An Interview with Freeman's Alibi - Michelle Woodworth

This interview of Michelle Woodworth was filmed about a month ago. It is an engaging description of Michelle being with Fred 450 miles away when the murder took place and the subsequent treatment of her by law enforcement. We at Proving Innocence continue to be outraged at this sham of a murder conviction, a conviction which has now robbed Fred of 31 years of his life! How do you respond to this 8 1/2 minute interview? Click on Comments and let your voice be heard!

These are Your “Witnesses”?

After living for 31 years in prison, Fred Freeman has been granted another opportunity for a habeas petition. With that in mind, we are publishing updated articles addressing this horrible, malicious wrongful conviction.  This one discusses the incredibly weak and unreliable witnesses the prosecution presented to the jury. If you have never read about this case, you will shake your head in utter disbelief!

(Background: Fredrick Freeman was wrongfully convicted of the murder of Scott Macklem, who was shot in a Port Huron Community College parking lot on November 5, 1986. He was sentenced to the mandatory term of life in prison without parole and has now served 31 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Every impartial and professional assessment of his case has concluded that Freeman is wholly innocent.)

temujink2Reliable witnesses are an important element for the defense or the prosecution in any crime. As you will see in the following, witnesses for Fred Freeman provide a solid, virtually unassailable alibi, while the prosecution’s witnesses offer no reasonable evidence or argument that Freeman was anywhere near the murder scene. Indeed, the prosecution’s key “witness” who claims to see Freeman leaving the scene, mostly obscured with clothing and the vehicle in which he is driving, first identifies the automobile as a sports car but later says it was a station wagon. That’s a credible witness?

Consider the following:

Witnesses for the Defense
Around the time of the murder, nine (9!!) disinterested witnesses place Fredrick Freeman in the Escanaba area of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan about 450 miles from the crime scene in Port Huron, Michigan. At the specific time of the crime (about 9 am), one alibi witness actually places him another twenty miles farther north in Rock/Perkins, Michigan. (That alibi witness passed two polygraph examinations). None of the nine witnesses were ever discredited or impeached at trial or since.

Witnesses for the Prosecution
What about the witnesses presented by the prosecution? Well, they either did not identify Freeman or were totally unreliable.

Read more: These are Your “Witnesses”?

Fred Freeman Gets Another Chance!

FreemanGreat news on Wrongful Conviction Day! The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a successive petition for Fred Freeman’s habeas appeal. That means that Federal District Court, Eastern District, that granted Freeman’s original habeas – which was then overturned by the Sixth Circuit – is now authorized to consider: 1) Freeman’s Brady* claims regarding the prosecution’s failure to produce for the defense tampered line-up photos; and 2) the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim concerning Freeman’s cocaine-addicted defense lawyer.

As Imran Syed of the Michigan Innocence Clinic put it, “This is a careful and measured opinion. I am pleased that the Court agreed that the evidence we have presented here is significant and worthy of full consideration. We look forward to presenting these claims to the district court, where we hope Mr. Freeman will finally obtain the relief he deserves. Basically this sends the case back to Judge Denise Page Hood for another habeas petition. She granted it before, and the words of the 6th Circuit here are great. I am hopeful she will grant it again . . .”

Justice in Freeman’s case is yet to be obtained and the judicial process drags on far too slowly for someone who has been behind bars for 31 years. But there is optimism that Chief Judge Hood will “do the right thing”!

You may read the decision in its entirety by clicking on the Attachments.

*Brady - When the prosecution discovers evidence pointing to the defendent's innocence and does not disclose it to the defense.

$5000 to $25,000 $50,000 Reward for Information Regarding Kensu's Case

Wednesday, June 28th, the series Reasonable Doubt on the Investigation Discovery Channel devoted the episode to Temujin Kensu. Temujin is offering a reward. The funds come out of Temujin's own money he collected from his lawsuite against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). The wording Temujin sent us is as follows:

“A reward of up to $5000 is being offered for any credible information regarding the November 5th, 1986, St. Clair County Community College parking lot shooting death of Scott Arnold Macklem.

A reward of up to $25,000 is being offered for any information that either exonerates Mr. Kensu, who was wrongfully convicted for this crime, and/or leads to an arrest or conviction of the responsible party.

Moreover, Mr. Kensu’s attorneys at 1-800-Law-Firm will match any reward that leads to the exoneration of him, bringing the potential reward to $50,000. Call 1 (800) 595-0830 if you have information to report.”

You may watch Episode 10 of Reasonable Doubt, Long Distance Murder by clicking on the link, but you must have a cable subscription that gives you access to the Investigation Discovery Channel.

The State of Michigan vs. Lorinda Swain - Michigan Supreme Court

Lorinda Swain was convicted in 2002 in Calhoun County of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for allegedly sexually assaulting her adopted son. She was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison. Though her son recanted his testimony immediately after the trial, Lorinda spent the next 8 years in prison until her case was picked up by the Michigan Innocence Clinic. She was allowed to leave prison, pending her appeal. For the last 7 years she has had the threat of returning to prison to serve out her remaining time, a stress few can imagine. On April 6th, 2016, she was in attendance as her case for a retrial was argued before the Michigan Supreme Court by Dave Moran of the Michigan Innocence Clinic (MIC).

The oral argument presented in its entirety:

MIC’s David Moran, supported by Caitlin M. Plummer and Imran J. Syed, argued several issues related to the motions for relief from judgment. They presented strong arguments that a new trial should be ordered, including that the original trial judge ordered a retrial and he is in a much better position to determine that then the Court of Appeals.

Jennifer Kay Clark, Assistant Calhoun County Prosecutor, aided by Aaron Lindstrom, Michigan Solicitor General, represented the State. Assistant Prosecutor Clark tried repeatedly to vacate the barrister table when unable to answer the Court’s questions, but was recalled each time.

Click for more details . . . The State of Michigan vs. Lorinda Swain - Michigan Supreme Court