance increases with your every keystroke. Have you troubled to research the side effects of Xanax, the anti-anxiety prescription drug that Mr. Frederick takes, under the direction of a licensed physician?

    Agitation, changes (increase) in appetite, WEIGHT GAIN, nausea and vomiting, hyperactivity, nervousness, and restlessness, to name a few…

    It’s conceivable that the “expert” who prescribed this medication, is the real culprit…

    One other thing – when Mr. Willett asked Professor Cooke about cessation of coke and meth use (btw – those substances were NOT specified), his response was that weight LOSS was more likely, short term, and return to pre-use weight was more likely, long term. I know, because I was there, taking notes – you weren’t…

    I hear that 7-11 is hiring…”

    My comment was, as usual, appended with, “This comment is awaiting staff approval,” and if they allow it at all, it will be sometime tomorrow, when it will be ancient history, and no one will see it.

    (I may have tinkled in (the editor) Mr. Schecker’s Maypo, a time or two…)

    It occurs to me to wonder where the fuck these assholes get off, suggesting to me that although their First Amendment rights (freedom of the press) are sacrosanct, THEY are in a position, and enjoy the authority to approve, disapprove and deny MY First Amendment rights (freedom of speech).

    No one pulled on their short hair, to compel them to provide this public forum for readers to comment – they did that on their own (to increase readership, interest and revenue, for their rag).

    Political Correctness has never been a requirement, under the Constitution, and from where I sit, those who are “PC” are also “PD” “PE” and “PF” – Pretty Dishonest, Pretty Exasperating and Pretty Foolish – eventually, the truth always comes out…

  40. #40 |  CEH | 

    Bob,

    The picture you paint is pretty clear. Seems the defense should have easily gotten the charge thrown out. They did not. It was determined prima facie evidence existed under current law. Therein lies the rub, you don’t agree with the law, so you ‘ll never accept any action based on it. I hope one day marijuana is legalized, no officer’s life is worth any amount of the shit. The law needs to change, until it does, the senseless war goes on and cops, enforcing the will of politicians and the majority of citizens, will continue to take the heat for it when things go wrong.

  41. #41 |  Bob | 

    “Seems the defense should have easily gotten the charge thrown out.”

    And I’m sure they could have, had the prosecution not been lying sleaze balls. Had the detectives not acted improperly to get a warrant. But they’re not on trial here, are they? The court system hinges on two basic principles…

    First: That the prosecution is morally upright and will not lie under oath. they’re required to do this because people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Second: That the defense is the only side that can ‘game’ the system. They’re allowed to do this because people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    “…no officer’s life is worth any amount of the shit.”

    Perhaps Detective Shivers should have thought of that before executing an unnecessary high risk raid against a guy with a couple of joints, huh?

    My take is different:

    “… no civilian’s life is worth advancing an officer’s career”

  42. #42 |  claude | 

    “My comment was, as usual, appended with, “This comment is awaiting staff approval,” and if they allow it at all, it will be sometime tomorrow, when it will be ancient history, and no one will see it.”

    I have that same problem over there. Plus they remove about 1 out of 10 of my comments. Apparently… i have an “attitude problem”. (lol)

  43. #43 |  claude | 

    “What the hell is wrong with this Kerry Dougherty lady? Ryan eating donuts and gaining weight means that he was on coke and meth for weight control? Even if he used coke or meth, does that mean he is guilty of murder? Did Ryan really testify that he got stoned every day? Really? Well, obviously that means he’s guilty of intentionally murdering a cop. Throw away the key and take away the donuts!”

    On the bright side, Kerry’s physical appearance is now totally fair game forever. O:-)

  44. #44 |  anon | 

    @Sky and others asking about the lawyer request:

    If you listen to the video, it sounds like Ryan says something like “…I’m gonna need to be talking to a lawyer.” The detective’s response just plays along with that future tense, i.e. “at some point you will.”

    The interview didn’t stop because the police are trained to know how far they can push it. Once a suspect in custody has been Mirandized and then starts talking anyway, he’s deemed to have waived the right to remain silent, the right to counsel during the interrogation, etc. After that waiver, in order for the interrogation to be legally required to be stopped, the suspect has to state clearly and unequivocally that he wants to talk to a lawyer. This is the standard of appellate courts who review such interrogations for constitutional violations.

    In that setting, words like Ryan’s won’t do the trick. If he was really trying to end the interview, he needed to say something like “I don’t want to talk to you anymore without a lawyer” or “I want a lawyer right now,” and stayed silent thereafter.

  45. #45 |  Dave Krueger | 

    My daughter is a public defender. She has a T-shirt that says, “Nobody Talks, Everybody Walks”. She also told me about a doormat that says, “Comeback with a Warrant”. I like those sentiments.

    What I’d like to know is this. If the cops start to question you, can you demand to have a lawyer present even if they haven’t arrested you? They’re clearly capable of trying to pin a crime on you without you’re ever having committed one. Talking might, of course, eliminate that possibility, but sometimes it might make it more likely. Can you, by not talking, be charged with being uncooperative or obstructing justice or some such thing?

  46. #46 |  MacK | 

    Dave Krueger:

    You were born with 5th amendment rights, so not talking is your right at the start. You never have to say anything to the cops, and you can request a lawyer right from the start also. If the cops ever call you and say something like “We would like for you to come to the station, and answer a few questions for us.”
    Tell them “I’ll will call my lawyer, and come talk with him present if he so deems.”

    In fact the National Motorist Association has a card you can print out on this very subject.

    http://www.motorists.org/blog/roadblock-rights-card/

  47. #47 |  MacK | 

    Thanks anon that is what I have come to understand also. I could not here clearly just what Ryan had said, but from what I have found out is that you must make it clear you want a lawyer now.
    In 1981 the Supreme court ruled that once you do request a lawyer the interview must stop. Since then other cases have arisen in which the suspects did not make it clear they were terminating the interview until a lawyer was present, and the courts have ruled the interviews legal on that basis.

  48. #48 |  Audrey Winsor | 

    Re: Kerry Dougherty ..Opinion / Ryan Frederick

    Well, Ms. Dougherty sure has a lot to say about Ryan Frederick’s weight gain…It seems to me that sitting in a cell hour after hour, day after day, for well over a year could very well have something to do with that…. And of course the Honey Buns and Doughnuts that he buys with HIS money…NOT the taxpayers… As for Ryan (the skinny guy) when he was first arrested… he was a soda delivery man which kept him moving loading and unloading cases of soda… GREAT EXERCISE!!!! Bet it really helps a person lose weight..Now IF Ryan was the GREAT BIG POT DEALER /smoker he is made out to be, he should have weighed much more than 120 pounds when he was arrested… After all pot heads are supposed to have the munchies and will eat anything in sight…right? Ms. Dougherty should leave Ryan’s weight out of this..this entire fiasco came about BECAUSE some RAMBO COPS decided to believe some LYING CONVICTS that wanted revenge against a man who had NEVER been in trouble with the law in his life..Ms. Dougherty’s article doesn’t surprise me at all because (If I am not mistaken) she is married to either a Prosecutor, Lawyer, Judge, or someone else connected to the courts…So it is NO surprise that she would think the way she does in regards to Ryan.

    FREE RYAN FREDERICK!!! HE IS NOT GUILTY!!!!

    The CPD Are the GUILTY ones!!!!!

  49. #49 |  Sky | 

    ” If you listen to the video, it sounds like Ryan says something like “…I’m gonna need to be talking to a lawyer.”

    Ryan was clearly asking the cops if he needed to be talking to a lawyer. It was a question!

    Aside from that, I’m 53 years old. I grew up being taught to cooperate with police and to tell the truth…that the truth would set me free. From EVERTYTHING Ryan has said in that video it’s clear to me he was cooperating with police in every conceivable way and telling the truth. It’s also crystal clear to me that the police took every possible advantage of Ryan’s willingness to cooperate.

    We all know that had an attorney been in that room that tape would NOT exist!

  50. #50 |  RiffRaff | 

    It’s too bad the cops in Lima, Ohio didn’t share this interviewers opinion about firing blindly through a door, when Officer Chavalia was aquitted of involuntary manslaughter for killing Tarika Wilson and shooting the hand off of her 1 yr. old during a “raid”.

Leave a Reply