Cop Lies, Man Spends Five Years in Prison
In 1999, Ted White Jr. was convicted of child molestation in a Missouri courtroom. He would spend five years in prison before being exonerated and released. What the jury in White’s first trial did not know was that the lead detective, Richard McKinley, who was investigating the allegations against White, was having an affair with White’s wife. It is not clear when the affair began, but it is clear that Detective McKinley lied about the affair under oath and kept exculpatory evidence from the defense.
Ted White’s nightmare began when his 12 year old adopted step daughter and his wife, Tina White, accused him of being a child molester. White was eager to clear his name so he called the lead investigator, Detective McKinley, and offered to come in and make a statement. He was oblivious to the fact that McKinley was in a relationship with his wife. It is unusual for the police to refuse a suspect’s offer to make a voluntary statement, but that is exactly what Detective McKinley did, because he was not interested in the truth; he was only interested in pleasing his new girlfriend. White was arrested and charged with 13 felony counts including rape, child molestation, sodomy, and child molestation.
In a pre-trial deposition, White’s attorney, Matthew O’Connor asked McKinley two important questions. First he asked if McKinley had any personal interest in the case. The prosecutor, Jennifer Mettler, had anticipated this type of question. She was aware of the affair between McKinley and Tina White. She had arranged to signal McKinley by clearing her throat during questioning if he needed to disclose the affair. McKinley hesitated and waited for a signal before answering O’Connor’s question. When there was no signal, he said “no.” O’Connor then asked “Did you have other contact with Mrs. White other than what you have put in your reports?” McKinley again answered “no.” At this point he had been in a relationship with Tina White for at least 10 months, possibly longer.
Detective McKinley did not stop at perjury in his quest to have an innocent man convicted and sent to prison. The accuser, 12 year old Jami White, kept a diary. In the diary she wrote wonderful things about her father, she never mentioned any type of abuse. This diary was a crucial piece of evidence for the defense. McKinley read the diary and, instead of collecting it as evidence, turned it over to Tina White. The diary then disappeared.
Immediately after White’s conviction, O’Connor learned of the affair when a citizen came forward with the information. When O’Connor hinted to Mettler that he had just learned something damaging to the prosecution she admitted that the prosecution was aware of the affair. Because this information was not turned over to the defense, White was eventually granted a new trial. The second trial ended with a mistrial when the jury deadlocked 11 to 1 for acquittal. The 11 jurors were so sure of White’s innocence that they were active in trying to secure his release after the mistrial. They were vocal in the media and wrote letters to the Missouri Attorney General asking that the charges be dismissed.
Two years later the third trial would end with White’s acquittal, but not before he had been financially ruined and not before seven years of his life had been lost. Five of those years were lost in prison, where as a “child molester” he endured brutal beatings.
While White was living through hell in prison, McKinley married Tina White and became $500,000 richer. Because of his conviction Tina White was awarded all of Ted White’s assets when she divorced him.
After White was exonerated he filed a lawsuit against the city of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, the chief of police and Detective McKinley. In 2006, as part of a settlement that would remove the city from the lawsuit, Lee’s Summit city government agreed to pay “any final judgment entered by the court in favor of White”. In 2008 the court ruled that McKinley had violated White’s due process rights by withholding evidence. The court awarded White almost $16 million. Now, Lee’s Summit is refusing to pay. Lee’s Summit’s mayor, Randy Rhoads, said that “Despite an indemnification agreement which removed the city as a defendant in this case, it has been determined after an extensive review that paying for any damages would be a violation of city ordinances.” Rhoads went on to say that when the agreement was signed there was no way to know that the verdict would rule that McKinley violated White’s Constitutional rights and that “In light of the verdict, it’s unlawful under ordinance for the city to indemnify the defendant, Lee’s Summit city ordinances specifically state that if a city employee violates the rights of another person, the city shall not indemnify that employee.” White has yet to receive a dime and now must endure more of our “justice” system in order to get his restitution. White has apologized to the taxpayers of Lee’s Summit saying “I’m going to have to fight again and it’s going to cost the city more money,” White said. “I apologize to the citizens of Lee’s Summit, but I have to do what is right.”
Detective McKinley eventually lost his job, but since the city of Lee’s Summit indemnified him from having to pay damages, he himself will not be responsible for restitution. He has also never been charged with perjury.
Tags: Dishonesty, Justice System, Lee's Summit MO, Missouri, Prison
The Judge didn’t pick up one their relationship during the trial?
Solution? Let people opt out of paying taxes. Or people should just stop paying taxes that are sick of this crap.
My Verdict?
Detective McKinley should go to jail for 7 years. It only seems fair. Also Detective McKinley and the Ex wife should be responsible for supporting White for ever.
Right on, Brodie. God, this stuff makes me ill!
Brodie, that wouldn’t stop things like this. It would just make cops even more aggressive. As it is they feed off our taxes and only steal some of the money they get from us directly (excuse me, via “civil forfeiture”). If they didn’t get that tax money, you can be sure they’d drastically step up their acts of banditry.
But if there were no taxes, then there would be no state-funded police to commit banditry.
Getting rid of taxes isn’t going to make millions of heavily-armed thugs suddenly say, “Gosh, I guess I better get an honest job now.”
He should run for mayor and fire all the cops.
“10% of cops are honest, 10% are dishonest, and 80% wish they were honest.”
-Detective Frank Serpico, NYPD, testimony to Knapp Commission
COP.
2. to steal; filch.
3. to buy (narcotics).
4. cop out, a. to avoid one’s responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out.
b. cop a plea.
5. cop a plea, a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence.
b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge as a means of bargaining one’s way out of standing trial for a more serious charge; plea-bargain.
-Dictionary.com, Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006
Why would the heavily armed thugs continue to work in their profession if they were not getting paid? If taxes no longer paid for police, there would cease to be “police.” They would become random, ordinary citizens wearing funny clothes and having a gun, and would be subject to the same laws against theft and violence as everyone else.
A similar example would be if drugs became legal. Sure, the gangs will still be armed, but they will be put out of business. The very foundation upon which they are formed and based will be gone, and they will cease to have a purpose, and cease to make profit the way they used to.
Unless those heavily armed thugs are completely stupid, they would be forced to get an honest job, or starve. If they stole or robbed people to get by, then they would go to jail like everyone else, because they are no longer tax-funded, no longer are an arm of the government, and must abide by the same laws as everyone else.
What army is going to put them in jail? The city I live in, Los Angeles, has the equivalent of a light infantry division occupying it, and that’s just the LAPD–not even counting the County Sheriffs and all the cops from the many adjacent cities. You try to arrest a cop for committing a crime and his hundreds of friends will show up and kill you. (And speaking of arms of the government, if we get rid of taxes the much more heavily armed “official” military would still be out there too.)
The reality of life _now_ is that the government’s power comes from saying “give us your money or we’ll kill you” and having the firepower to back it up. All that ending taxation would do is remove the glove–the iron fist inside would still be there. Actually being free of those people would take a major war.
I should probably also point out that under existing current laws, it’s perfectly legal for cops to steal and rob people. It’s called “asset forfeiture.”
Ken, really, what do you think would happen if 50% of the population stopped obeying the government? Just stopped paying their fines and taxes and stopped obeying their stupid rules? You think the other half would, what, throw them in jail and pay for their upkeep? Or do you think they would just shoot them? Just shoot people standing their not fighting back? If so, I would love to see your evidence that such would be the case. Given that you don’t have any, no they would not be able to do anything. The would just quit having jobs and would have to go find real work.
For an example of what happens when people stop doing what the government tells them to, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
@ARNIE
It is my understanding that the judge was also aware of the affair.
“Despite an indemnification agreement which removed the city as a defendant in this case, it has been determined after an extensive review that paying for any damages *would be a violation of city ordinances*.”
Must be nice to be able to just make shit up to absolve oneself of responsibility. Like any other so-called law, ordinances that are morally wrong are inherently invalid.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War”
Charley Hardman’s analogy of the US civil war in the first two paragraphs here is a must-read:
http://saltypig.com/articles/2006/12/this-dead-america.htm
Ken,
I am not talking about resisting the government. I am talking about not obeying the government. That just means not paying taxes, and when they come after you, you don’t defend yourself, you let them take you to jail.
They could do that (and probably would occasionally, to help their friends in the prison guard unions), but it would be simpler for them to just remove all the valuables you have on your person and let you go on your way.
They can easily do that to one person. Not so, when it is many. Ghandi and the civil rights movements are two examples.
The only difference between cleaning out the pockets of one person standing there unresisting and cleaning out the pockets of one thousand is how long it would take.
if we really had JUSTICE in this country the cop & lawyer would both be fired & charged with perjury, be forced to pay him back everything with interest & go to jail for at least 5 years.
we need street justice!
oh they cant pay him cuz it would violate a city ordinance, i see now!
we can violate your entire life, career, relationship with children, get you violated in prison.
but we cant violate a city ordinance.
F**K YOUR CITY ORDINANCE!!!
There’s actually a Federal law on the books (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 241 US Code) that says this cop could get up to the death penalty for what he did. As far as I know this law has never been enforced, and I very much doubt it ever will be.
From what I’ve read, one of four things must be true of whoever signed the indemnity agreement on behalf of Lee’s Summit:
1. They were unaware that a lawsuit charging violations of constitutional rights might lead to a judgment that constitutional rights had been violated.
2. They were unaware that city ordinances could be interpreted as making such indemnity illegal. (This is a specious interpretation, by the way.)
3. They knew both of these, but were highly confident that Mr. White would lose and no one would have to pay anything.
4. They knew these things and signed anyway, knowing that they could always fall back on the city-statute-makes-it-illegal argument to wiggle out.
1 and 2 indicate gross incompetence, and 3 and 4 indicate dishonesty. And these are the only four possibilities here – there are no others. (Nor are they mutually exclusive.)
If I were a Lee’s Summit resident, I’d be doing whatever I could to replace the current mayor, city council, and whoever was hired to represent them in court. They are obviously incompetent, criminally dishonest, or both. And interest is accumulating on the judgment – Lee’s Summit will eventually have to pay, and the longer they put it off, the more they’ll have to cough up.