CORRUPT TRIAL Homophobia – Perjury – Fraud (The Death of Keith Crotwell)
Untrue Police Reports * Witnesses Stakeout RSK * Star Witness Changes Memory * Wheel and Deal for Testimony * Police Hide Tape Recording * Preliminary Hearing Corrupted * Hidden Witness * Thug Cops * Witnesses Vandalize Suspect’s Car * Hired Expert Alters Evidence * Homophobic Witnesses, Police, Judge * Multiple Police Perjury * ID of RSK Fraudulent * ID RSK Car Not Credible * Police and Prosecutor Fraud * Witness Tampering at Trial * RSK Not Allowed to Testify
It is not known how Keith Crotwell died, or where, or when. He was 19 years old, and was last seen alive with a good friend, Kent May, who was 15 years old, and a stranger whom they had just met. They were in the stranger's car, and he was providing them with the drugs they wanted. Crotwell was telling May what the pills were, what they did, and how many he needed to take to get high, and they chased them down with beer. Then, they left the parking lot and took a ride. Kent May later returned totally intoxicated, could not stand or walk, and he slept for 2-3 days continuously at his mom’s house where he lived. Keith Crotwell was never seen again.
Six weeks later a human skull was found along a nearby ocean jetty, and it was determined to be Crotwell's by dental records. An autopsy determined the cause of death to be probable drowning. No other remains were found, and there was nothing on the skull to suggest its separation from the rest of the body was caused by anything other than decomposition in the ocean. Other skeletal remains were found months later and very far away but were not consistent with the skull found or Crotwell’s stature or time of death.
There is only one witness to the events that led to Crotwell's death, and that is Kent May. Other friends present that night didn't pay attention before May and Crotwell left with the stranger and witnessed only events after May returned later in the early morning hours. Everyone, friends included, had been drinking all night, and Kent May had additionally taken drugs. You will find in the following presentation that Kent May’s memory is all over the map, constantly changing, and we will offer several plausible explanations for that.
CT: Trial court transcript, Orange County Superior Court, transcript page # indicated.EX: Trial exhibit with number.INV: Defense investigators’ report on date indicated.LBPD: Report from the Long Beach Police Department on the date indicated.OCSO: Report from the Orange County Sheriff's Office on the date indicated.PRELIM: Preliminary Hearing testimony, taken under oath to tell the truth (Orange County Municipal Court, transcript date, transcript page # indicated).
TRIAL: Reporter’s transcript, trial testimony, under oath to tell the truth (Orange County Superior Court, transcript page # indicated).
Faced with uncertain and contradictory evidence the Long Beach Police Department created an elaborate fraud to wrongly say on official reports that RSK admitted to being with Crotwell on the night he was last seen, and that RSK further admitted to being the person who drove off in his car alone with Crotwell. This fraud persisted for ten years until it was exposed during the RSK trial. The untrue report was distributed to other law enforcement agencies and shown to potential witnesses purporting to be the truth. In fact, it was a vicious fraud designed to incriminate a gay man, RSK, against whom the Long Beach Police had no credible evidence or evidence of any kind to link him to Crotwell's death. Consequently, no charges were brought against RSK, and he was unaware of the fraud, the untrue report and any hint that he might have been charged with murder.
CAUTION:
None of the witness accounts regarding the events told here were made at or about the time the events occurred, but at least six weeks later, after those people involved conferred with each other and shared their stories.
A NIGHT TO REMEMBER
On the night before Easter, 1975, a group of young friends gathered to celebrate the holiday at the west end of the Granada Parking Lot in Belmont Shore, a district of Long Beach, California. The parking lot is huge, spanning eight city blocks and having six rows of diagonal parking. At the west end there were several businesses, including Big John's billiards and games arcade, where the group of friends were going. At the east end was a gay beach and meeting area, and across the street from the parking lot's east exit was Ripples, a gay bar that had been there for decades under various names. These facts are undisputed.
Kent May, 15 years old, came with his date, Leslie, 18 years, in her car. Frank Ditmar, 21 years old, and Terry Ditmar, 19 years old, came with Randy Cooper, also 19, in his small, red pickup truck with a camper shell. Keith Crotwell was already there when his friends arrived, and no one knew how he got there. Terry Ditmar's older brother Frank is not mentioned in any of the friends' statements to police as being there that night, March 29, 1975. However, Kent May testified under oath at the preliminary hearing that Frank Ditmar was one of the group of friends that assembled that night (PRELIM, 11/03/1975, 44). And further, RSK defense counsel McDonald wrote a letter to prosecutor Bryan Brown stating he was advised that police did interview Frank Ditmar about the night in question (CT, 1239) and that implies he must have been at Big John's that night, but his presence is concealed for whatever reason. He never testified.
By the time everyone arrived at Big John's they had been drinking beer and continued drinking beer and buying more from a nearby liquor store throughout the night. Kent May said he brought $20 and spent it all on beer. In 1975 a six pack of beer cost $2.50. The only friend of Crotwell who was old enough to buy beer for the others was Frank Ditmar, 21 years old. These facts are undisputed.
AT THIS POINT MAY'S MEMORY CHANGES FROM WHAT HE FIRST RECALLED TO POLICE ON 5/21/75 AND AGAIN EIGHT YEARS LATER ON 5/31/83 TO WHAT HE LATER SAID IN COURT AND UNDER OATH ON 11/03/83 AND AT TRIAL ON 11/09/88.
AN ARGUMENT WITH LESLIE
5/21/75: Kent May recalled to Long Beach police that at 2am, after Big John's had closed, he and his date Leslie had an argument. It was about her waning interest in him, who was only 15 years old, and her growing interest in Randy Cooper, 19 years old. The argument occurred outside her car in the open air of the parking lot (LBPD, 5/21/75).
***Kent May Changes His Memory***
11/03/83 and 11/09/88: Kent May testified in court under oath to tell the truth that he and Leslie argued sometime late in the evening, 11pm to 1am while Big John's was still open. The argument took place inside her car, and it was a quiet argument (TRIAL, 19249, 19250, 19268-19269, 19273). In 1988, when confronted on cross-examination with his previous statement to police, Kent May acknowledged that in 1975 he told police that he and Leslie argued outside her car at 2:00am after Big John's had closed. Thus, his two statements of the same event, each under oath to tell the truth, conflict and contradict each other.
MEETING A STRANGER
5/15/75: Early in the evening Terry Ditmar and Randy Copper played pool at Big John's when they both observed Keith Crotwell also playing pool (LBPD, 5/15/75). Ditmar told police that much later when he and Cooper helped Kent May home in the early morning of Sunday, 3/30/75, May told Ditmar that he "had been approached by the driver (stranger) while inside Big John's ..." (LBPD, 5/15/75).
5/21/75: Kent May recalled to police that during his argument with Leslie outside her car, a Mustang car drove up and parked nearby. When the argument was over and Leslie had returned inside her car, May noticed a white male sitting or leaning on the front fender of the Mustang. The car was black over white in color, and it had wheels that were fancier than stock hubcaps, like an expensive package (LBPD, 5/20/75). Kent May testified that after the argument with Leslie he was "depressed" (TRIAL, 19255). and "distraught" (TRIAL, 19248). Kent May walked over to the stranger and then struck up a conversation about the just-ended argument. The stranger offered him a beer to calm down and relax. He accepted the offer (LBPD, 5/21/75) and the two got into the Mustang rather than drink outside in the open, which was illegal. After a time, the stranger asked Kent May if he wanted to party and take a ride. May said he would like that, but first he wanted to get a friend to join them, and he did that. This friend was Keith Crotwell, who was inside Big John’s shooting pool when May came to ask him to join him and the stranger (LBPD, 5/15/75; LBPD, 5/21/75). An informant told Signal Hill Police Chief Denham that he saw Crotwell inside Big John's that night and observed Crotwell was "very despondent because he did not have money for his narcotics" (LBPD, 5/20/75). On his way to the stranger’s car, Keith Crotwell awakened Terry Ditmar who had been asleep in the back of Randy Cooper's truck, to ask if he "wanted to go to a party, that he had met a guy who had a couple of them to go to" (LBPD, 6/07/83). Apparently Kent May exaggerated the stranger's offer to party. Or did he?
5/23/75: Randy Cooper told police that after Kent May's argument, May walked around the parking lot upset about the circumstances (LBPD, 5/23/75).
5/31/83: Kent May was reinterviewed by LBPD officers Bell and Collette in a public park in northern California. Kent May told police the same story as before (above) about going to get Crotwell and bringing him back to the stranger's car (LBPD, 5/32/83). It was a long discussion, and it changed Kent May's memory of the car's wheels, giving him a new, firm belief they were not fancy wheels as he first remembered, but stock hubcaps like on RSK's Mustang. It was a detailed discussion (PRELIM, 11/03/1975, p. 78).
******Kent May Changes His Story******
11/3/83 and 11/9/88: Kent May testified in court and under oath to tell the truth, that on the night before Easter, 1975, sometime between 11pm and 1am he was sitting on a low retaining wall toward the east end of the Granada Beach parking lot talking with Keith Crotwell about the argument he had with Leslie about an hour previously (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 65-68; TRIAL, 19249-1951). May admits he was drunk at the time. His first contact with the stranger was when the man walked up to May and Crotwell and "mingled" into their conversation (TRIAL, 19251).
DON’T LIKE GAYS
Up until 1975 it was still illegal in California to be gay. In late 1975, the California Legislature passed AB 489 (the “Consenting Adult Sex Bill”), which decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults in private. Governor Jerry Brown signed it and it took effect on January 1, 1976.
5/20/75: Kent May told police that he asked the stranger if he were gay, and the stranger replied, "I hate those mother fuckers!" and Kent May was satisfied the stranger was not gay.
6/03/83: Kent May asked the stranger if he was "a queer," and be said, "no."
11/03/83: Kent May testified under oath that cruising the parking lot is what gays were known to do. He and Keith Crotwell questioned the stranger, "Is he or isn't he?" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 70). He elaborated that he thought, "What's this guy doing here?" and because of the neighborhood, he thought maybe this was somebody that was gay and might be "hitting on" them, which he wanted to avoid (PRELIM, 11//03/1983, 71). All three of them had the same opinion and none of them liked the gay men cruising the parking lot (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 71).
5/13/85: May reported that he used to harass suspected gay men by throwing firecrackers at them in Granada parking lot area (INV, 5/13/85). He colorfully referred to gay men as “mother fuckers.”
11/09/88: Kent May and Keith Crotwell didn't like gays (TRIAL, 19254):
Q. What was the substance of that conversation concerning gay people?
A. Uhm, was he, uhm, gay or what was he doing down in this area at this time for what purpose.
Q. What was your and Keith's attitude with respect to homosexuals at that time?
A. We didn't like them.
DRUGS WERE WANTED AND TAKEN Keith Crotwell was observed inside Big John's by a police informant who was there and knew Crotwell. The informant told police Crotwell was despondent because he did not have money to buy his narcotics (LBPD, 5/20/75, Chief Denham). Kent May, after arguing with his date, was depressed and distraught (TRIAL, 19249, 19255). When a stranger offered to share drugs for free with May and Crotwell, they accepted. Keith Crotwell was said to be "chipping and was not yet into heavy drugs” (LBPD, 5/20/75, Chief Denham). He was currently on probation for burglary, a common way for drug users to pay for drugs, and " had an extreme drinking problem" (LBPD, 5/20/75, Probation Officer Rosen). 5/15/75: Terry Ditmar, when reporting the Mustang car to police, told them that according to Kent May the driver (stranger) drove him to Seal Beach where the driver obtained some “reds” and gave them to him and to Crotwell who was also in the car (LBPD, 5/15/75). 5/20/75: Kent May told police that after he went to get Crotwell and brought him back to the stranger's car, the three of them were exiting the parking lot when the stranger "asked if they wanted some “reds.” 6/03/83: Kent May told police that after he brought Crotwell to the car and they got in the car, "The driver offered them some pills which they both accepted ... yellow capsules ... they both washed the pills down with beer.”
DRUGS WERE WANTED AND TAKEN Keith Crotwell was observed inside Big John's by a police informant who was there and knew Crotwell. The informant told police Crotwell was despondent because he did not have money to buy his narcotics (LBPD, 5/20/75, Chief Denham). Kent May, after arguing with his date, was depressed and distraught (TRIAL, 19249, 19255). When a stranger offered to share drugs for free with May and Crotwell, they accepted. Keith Crotwell was said to be "chipping and was not yet into heavy drugs” (LBPD, 5/20/75, Chief Denham). He was currently on probation for burglary, a common way for drug users to pay for drugs, and " had an extreme drinking problem" (LBPD, 5/20/75, Probation Officer Rosen). 5/15/75: Terry Ditmar, when reporting the Mustang car to police, told them that according to Kent May the driver (stranger) drove him to Seal Beach where the driver obtained some “reds” and gave them to him and to Crotwell who was also in the car (LBPD, 5/15/75). 5/20/75: Kent May told police that after he went to get Crotwell and brought him back to the stranger's car, the three of them were exiting the parking lot when the stranger "asked if they wanted some “reds.” 6/03/83: Kent May told police that after he brought Crotwell to the car and they got in the car, "The driver offered them some pills which they both accepted ... yellow capsules ... they both washed the pills down with beer.”
******Kent May Changes His Memory******
11/03/83: At RSK's preliminary hearing Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth, that when he and Crotwell were sitting on a low sea wall talking with the stranger who had walked up to them, the stranger asked him and Crotwell if they wanted to get high and do some downers. Kent May and Keith Crotwell wanted to get high, so they went to the stranger's car (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 72-74). The purpose of getting into the car was to take drugs (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 91). Keith Crotwell told Kent May how many pills to take (PRELIM,11/03/1983, 49).
11/09/88: At RSK's trial Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth that after his argument with Leslie he was distraught (TRIAL, 19249). The stranger offered to party and do drugs (TRIAL, 19255). The drugs were handed out and consumed while the car was parked in the lot and washed down with beer, yellow tabs with the number "10" on them. Keith Crotwell identified the drugs for Kent May, what their effects were, how many May would need to take to get high, and they washed them down with beer (TRIAL, 19261-19262). They then drove out of the parking lot.
KENT MAY’S RETURN 5/15/75: Terry Ditmar, on reporting the finding of a Mustang car, told police that during the evening of March 29, he had been playing with Randy Cooper and noticed Kent Crotwell playing as well. Ditmar went on to tell police that he became sleepy and went to the pickup of his friend Randy Cooper parked in Big John’s parking lot and fell asleep. “He was awakened at approximately 0300 by his friend (Randy) Cooper and at that time observed in the parking lot a nearly new white Mustang with a black vinyl top. Just outside the Mustang he observed another friend of his, Kent May, 15 years, who lives in the same block as Ditmar, staggering outside the car. He was being assisted by a white male, 28 years, 5’8-9’’, with blond hair…” (LBPD, 5/15/75). Ditmar and Cooper then tended to Kent May and took him home in Cooper's truck. 6/18/75: Randy Cooper told police, "Witness Cooper and also victim (sic) Ditmar stopped their vehicle near the east end of Big John's, and at this time noted the suspect and suspect vehicle to be parked just ahead of them" (LBPD, 6/18/75). 11/09/88: Terry Ditmar testified at trial that he and Randy Cooper entered the parking lot by the Ocean Boulevard west entrance and immediately saw the Mustang parked and Kent May and the driver outside the car (TRIAL, 19354). Ditmar also believed he saw Keith Crotwell through the rear window of the Mustang leaning to the driver’s side of the front seats, but he made no effort to speak to him or help him (TRIAL, 19355). Further, Ditmar testified that the Mustang was parked diagonally facing the beach (TRIAL, 19353-19534). He testified that the Mustang had a dark vinyl roof, and the driver was 5’7” or 5' 8” tall (TRIAL,19345) and “short and stocky” (TRIAL, p. 19362). Ditmar did not get out of Randy Cooper’s truck until after the Mustang drove away. After that, he and Cooper turned to assist Kent May (TRIAL, 19356). Ditmar testified that the Mustang he saw that night had a black interior (TRIAL, 19359). 11/09/88: Kent May testified that the Mustang he was in that night had high bucket seats and an automatic transmission neither of which RSK’s car had (TRIAL, 19277).
PULLED UP AND STOPPED Randy Cooper and Kent May returned to the parking lot at some time after 3am to see the black over white Mustang car parked facing the beach and the low retaining wall Keith Crotwell and Kent May had been sitting on earlier (TRIAL, 19353-19354). The driver was assisting Kent May to get out of the back seat (LBPD, 5/15/75). The car had only two doors, so the front passenger seat had to be folded forward to let the back passenger out. The front passenger had to lean to the left driver's side to allow the seat to fold forward. Randy Cooper stopped his truck near the east end of Big John's facing toward the Mustang, but about 100 yards away. Cooper and Terry Ditmar watched from afar as the Mustang's driver struggled to help Kent May out of the back seat. They watched from their truck until the driver returned to the car and drove away (TRIAL, 19356). Neither Cooper nor Ditmar explained why they did not drive up to the Mustang and ask what was going on? or need some help? If they had stopped their truck behind the Mustang it would have been boxed in and unable to leave. After the Mustang drove away, Cooper and Ditmar moved forward to help Kent May (TRIAL, 19356). Although each say they saw Keith Crotwell in the car, neither Cooper nor Ditmar attempted to contact him or offer any assistance.
KAREN MAY At the time these events occurred Kent May lived with his mother and a younger sister, Karen. This is where he was taken by Terry Ditmar and Randy Cooper after he returned to the parking lot intoxicated. Neither Karen nor her mother were questioned by LBPD, as there is no report, and for reasons unknown was not called to testify at trial, by either the prosecution or the defense. However, Karen was interviewed by a defense investigator on May 30, 1985 and we present herein what she had to say for your consideration. According to Karen, May was "extremely drunk" and "in pretty bad shape" when he returned home on the morning of March 30, 1975, around 3am Karen remembers that “there was a really loud bang...he knocked over an ironing board which hit a lamp, and it was a mess. And his words were very slurred, and he kept shutting one eye, or blocking it with his hand, so he could see only one of me. He kept telling me there was two of me.” He was so intoxicated that he slept for two to three days straight. When reporting the black over white Mustang car, Terry Ditmar also related that the stranger took him and Crotwell to Seal Beach where the stranger got the drugs for them (LBPD, 5/15/75). This ties in with what his sister Karen related about Seal Beach. She said that May claimed that he and Crotwell were picked up by a man in a white Mustang from the Big John's parking lot and drove to a Seal Beach parking lot, where May got out of the car. May walked or hitchhiked back to Big John’s parking Lot, eventually getting a ride home from Randy Cooper. This account was inconsistent with reports that May was pushed out at the Granada lot and also contradicted Randy Cooper's statement.
SEARCHING FOR A SON, A FRIEND, AND A CAR 4/07/75: It was common knowledge among Keith Crotwell's friends and family that he would disappear weeks at times for reasons unknown. Kent May commented that Crotwell was "very irresponsible" in this way (LBPD, 5/20/75; TRIAL, 19360). But this time was different for his friends because this time someone went with him, Kent May, and he returned intoxicated and unable to care for himself. Therefore, after Crotwell had been gone for a week or so his friends began to search for the car and driver he was last seen with. Frank and Terry Ditmar, Randy Cooper, and Cooper's sister drove around the Belmont Shore area at night looking for the black over white Mustang car. They did this 4-5 times (LA Times, 03/12/1987; LBPD, 05/20/75; RT, 19360). 4/29/75: After Crotwell had been gone for a month his father filed a missing person’s report with the police (LBPD, 4/29/75). He described his son as 19 years old, 6'1" , 185 lbs., blond hair and blue eyes. In an interview Mr. Crotwell said he felt Keith's friends might have had something to do with the disappearance, and Crotwell's sister added that she felt the friends were giving her "the runaround" (LBPD, 5/16/75) 5/13/75: After a month of searching, Crotwell’s friends received a lead from a beer truck driver making a delivery to Benson’s Liquor. He had noticed a white Mustang parked along Ocean Boulevard near downtown Long Beach and, recalling that one of the Ditmar’s at Benson’s had been looking for such a car, passed along its location. The friends then located RSK’s Mustang (LBPD, 5/15/75). According to Terry Ditmar’s later testimony, they began searching for the black-over-white Mustang about a week after Keith Crotwell disappeared (TRIAL, 19345). They searched unsuccessfully for the next month, including the period when Crotwell’s skull was found on 5/7/75—43 days after his disappearance—which left them increasingly desperate to locate the car and its driver. Ditmar further testified that they actually found the car two days before they finally reported it to police (TRIAL, 19360-19361). Both Ditmar and Randy Cooper and Cooper's sister who was also there (RT, p. 19360) examined the Mustang closely, taking note of its details. Yet it is unlikely they needed two full days simply to look it over. More plausibly, they lingered nearby to observe who used the vehicle. Only after seeing RSK return to and drive the Mustang—allowing them to memorize his face—did they contact law enforcement to report the discovery. All witness identifications of RSK are irreparably tainted and invalidated by the witnesses' two-day stakeout of RSK and his car (LBPD, 5/15/75). All witness accounts of identifying RSK come after this stakeout and after LBPD took RSK's photo when he was interviewed on May 19. This was more than 50 days after Keith Crotwell disappeared. 5/15/75: The friends went to Long Beach Police and reported their finding of a " nearly new white Mustang with a black vinyl top. ... that matched the description of the Mustang that left the Big John's parking lot with the victim (Crotwell)" (LBPD, 5/15/75). Officers noted they went to the location provided by the friends "and observed this vehicle parked ..." (LBPD, 5/15/75). However, the officers neglected to include in their report that the vehicle reported by the friends had a medium brown colored roof, not black as the friends described. In another report Officers Bell and Woodward described the Mustang’s brown roof as an “identifying feature” (LBPD, 6/18/1975).
EVERYONE SAYS BLACK The car that drove off after Kent May got out was not RSK'S car. Only two people stood next to the car and saw its true colors: Kent May and Keith Crotwell, and Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth that the Mustang he was in was black over white, and he emphasized, " NOT BROWN" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 75). RSK'S car was brown over white, having a medium brown roof.
KENT MAY’S RETURN 5/15/75: Terry Ditmar, on reporting the finding of a Mustang car, told police that during the evening of March 29, he had been playing with Randy Cooper and noticed Kent Crotwell playing as well. Ditmar went on to tell police that he became sleepy and went to the pickup of his friend Randy Cooper parked in Big John’s parking lot and fell asleep. “He was awakened at approximately 0300 by his friend (Randy) Cooper and at that time observed in the parking lot a nearly new white Mustang with a black vinyl top. Just outside the Mustang he observed another friend of his, Kent May, 15 years, who lives in the same block as Ditmar, staggering outside the car. He was being assisted by a white male, 28 years, 5’8-9’’, with blond hair…” (LBPD, 5/15/75). Ditmar and Cooper then tended to Kent May and took him home in Cooper's truck. 6/18/75: Randy Cooper told police, "Witness Cooper and also victim (sic) Ditmar stopped their vehicle near the east end of Big John's, and at this time noted the suspect and suspect vehicle to be parked just ahead of them" (LBPD, 6/18/75). 11/09/88: Terry Ditmar testified at trial that he and Randy Cooper entered the parking lot by the Ocean Boulevard west entrance and immediately saw the Mustang parked and Kent May and the driver outside the car (TRIAL, 19354). Ditmar also believed he saw Keith Crotwell through the rear window of the Mustang leaning to the driver’s side of the front seats, but he made no effort to speak to him or help him (TRIAL, 19355). Further, Ditmar testified that the Mustang was parked diagonally facing the beach (TRIAL, 19353-19534). He testified that the Mustang had a dark vinyl roof, and the driver was 5’7” or 5' 8” tall (TRIAL,19345) and “short and stocky” (TRIAL, p. 19362). Ditmar did not get out of Randy Cooper’s truck until after the Mustang drove away. After that, he and Cooper turned to assist Kent May (TRIAL, 19356). Ditmar testified that the Mustang he saw that night had a black interior (TRIAL, 19359). 11/09/88: Kent May testified that the Mustang he was in that night had high bucket seats and an automatic transmission neither of which RSK’s car had (TRIAL, 19277).
PULLED UP AND STOPPED Randy Cooper and Kent May returned to the parking lot at some time after 3am to see the black over white Mustang car parked facing the beach and the low retaining wall Keith Crotwell and Kent May had been sitting on earlier (TRIAL, 19353-19354). The driver was assisting Kent May to get out of the back seat (LBPD, 5/15/75). The car had only two doors, so the front passenger seat had to be folded forward to let the back passenger out. The front passenger had to lean to the left driver's side to allow the seat to fold forward. Randy Cooper stopped his truck near the east end of Big John's facing toward the Mustang, but about 100 yards away. Cooper and Terry Ditmar watched from afar as the Mustang's driver struggled to help Kent May out of the back seat. They watched from their truck until the driver returned to the car and drove away (TRIAL, 19356). Neither Cooper nor Ditmar explained why they did not drive up to the Mustang and ask what was going on? or need some help? If they had stopped their truck behind the Mustang it would have been boxed in and unable to leave. After the Mustang drove away, Cooper and Ditmar moved forward to help Kent May (TRIAL, 19356). Although each say they saw Keith Crotwell in the car, neither Cooper nor Ditmar attempted to contact him or offer any assistance.
KAREN MAY At the time these events occurred Kent May lived with his mother and a younger sister, Karen. This is where he was taken by Terry Ditmar and Randy Cooper after he returned to the parking lot intoxicated. Neither Karen nor her mother were questioned by LBPD, as there is no report, and for reasons unknown was not called to testify at trial, by either the prosecution or the defense. However, Karen was interviewed by a defense investigator on May 30, 1985 and we present herein what she had to say for your consideration. According to Karen, May was "extremely drunk" and "in pretty bad shape" when he returned home on the morning of March 30, 1975, around 3am Karen remembers that “there was a really loud bang...he knocked over an ironing board which hit a lamp, and it was a mess. And his words were very slurred, and he kept shutting one eye, or blocking it with his hand, so he could see only one of me. He kept telling me there was two of me.” He was so intoxicated that he slept for two to three days straight. When reporting the black over white Mustang car, Terry Ditmar also related that the stranger took him and Crotwell to Seal Beach where the stranger got the drugs for them (LBPD, 5/15/75). This ties in with what his sister Karen related about Seal Beach. She said that May claimed that he and Crotwell were picked up by a man in a white Mustang from the Big John's parking lot and drove to a Seal Beach parking lot, where May got out of the car. May walked or hitchhiked back to Big John’s parking Lot, eventually getting a ride home from Randy Cooper. This account was inconsistent with reports that May was pushed out at the Granada lot and also contradicted Randy Cooper's statement.
SEARCHING FOR A SON, A FRIEND, AND A CAR 4/07/75: It was common knowledge among Keith Crotwell's friends and family that he would disappear weeks at times for reasons unknown. Kent May commented that Crotwell was "very irresponsible" in this way (LBPD, 5/20/75; TRIAL, 19360). But this time was different for his friends because this time someone went with him, Kent May, and he returned intoxicated and unable to care for himself. Therefore, after Crotwell had been gone for a week or so his friends began to search for the car and driver he was last seen with. Frank and Terry Ditmar, Randy Cooper, and Cooper's sister drove around the Belmont Shore area at night looking for the black over white Mustang car. They did this 4-5 times (LA Times, 03/12/1987; LBPD, 05/20/75; RT, 19360). 4/29/75: After Crotwell had been gone for a month his father filed a missing person’s report with the police (LBPD, 4/29/75). He described his son as 19 years old, 6'1" , 185 lbs., blond hair and blue eyes. In an interview Mr. Crotwell said he felt Keith's friends might have had something to do with the disappearance, and Crotwell's sister added that she felt the friends were giving her "the runaround" (LBPD, 5/16/75) 5/13/75: After a month of searching, Crotwell’s friends received a lead from a beer truck driver making a delivery to Benson’s Liquor. He had noticed a white Mustang parked along Ocean Boulevard near downtown Long Beach and, recalling that one of the Ditmar’s at Benson’s had been looking for such a car, passed along its location. The friends then located RSK’s Mustang (LBPD, 5/15/75). According to Terry Ditmar’s later testimony, they began searching for the black-over-white Mustang about a week after Keith Crotwell disappeared (TRIAL, 19345). They searched unsuccessfully for the next month, including the period when Crotwell’s skull was found on 5/7/75—43 days after his disappearance—which left them increasingly desperate to locate the car and its driver. Ditmar further testified that they actually found the car two days before they finally reported it to police (TRIAL, 19360-19361). Both Ditmar and Randy Cooper and Cooper's sister who was also there (RT, p. 19360) examined the Mustang closely, taking note of its details. Yet it is unlikely they needed two full days simply to look it over. More plausibly, they lingered nearby to observe who used the vehicle. Only after seeing RSK return to and drive the Mustang—allowing them to memorize his face—did they contact law enforcement to report the discovery. All witness identifications of RSK are irreparably tainted and invalidated by the witnesses' two-day stakeout of RSK and his car (LBPD, 5/15/75). All witness accounts of identifying RSK come after this stakeout and after LBPD took RSK's photo when he was interviewed on May 19. This was more than 50 days after Keith Crotwell disappeared. 5/15/75: The friends went to Long Beach Police and reported their finding of a " nearly new white Mustang with a black vinyl top. ... that matched the description of the Mustang that left the Big John's parking lot with the victim (Crotwell)" (LBPD, 5/15/75). Officers noted they went to the location provided by the friends "and observed this vehicle parked ..." (LBPD, 5/15/75). However, the officers neglected to include in their report that the vehicle reported by the friends had a medium brown colored roof, not black as the friends described. In another report Officers Bell and Woodward described the Mustang’s brown roof as an “identifying feature” (LBPD, 6/18/1975).
EVERYONE SAYS BLACK The car that drove off after Kent May got out was not RSK'S car. Only two people stood next to the car and saw its true colors: Kent May and Keith Crotwell, and Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth that the Mustang he was in was black over white, and he emphasized, " NOT BROWN" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 75). RSK'S car was brown over white, having a medium brown roof.
5/14/75: John Crotwell Sr. told police that his son's friends told him the stranger's car was "BLACK and white” (LBPD, 5/14/75).
5/15/75: Terry Ditmar reported the car to police he said it had a “BLACK vinyl roof” (LBPD, 5/15/75).
5/19/75: Police took four photos of RSK's car and it is clearly brown over white, having a brown roof. The registration for RSK's car records its color to be brown and white (EX 145B).
5/27/83: Ditmar told police the car was dark, possibly BLACK (LBPD, 5/27/83).
5/31/83: May told police the car was BLACK over white (LBPD, 6/03/93).
6/02/83: Kempner told police the car was BLACK over white (LBPD, 6/02/83).
11/03/83: May testified in court, under oath to tell the truth, and he testified the car he was in was "BLACK over white, NOT BROWN" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 75).
11/03/83: Terry Ditmar testified at trial that the car had a black interior (RT, p. 1359).
However, this was the actual interior of RSK’s Mustang (EX 148D):
11/09/88: Kent May testified that the Mustang car he was in had high bucket seats (RT, 19277) and automatic transmission (RT 19282). RSK's car had neither. See photos of cars (Ex 145).
NOTE:
6/18/75: A "Police Report" by officers Bell & Woodward that described the roof of RSK’s Mustang as “brown vinyl” and says it is an 'identifying feature."
9/02/83: Orange County Sheriff report says 1974 Mustang, Lic.# 303KHZ, is BRN/WHT (OCSO, 9/02/83).
By all accounts Keith Crotwell and Kent May were not in RSK’s Mustang car at any time. From the first day the car was reported to police all witnesses have told the police the car was black over white in color, having a black roof. When Kent May was seen by witnesses being pushed or pulled from a black over white Mustang, obviously that was not RSK's brown over white car and it was not RSK pushing or pulling him from the black over white car. Likewise, when the black over white Mustang sped away with Crotwell leaning toward the driver, that obviously was not RSK's brown over white Mustang, and RSK was not the driver of the black over white Mustang. The colors of the car are the only evidence supposed to link RSK’s car to Keith Crotwell but it is the wrong color roof.
WITNESSES SAY SHORT AND STOCKY 5/14/75: Mr. Crotwell Sr., Keith’s father, told police that his son’s friends described the stranger as “25-30 years, short, stocky, driving a 1975 Ford Mustang, black and white” (LBPD , 5/14/75). 5/18/75: Randy Cooper told LBPD that the stranger appeared to have blond hair, was approximately 5-8, and weighed approximately 170-180 pounds (LBPD, 5/18/75). This is either short and stocky or short and fat. 5/19/75: Terry Ditmar told police that the stranger was “a male Caucasian, 27-28 years old, short and stocky build, possibly 5-7 to 5-9…” (LBPD, 5/19/75). 5/21/75: Kent May was not asked by police to describe the stranger he met. May said only that the person was "a male-white." When shown six photos of possible suspects. Kent May was unable to make a positive identification on anyone. 5/22/75: Randy Cooper told LBPD that he did not pay too much attention to the stranger or the vehicle because he was seated in his vehicle with Leslie and they were “just messing around.” 5/23/75: Leslie Kempner told LBPD that she did not get a good look at the stranger and stated she could not identify him. When shown photos of possible suspects, she was unable to pick anyone as the stranger. 11/03/83: Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth that the stranger was "short" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 107). 11/09/88: Terry Ditmar testified under oath to tell the truth that the stranger was “short and stocky" like photo #1 he was shown (TRIAL, 19362) and 5’7” to 5’8” (TRIAL, 19345). The above statements are the only credible evidence supposedly identifying RSK as the stranger, and all facial identifications made after the friends staked out RSK and his car are inherently unreliable and worthless. NOTE: Below are two photographs of RSK, one taken in 1973, the other taken in 1978. Neither show a short and stocky man. RSK stood 5'10 1/2" tall and weighed 165 pounds, an average man.
WITNESSES SAY SHORT AND STOCKY 5/14/75: Mr. Crotwell Sr., Keith’s father, told police that his son’s friends described the stranger as “25-30 years, short, stocky, driving a 1975 Ford Mustang, black and white” (LBPD , 5/14/75). 5/18/75: Randy Cooper told LBPD that the stranger appeared to have blond hair, was approximately 5-8, and weighed approximately 170-180 pounds (LBPD, 5/18/75). This is either short and stocky or short and fat. 5/19/75: Terry Ditmar told police that the stranger was “a male Caucasian, 27-28 years old, short and stocky build, possibly 5-7 to 5-9…” (LBPD, 5/19/75). 5/21/75: Kent May was not asked by police to describe the stranger he met. May said only that the person was "a male-white." When shown six photos of possible suspects. Kent May was unable to make a positive identification on anyone. 5/22/75: Randy Cooper told LBPD that he did not pay too much attention to the stranger or the vehicle because he was seated in his vehicle with Leslie and they were “just messing around.” 5/23/75: Leslie Kempner told LBPD that she did not get a good look at the stranger and stated she could not identify him. When shown photos of possible suspects, she was unable to pick anyone as the stranger. 11/03/83: Kent May testified under oath to tell the truth that the stranger was "short" (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 107). 11/09/88: Terry Ditmar testified under oath to tell the truth that the stranger was “short and stocky" like photo #1 he was shown (TRIAL, 19362) and 5’7” to 5’8” (TRIAL, 19345). The above statements are the only credible evidence supposedly identifying RSK as the stranger, and all facial identifications made after the friends staked out RSK and his car are inherently unreliable and worthless. NOTE: Below are two photographs of RSK, one taken in 1973, the other taken in 1978. Neither show a short and stocky man. RSK stood 5'10 1/2" tall and weighed 165 pounds, an average man.
A VICIOUS FRAUD BY LONG BEACH POLICE
On 5/19/75 Long Beach police officer Woodward contacted RSK at the apartment where he lived with his partner Jeff Graves. He told RSK he was investigating a homicide, that RSK’s car had been identified as matching the vehicle involved, and that RSK himself closely resembled the homicide suspect (LBPD, 5/20/75). We now know these allegations were untrue: RSK’s car was a different color and RSK himself was not short and stocky. Nevertheless, RSK was advised to come to the police station for a tape-recorded interview like no other witness. Woodward also suspected RSK was gay because there were plants, a magazine rack, and photos on the wall in the apartment, and the fact that RSK had a dog (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 95).
RSK went to the station that afternoon and was questioned/interviewed/interrogated by the police on tape. He was not told of his right to have an attorney present. RSK answered all their questions and tried to be helpful while at the same time denying he was with the victim on the night in question or any other night. At the end of the questioning, Officer Bell, who conducted the interview, removed the cassette tape from the recorder (tape #1) and inserted a new tape (tape #2). He then announced that the interview would be redone so they could look for any inconsistencies in what RSK said. To begin this second interview, RSK was asked:
WOODWARD: Now, Mr. Kraft, on or about March the twenty-ninth, the Saturday prior to Easter day, do you recall picking up or seeing a subject in the area of the Granada parking lot?
RSK: As I say, I'm not certain about the time. It’s somewhere in the past.
BELL: When you say somewhere in the past, but, would this be general time wise, uh, you know, somewhere in the past can mean five years, or ...
RSK: I'd say somewhere in the past two, two or three months.
BELL: Fine (TRIAL, p. 19788).
RSK's first words were, "As I say, ..." This refers to what he said before about the date March 29, the Saturday before Easter, in the first run-through of the interview in Tape #1. Bell testified at trial that he and Woodward interviewed RSK for 20-30 minutes before starting what would become the second tape (TRIAL, 5200-5201). In their first interview, RSK told them the events he would describe did not occur on a Saturday night because he had to work Sunday morning, and his practice was to be in bed early before work on Saturday and Sunday because they were the busiest days of the week with the most important customers. Here, Bell replied, "Fine." An acknowledgment to RSK that he accepted their previous discussion about this. After these interviews Bell and Woodward went to RSK’s employer and verified that he did work on Sunday morning March 30, 1975 from 9 am to 3pm, and on Saturday before Easter from 8am to 7pm (LBPD, 5/20/75).
On May 20, 1975, the day after the interview, Bell dictated his report just hours after the interview with RSK (TRIAL, 5190-5191). It was fresh in his mind, and as he dictated this report he knew the words he put in RSK's mouth contradicted the tapes of the interview. He knew he could not have the tapes transcribed to check for inconsistencies as the phony report he was dictating was inconsistent with the tapes. Instead, he decided to hide the tapes away and begin the story they didn't exist. Bell wrote several summaries of the taped interview on Tape #2, but he did not note on any of them that it was a summary of a taped interview. When asked why he didn't do that, Bell replied, "I can't answer that. I don't know why. I don't know." When asked if anyone looking at the documents he had prepared in the Crotwell case could tell that he had made a tape recording of the RSK interview, Bell replied, " I don't believe so." (TRIAL, 5190-5191).
Instead of transcribing the tapes and looking for inconsistencies, as he said he we would do when he inserted tape #2, Bell says he dictated his phony report from memory as if no tape recordings existed (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 152). That's not credible. Another lie by Long Beach police:
Q. (By Mr. McBride) You wrote, did you write this report that you are referring to?
A. (Officer Bell) I dictated this one, yes, sir.
Q. That was shortly after the event (interview)?
A. Yes, sir, I dictated it the next day to our secretary and in fact the next morning (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 144).
… … … … … … … … …
Q. Was it transcribed shortly after the events in question?
A. Yes, it indicates here that I dictated it to my secretary, Sharon Roe, on the 20th, which would be the next day at 8:40 a.m. So that would have just been less than twelve hours or a little more than twelve hours after (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 151-153).
A little more than twelve hours to forget the tapes of the RSK interview.
Thus, Bell arranged a situation where only he knew the truth that he altered RSK's statements to make it appear that he admitted being with Keith Crotwell the night Crotwell disappeared, and that he had driven off alone with Crotwell. After producing his phony report, Officer Bell "misplaced" the tapes for the next ten years, insisting under oath that no recording of the interview was made (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 144).
Q: “This conversation that you had with Mr. Kraft, was it tape recorded?”
A: Officer Bell: “No, sir.”
Q: “Was there some effort to tape record it?”
A: “No, sir, not to my knowledge, I don't recall any tape recordings.”
Eventually, however, one of their own reports exposed their lies and perjury. A report of their first contact with RSK at his apartment had advised him to come to the police station for a taped interview, and later in the same report states RSK "contacted investigating officers and a taped interview was conducted" (LBPD, 5/20/75). But the harm to RSK’s defense had already been done. Until their lie was exposed 10 years later, Bell's report was accepted as true because it was from a presumptively truthful officer of the law. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case was conducted under the false belief that RSK admitted to being with Crotwell and driving off with him alone on the night he disappeared. RSK was denied a lineup to see if witnesses could identify him because of this falsehood that RSK admitted to being there that night. And RSK was bound over for trial because of that falsehood. It was ten years later that one of the tape recordings of RSK's police interview was revealed. But even then LBPD officers continued to lie, admitting and providing tape #2, but denying tape #1 exists. However, the second tape is full of references to a previous tape. From the second tape referring to the first tape: Page 1, (Tape turned off) OFFICER BELL: “Things like this that we're going to have to check out.” (Tape turned off)
Page 2, (RSK): "As I say, I'm not certain about the time. ..." Page 2, (RSK): “As in told you before, I went to the bar...”
Page 3, (RSK) : “As I said before, there was a guy…”
Page 4, (RSK): ”Like I said, I don't drink ...”
Page 5, (RSK): “Like I said, there were some other ...”
Page 7, (RSK): “Like I said, I had to go to work ...”
Page 7, (RSK): “I never told you how ...”
Page 9, (RSK) : “Like I said, the guy was gone.”
Page 11, (RSK:)” Like I said, it was lightened up in...”
Page 13, (OFFICER WOODWARD). I asked you earlier ...:
Page 17, (RSK): “Like I said, I looked for him.”
After RSK was arrested May 14, 1983 on the Gambrel charge, Bell's report that altered what RSK said was instrumental in the Crotwell case being added to the charges against RSK because it said (wrongly) that RSK admitted being with Crotwell and driving off with him. On September 3, 1975, Orange County Sherriff's detective James Sidebothan wrote an initial crime report on the Crotwell case for Orange County. He led off by stating RSK admitted being with Crotwell and driving off with him. "During Long Beach Police Department's investigation, Randy Steven Kraft was identified as the person that was last seen with the victim (CROTWELL) on March 29, 1975. ... and Kraft drove off with the victim (Crotwell) in the right front seat of Kraft's 1974 Ford-Mustang, brown/white California license # 303 KHZ” (OCSO, 9/02/83). But RSK did not say that. Bell admitted that under oath at trial. Q. Do you remember any time during the taped interview when Mr. Kraft specifically agreed that the events he was telling you about occurred on the Saturday before Easter of that year? A. I can't say specifically. No. (TRIAL, p. 5254). NOTE: The complete transcript of tape #2 can be found here and Bell’s summary, here. In the report Officer Bell dictated to replace tape #2 he wrote, "Subject Kraft was asked to relate to the officers his connection with the above victim (Keith Crotwell) and his whereabouts March 28, 1975, the day before Easter. Subject replied that to the best of his recollection on Saturday evening prior to Easter, he had been at Ripples Bar, located at Granada and Ocean, leaving the bar somewhere between 2300 and 0100 hours." But RSK doesn’t say that in the interview. Not anywhere does he say any event occurred on 3/29/75, the night before Easter, but Bell’s report states that RSK said it all occurred on that night. Bell inserted the word “victim” into his report to replace one of the persons RSK was speaking about. The word victim does not appear in the taped transcript even once. RSK didn't say that; Bell wrote that on the following day when he dictated his report. On the first page of the report, at the top before anyone says anything, Bell defines "victim" to be Keith Crotwell. But RSK did not know that. Bell changed what RSK was recorded as saying about activity with an unknown person to an admission of RSK that he had been with Keith Crotwell. But RSK never said that. Officer Bell's report dated 5/20/75 relates a scenario that Bell wanted to be true but is not what RSK said to him in the interview of May 19, 1975. RSK denied it was the night before Easter because he had to work the next day and he did, and it was RSK’s practice to be in bed early for the weekend shifts, Saturday and Sunday. (See above.) The next day, Bell spoke with RSK’s boss, Mr. Smith. Smith told RSK about the interview afterward and said that when Bell asked what kind of employee RSK was, he told him RSK was completely trustworthy—he had his own key to the shop and handled both opening and closing. The report's statement that "Kraft replied to the best of his recollection on Saturday evening prior to Easter ..." that he was with the victim (Keith Crotwell) is a vicious fraud. At trial when officer Bell was asked to point to where in the tape transcript RSK admitted to being with Crotwell, Bell could not do it. When asked if RSK ever said he was with Crotwell, Bell testified under oath, "No. I can't say specifically. No," in 1985 well after the preliminary hearing in December, 1983 (TRIAL, 5254). RSK was unaware that Long Beach police detective Bell had paraphrased his interview, changed his words, and written a report to incriminate him in the death/murder of Keith Crotwell. RSK was unaware detective Bell had distributed the report to other law enforcement agencies and shown it to potential witnesses to lead them to believe RSK had confessed to the murder and therefore deserved their enmity. This continued for 10 years before the fraud was exposed and tape #2 was found. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case was premised on an assumption that RSK had confessed and consequently he was ordered to stand trial for the murder. Bell's report was accepted as true, since he testified under oath no tape had been made. However, tape #2 was revealed and provided to the RSK’s defense in 1985: "Detective Bell's report of May 20, 1975, detailing the interview of Kraft , was provided to defense counsel on September 6, 1983. The actual tape recording of the interview, however, had been misplaced by the police department and forgotten. The tape was subsequently located by officers of the Long Beach Police Department, forwarded to the People, transcribed by the Orange County Sheriff's Department and discovery of the tape and transcript was provided to the defendant on May 24, 1985" (CT, 3374-3375). Then after tape #2 was revealed, Officer Bell admitted in court under oath that RSK did not say the words Bell had attributed to him in his phony report (TRIAL, 5254-5255). But until then, and even thereafter, Bell's phony report was accepted as true because Bell was a presumptively truthful officer of the law. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case, intended to weed out charges without minimal supporting evidence, was conducted under the untruthful premise that RSK admitted and confessed to being with Crotwell and driving off alone with him the night he disappeared. RSK was denied a lineup to see if eyewitnesses could identify him, because of this untrue belief that RSK admitted to being there that night. When tape #2 was revealed in 1985 was long after the preliminary hearing ended. It is established law in California, as was during RSK's trial and is today, that if a defendant such as RSK is denied a substantial right at the preliminary hearing and subsequently bound over for trial, as was RSK, then the defendant has been illegally bound over for trial and the case shall be dismissed on a timely motion by the defendant (Jennings v. Superior Court, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 867, 875). Here RSK was denied substantial rights: (1) the ability to challenge and disprove officer Bell's phony report with the newly revealed tape recording that Bell testified under oath did not exist, and (2) a lineup to prove whether eyewitnesses could identify RSK as the stranger. Judge McCartin expressed his bias against RSK, a gay man, by denying the motion despite undeniable evidence the tape was withheld and it impeached Bell's phony report.
This fraud was premeditated. It was designed and executed to entrap RSK, to make it appear that RSK confessed when he had not. Bell knew RSK’s car was a different color, and that RSK did not match suspect's description. He knew all photo identification of RSK had yet to occur and would only occur after the friends had staked out RSK and his car and after the interview he performed the day before writing his phony report when a photo ID mugshot of RSK was obtained by LBPD. When Woodward went to the location of the black over white Mustang found by the friends, he saw RSK's brown over white Mustang. Yet a few minutes later at RSK's apartment he told RSK his car was the same vehicle as the one seen that night. Obviously untrue. In similar fashion Bell knew in advance no matter what RSK said, he would reword it to incriminate him. Why? Other bodies had been found recently in and nearby to Long Beach and referred to as homosexual murders committed by someone dubbed "the asshole stuffer" by LBPD (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 60). And a news photograph showed Sgt. Bell (on the right) and another detective standing over two bodies pulled from Long Beach harbor February 22, 1975, just five weeks before Crotwell disappeared:
A: Officer Bell: “No, sir.”
Q: “Was there some effort to tape record it?”
A: “No, sir, not to my knowledge, I don't recall any tape recordings.”
Eventually, however, one of their own reports exposed their lies and perjury. A report of their first contact with RSK at his apartment had advised him to come to the police station for a taped interview, and later in the same report states RSK "contacted investigating officers and a taped interview was conducted" (LBPD, 5/20/75). But the harm to RSK’s defense had already been done. Until their lie was exposed 10 years later, Bell's report was accepted as true because it was from a presumptively truthful officer of the law. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case was conducted under the false belief that RSK admitted to being with Crotwell and driving off with him alone on the night he disappeared. RSK was denied a lineup to see if witnesses could identify him because of this falsehood that RSK admitted to being there that night. And RSK was bound over for trial because of that falsehood. It was ten years later that one of the tape recordings of RSK's police interview was revealed. But even then LBPD officers continued to lie, admitting and providing tape #2, but denying tape #1 exists. However, the second tape is full of references to a previous tape. From the second tape referring to the first tape: Page 1, (Tape turned off) OFFICER BELL: “Things like this that we're going to have to check out.” (Tape turned off)
Page 2, (RSK): "As I say, I'm not certain about the time. ..." Page 2, (RSK): “As in told you before, I went to the bar...”
Page 3, (RSK) : “As I said before, there was a guy…”
Page 4, (RSK): ”Like I said, I don't drink ...”
Page 5, (RSK): “Like I said, there were some other ...”
Page 7, (RSK): “Like I said, I had to go to work ...”
Page 7, (RSK): “I never told you how ...”
Page 9, (RSK) : “Like I said, the guy was gone.”
Page 11, (RSK:)” Like I said, it was lightened up in...”
Page 13, (OFFICER WOODWARD). I asked you earlier ...:
Page 17, (RSK): “Like I said, I looked for him.”
After RSK was arrested May 14, 1983 on the Gambrel charge, Bell's report that altered what RSK said was instrumental in the Crotwell case being added to the charges against RSK because it said (wrongly) that RSK admitted being with Crotwell and driving off with him. On September 3, 1975, Orange County Sherriff's detective James Sidebothan wrote an initial crime report on the Crotwell case for Orange County. He led off by stating RSK admitted being with Crotwell and driving off with him. "During Long Beach Police Department's investigation, Randy Steven Kraft was identified as the person that was last seen with the victim (CROTWELL) on March 29, 1975. ... and Kraft drove off with the victim (Crotwell) in the right front seat of Kraft's 1974 Ford-Mustang, brown/white California license # 303 KHZ” (OCSO, 9/02/83). But RSK did not say that. Bell admitted that under oath at trial. Q. Do you remember any time during the taped interview when Mr. Kraft specifically agreed that the events he was telling you about occurred on the Saturday before Easter of that year? A. I can't say specifically. No. (TRIAL, p. 5254). NOTE: The complete transcript of tape #2 can be found here and Bell’s summary, here. In the report Officer Bell dictated to replace tape #2 he wrote, "Subject Kraft was asked to relate to the officers his connection with the above victim (Keith Crotwell) and his whereabouts March 28, 1975, the day before Easter. Subject replied that to the best of his recollection on Saturday evening prior to Easter, he had been at Ripples Bar, located at Granada and Ocean, leaving the bar somewhere between 2300 and 0100 hours." But RSK doesn’t say that in the interview. Not anywhere does he say any event occurred on 3/29/75, the night before Easter, but Bell’s report states that RSK said it all occurred on that night. Bell inserted the word “victim” into his report to replace one of the persons RSK was speaking about. The word victim does not appear in the taped transcript even once. RSK didn't say that; Bell wrote that on the following day when he dictated his report. On the first page of the report, at the top before anyone says anything, Bell defines "victim" to be Keith Crotwell. But RSK did not know that. Bell changed what RSK was recorded as saying about activity with an unknown person to an admission of RSK that he had been with Keith Crotwell. But RSK never said that. Officer Bell's report dated 5/20/75 relates a scenario that Bell wanted to be true but is not what RSK said to him in the interview of May 19, 1975. RSK denied it was the night before Easter because he had to work the next day and he did, and it was RSK’s practice to be in bed early for the weekend shifts, Saturday and Sunday. (See above.) The next day, Bell spoke with RSK’s boss, Mr. Smith. Smith told RSK about the interview afterward and said that when Bell asked what kind of employee RSK was, he told him RSK was completely trustworthy—he had his own key to the shop and handled both opening and closing. The report's statement that "Kraft replied to the best of his recollection on Saturday evening prior to Easter ..." that he was with the victim (Keith Crotwell) is a vicious fraud. At trial when officer Bell was asked to point to where in the tape transcript RSK admitted to being with Crotwell, Bell could not do it. When asked if RSK ever said he was with Crotwell, Bell testified under oath, "No. I can't say specifically. No," in 1985 well after the preliminary hearing in December, 1983 (TRIAL, 5254). RSK was unaware that Long Beach police detective Bell had paraphrased his interview, changed his words, and written a report to incriminate him in the death/murder of Keith Crotwell. RSK was unaware detective Bell had distributed the report to other law enforcement agencies and shown it to potential witnesses to lead them to believe RSK had confessed to the murder and therefore deserved their enmity. This continued for 10 years before the fraud was exposed and tape #2 was found. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case was premised on an assumption that RSK had confessed and consequently he was ordered to stand trial for the murder. Bell's report was accepted as true, since he testified under oath no tape had been made. However, tape #2 was revealed and provided to the RSK’s defense in 1985: "Detective Bell's report of May 20, 1975, detailing the interview of Kraft , was provided to defense counsel on September 6, 1983. The actual tape recording of the interview, however, had been misplaced by the police department and forgotten. The tape was subsequently located by officers of the Long Beach Police Department, forwarded to the People, transcribed by the Orange County Sheriff's Department and discovery of the tape and transcript was provided to the defendant on May 24, 1985" (CT, 3374-3375). Then after tape #2 was revealed, Officer Bell admitted in court under oath that RSK did not say the words Bell had attributed to him in his phony report (TRIAL, 5254-5255). But until then, and even thereafter, Bell's phony report was accepted as true because Bell was a presumptively truthful officer of the law. RSK's entire preliminary hearing for the Crotwell case, intended to weed out charges without minimal supporting evidence, was conducted under the untruthful premise that RSK admitted and confessed to being with Crotwell and driving off alone with him the night he disappeared. RSK was denied a lineup to see if eyewitnesses could identify him, because of this untrue belief that RSK admitted to being there that night. When tape #2 was revealed in 1985 was long after the preliminary hearing ended. It is established law in California, as was during RSK's trial and is today, that if a defendant such as RSK is denied a substantial right at the preliminary hearing and subsequently bound over for trial, as was RSK, then the defendant has been illegally bound over for trial and the case shall be dismissed on a timely motion by the defendant (Jennings v. Superior Court, (1967) 66 Cal.2d 867, 875). Here RSK was denied substantial rights: (1) the ability to challenge and disprove officer Bell's phony report with the newly revealed tape recording that Bell testified under oath did not exist, and (2) a lineup to prove whether eyewitnesses could identify RSK as the stranger. Judge McCartin expressed his bias against RSK, a gay man, by denying the motion despite undeniable evidence the tape was withheld and it impeached Bell's phony report.
This fraud was premeditated. It was designed and executed to entrap RSK, to make it appear that RSK confessed when he had not. Bell knew RSK’s car was a different color, and that RSK did not match suspect's description. He knew all photo identification of RSK had yet to occur and would only occur after the friends had staked out RSK and his car and after the interview he performed the day before writing his phony report when a photo ID mugshot of RSK was obtained by LBPD. When Woodward went to the location of the black over white Mustang found by the friends, he saw RSK's brown over white Mustang. Yet a few minutes later at RSK's apartment he told RSK his car was the same vehicle as the one seen that night. Obviously untrue. In similar fashion Bell knew in advance no matter what RSK said, he would reword it to incriminate him. Why? Other bodies had been found recently in and nearby to Long Beach and referred to as homosexual murders committed by someone dubbed "the asshole stuffer" by LBPD (PRELIM, 11/02/1983, 60). And a news photograph showed Sgt. Bell (on the right) and another detective standing over two bodies pulled from Long Beach harbor February 22, 1975, just five weeks before Crotwell disappeared:
Bell was motivated to accuse a gay man. And the gay people in the Granada parking lot had been a thorn in their side for decades, as was the very popular gay bar across the street. In 1975 it was still illegal to be gay in California. They had a car - RSK's Mustang - that was not the car described by witnesses, but similar, and an admitted gay man who did not fit the suspect's description of short and stocky, but they would ignore that. They had a person to accuse and they devised this fraud to get him. But despite all of Officer Bell’s fraudulent efforts the District Attorney declined to press charges against RSK, a fact of which RSK was unaware. “’ You have to understand that all we had was the boy’s head,’ said William Collette, the Long Beach police investigator now in charge of the Crotwell case. ‘We didn’t have a body. We couldn’t even prove it was murder.’” (LA Times, 03/15/1987).
HIDDEN MYSTERY WITNESS
Mystery 1
Long Beach police interviewed each of Keith Crotwell's five friends that saw him at Big John's on the night before Easter, 1975, and produced a report for each one, except one, Frank Ditmar. He arrived with his younger brother, Terry, and Randy Cooper in Cooper's small pickup truck (LBPD, 5/20/75) But there is no police report of Frank Ditmar ever being interviewed, and no mention of him, zero, in any police report as though he wasn't there. Kent May testified that Frank Ditmar was there that night (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 4). Defense counsel McDonald wrote prosecutor Bryan Brown indicating that Frank Ditmar had been interviewed by police and asking for a copy of the report (TRIAL CT, 1239). The L A Times reported that Frank Ditmar was one of the friends who drove around looking for the black over white Mustang (LA Times, 3/15/87).
Mystery 2
At 21 years, Frank Ditmar was the oldest of all the friends, the adult in the room, the natural person for police to interview. Likewise, he was the only person who could purchase alcohol as the others needed more beer throughout the night. Kent May, 15 years old, told police he took $20 with him that night and spent it all on beer purchased in one or more "runs" to a nearby liquor store (LBPD, 5/20/75). Frank Ditmar was the only one who could have made those "runs."
Mystery 3
When Terry Ditmar reported finding a black over white Mustang car to Long Beach police on 05/15/75, he described the friends inside Big John's that night: himself and Randy Cooper shooting pool and observed Keith Crotwell also shooting pool. But he left out his older brother, Frank Ditmar, who naturally would have been shooting pool with Crotwell. And as pool is a friendly game where opponents typically talk with each other and friends at other nearby tables, Frank Ditmar could be a crucial witness to relate what Keith Crotwell said and did shortly before he died. An anonymous informant (possibly Frank Ditmar?) indicated Crotwell was "despondent" that night (LBPD, 5/20/75) Could he have been suicidal?
We believe Frank Ditmar is the unidentified informant who told police Keith Crotwell was "despondent" about not being able to buy drugs the night he disappeared. Further, we believe Ditmar was (1) the unnamed person playing pool with Keith Crotwell on that night, (2) the person who bought beer for the underage friends that night, (3) present when Kent May came to get Crotwell and take him to the stranger, and so Frank Ditmar knows Kent May's revamped memory of talking with Keith Crotwell on a low seawall is a lie , perjury, and paid-for testimony.
JEFF GRAVES From 1971 until 1976, RSK’s partner was Jeff Graves. Officers Woodward and Bell interviewed Jeff at the residence he shared with RSK, over the telephone, and at the police station. Jeff gave truthful answers to the officers' questions at the time of the Crotwell incident corroborating RSK's statement to the police. However, Long Beach Police officers denied any contact with Jeff but were impeached by the log of polygraph expert Michael Pella who administered a polygraph exam to Jeff at the officers’ request that showed no deception (TRIAL, 21950-21957, 21962-21965). At trial, prosecutor Bryan Brown agreed with the defense that the Long Beach officers' testimony was untruthful concerning their contact with Jeff (TRIAL, 22356, 22376). The trial court judge noted that Woodward was not a reliable witness (TRIAL, 19451). Following RSK arrest, Jeff was interviewed on May 31, 1983. Jeff had only good things to say about his former partner. The transcript of that interview is available here. He verified RSK’s alibi to police for the time surrounding Crotwell’s death. He also recalled readily and unprompted that RSK’s Mustang was brown and white (See the transcript of Jeff Graves, p. 13). The police interviewed Jeff twice before May 31st, but no notes were taken of these conversations; although all interviews and conversations were consistent with each other (RT, 2345).
THE FRAUD CONTINUES , PART 2 It is required that at least part of the crime occur within the county prosecuting the case. In this instance, the only evidence that arguably could be linked to the Crotwell death are the skeletal remains found in Laguna Hills, Orange County. If those remains are not Crotwell the case was unlawfully tried in Orange County and RSK was unlawfully convicted. Consequently, Orange County Law Enforcement was as desperate to tie these bones to Crotwell as the friends were desperate to find a car & driver. Dr. Peter Yatar, the official Orange County Medical Examiner assigned to autopsy the skeletal remains, went out of his way to employ the most rigorous analysis of the bones. He used six of them to determine the most accurate estimate of the person's height, 5'6" to 5'8". Obviously, the remains were not those of Crotwell who stood 6'1", and so Bryan Brown, the RSK prosecutor in Orange County, knew he could not use the remains to bootstrap the Crotwell case onto his accusations against RSK - unless he hired a private consultant to challenge the findings of Dr. Yatar, the county's expert. He found and hired Dr. Judy Suchey, an associate professor of anthropology at a nearby school, the California State University at Fullerton. Dr. Suchey's assignment was to re-examine the skeletal remains and to challenge Dr. Yatar's analysis and findings. She was given access to Dr. Yatar's autopsy report and given the height of Keith Crotwell - perhaps in his father's missing person report or other document - at 6'1". Dr. Suchey knew immediately that if she used fewer bones than did Yatar, the estimated height would balloon upward due to increased error. Height estimates become more accurate as more bones are included (Trotter & Gleser, 1958). But Suchey disagreed with the experts. “I do not use what most textbooks use,” she testified. “I use the maximum” (PRELIM, 11/04/1983, p. 109). Thus, she used only two bones instead of six (TRIAL, p. 19488), and used Dr. Yatar's measurements of those two bones, and got a result she did not report. Then she added an extra inch to the length of the femur and got results of 5' 9 4/10" - 6' 3/10" her final estimate. Dr. Suchey offered no explanation for her adding one inch to the length of the femur leg bone. Dr. Yatar's official autopsy report listed his measurements of all the bones he used to estimate height, and they are identical to Dr. Suchey's measurements except for the femur. Dr. Yatar measured the femur to be 18” or 452.2 mm in length, while Dr. Suchey measured it to be 19.17” or 487 mm. Dr. Suchey offered no explanation for this. Another fact that distinguishes the Orange County remains from the Crotwell skull are the tool marks on the Orange County vertebrae. There are no corresponding tool marks on the skull vertebrae. The Los Angeles County coroner who autopsied the skull said he examined the end vertebra looking for any evidence of what means might have caused the separation, but saw none (TRIAL, 19313). Prosecutor Bryan Brown accused the LA coroner of not having lifted flesh off the neck to look under it for tool marks. Dr. Bucklin explained that when vertebrae are severed, there is normally no flesh remaining between them. He stated that Bryan Brown was mistaking soft tissue on the sides of intact vertebrae for the end of the Crotwell vertebra, where the bone was fully exposed. He examined that exposed area and saw no tool marks. Tool marks on the Orange County skeleton and no marks on Crotwell. The two are not related. The Orange County remains were found outdoors in the open air which may have allowed other skin/flesh to dry and adhere to the end vertebra, decompose there and obscure the view of tool marks, whereas the Crotwell vertebra was in ocean water and constantly washed clean by water actions and picked clean by ocean animals, and so preserving the end of the vertebra for visual inspection.
VANDALISM In May 1975, prosecutors refused to file charges (LA Times, 3/15/87, p. 4). This so enraged Crotwell’s friends when they learned of it that RSK’s car was vandalized overnight as it was parked in front of his apartment on Ocean Boulevard. Red lipstick was used to scrawl death threats on the car: “An eye for an eye. Death to you.” When RSK discovered the damage, he reported it to the police who came out, took a few photos of the vandalized car, and made a report, but this report was apparently “lost” when the defense asked for it during discovery
LATE NIGHT THUGS Prosecutors’ refusal to file charges also enraged Detective Woodward who assembled a group of his fellow LBPD officers late at night to meet RSK on an Ocean Boulevard street corner across from RSK’s apartment. RSK wrote of the encounter: “All the spaces where I usually parked the car were full, unusual for a weeknight, so I had to take one on busy Ocean Blvd., across the street from our apartment, a corner space. As soon as I got out of the car I was surrounded by a group of men, not young guys but mature men in their 30s and 40s. I was taken by surprise, not knowing who they were or what to expect. It was well after dark, but streetlights and lights from passing cars made it easy to see. They were dressed casually for 1975, one or two in Levis and colored T-shirts, one or two in slacks, golf shirt, that sort of thing. They were all white, except for one tall black man who stepped forward from the shadows. I had met him a couple of months before Long Beach Homicide detective Mike Woodward. His fellows moved closer, encircling me, cutting me off from my car, the street or any way out. ‘Who did you kill tonight?’ Woodward asked. My mind reeled. At first, I thought I was being mugged by a group of grown men, but now I realized it was a group of cops. Woodward was the detective who first contacted me for an interview regarding the murder of Keith Crotwell. ‘I didn't kill anyone,’ I said, and I looked right at him and stood my ground. ‘ We know you did,’ he replied, glancing around at his gang. ‘We know you did and we are going to get you for it.’ Someone pushed me from behind, but I caught myself without stumbling or falling over. Woodward held out his had to prevent any further assault. ‘We will get you for sure. Maybe not tonight, but we'll be back.’ And with that he turned away and his little band of men dissolved into the night. Cars on the boulevard swished by and I was alone. And uneasy. Three to four years later I was with my other Jeff (Jeff Seelig) and one day on a lunch break I had been browsing at a mall in Torrance and found a gold Italian horn on sale. It was nearly two inches long, 18 carat gold and beautiful. Although the horn was on sale at a good price, the store did not have any chains that complemented it for a likewise reasonable price, so on the way home when I reached Long Beach, I went to one of the jewelry stores downtown to find a chain. The store was on or near the corner of a block, but as downtown Long Beach in the late 1970s had become somewhat seedy, some stores were closed-up, their lights out, and the area was not exceedingly well lit. The well-lit store provided an island of bright light in contrast. An older man seemed to be both the jeweler and the clerk. He was very helpful and after 10-15 minutes I walked out with a chain to match the Italian horn. I paused at the corner for the light to change, and I noticed a tall figure of a man off to one side tuning his back to me. It was Mike Woodward the homicide cop. No doubt about it. I continued on my way, and he left me alone. I never found out what he was doing there. Had he been following me? Was it a coincidence he was there just as I exited the store? I am sure he recognized me, yet he turned away. Strange.”
FELONY WARRANT A mysterious court record and the recollections of Kent May's sister, Karen, indicate that Kent May got into some trouble in 1983, just before RSK's preliminary hearing. He owed a lot of money for drugs he had purchased from a woman he lived with off and on. May secretly used his sister's checking account to write a check for $5,000. When his lady friend tried to cash the check, it bounced, and she became very upset and went to the authorities and had him charged with writing her a bad check and a felony warrant was issued for his arrest. According to Karen he was disappearing a lot at this time and staying out of sight (INV, 05/30/1985). During this same time RSK had been arrested for the Gambrel case, the Crotwell case had been added in based on Officer Bell’s phony report, and a preliminary hearing was about to begin in a few months. Long Beach Police officers Bell and Collette traced Kent May to Yountville, northern California, to arrange his testimony for RSK's preliminary hearing. However they also had the felony warrant to arrest Kent May, but he had told Karen that he wanted to "wheel and deal" with the RSK prosecutors to get the felony warrant lifted. Bell and Collette caught up with Kent May in a public park in Yountville on May 30, 1983 (LBPD, 06/03/1983). Collette had a prior, court documented, under-the-table deal with a witness to exchange leniency in a pending court case for his testimony for the prosecutor in another case. Joe West, the witness, had charges pending against him, and Collette offered him favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony against the defendant in People v. Morris, L.A. Super. Ct., Crim. Nos. 23427, 25305 (1982). Collette lied about the existence of such a deal under oath, but then it was exposed, and Collette's witness tampering led to a successful appeal of the defendant's conviction for murder with special circumstances. Here, Collette with officer Bell met with Kent May on May 30, 1983, for a long discussion (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 78). May testified under oath that after that long discussion it was the first time he felt firm in his memory that the suspect's car had stock wheels/hubcaps, just like RSK's car. When first questioned Kent May thought the suspect’s car had fancier wheels than RSK’s car, like a custom package. Back then he was especially interested in cars and their upgrades (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 76). In addition, after this long discussion Kent May changed his memory of the events in question the night before Easter, 1975. Instead of May striking up a conversation with the suspect and then going to get Crotwell as first remembered, now Kent May remembered the stranger intruded into a conversation May was having with Crotwell while sitting on a low sea wall. This intrusion by the suspect was used by the prosecutor to show the suspect's MO (modus operandi) in meeting victims and gaining their trust (TRIAL, 24004). But this would not have been available to RSK's prosecutor to parade before the jury if Kent May had not changed his memory to say just what prosecutor Bryan Brown needed. RSK did not do what Kent May's newfound memory revealed. It is a fantasy, a fiction. It is another lie by Lyin' Bryan, bought from Kent May and paid for by a felony warrant that disappeared.
KENT MAY'S TRUTH As shown above, Kent May's memory changed over time as to significant facts, not minor details depending on the passage of time and how long he thought about it. That's not normal. Memory will fade but not change: "... it is common knowledge that memory and sense impression fade with the passage of time, and any belief that they become clearer or even remain the same as time passes is contrary to the natural order of things." Eyewitness Identification In Criminal Cases, Patrick M. Wall (Charles C. Thomas, 1965, p. 127).
At RSK's preliminary hearing November 3, 1983, Kent May, under oath to tell the truth, told us why his memory was so changeable. Here he is under cross-examination by defense counsel, Mr. McBride: Q. You went down on March 29th, 1975, to Big John's Pizza?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't remember that date, do you?
A. No.
Q. What is it that causes you to remember the approximate date, if you will, of the incident?
A. What is it?
Q. Yes. Is it its proximity to Easter that causes you to remember?
A. Because I've been told basically what time of year it was approximately.
Q. The District Attorney asked you March 29th and he also said the Saturday before Easter; is that your memory, or is that what you got from the question that was asked?
A. That's what I got from the question (PRELIM , 11/03/1983, 53-54).
Q. Was it a Friday or Saturday night?
A. Either or, I'm not sure. I don't remember (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 56).
JEFF GRAVES From 1971 until 1976, RSK’s partner was Jeff Graves. Officers Woodward and Bell interviewed Jeff at the residence he shared with RSK, over the telephone, and at the police station. Jeff gave truthful answers to the officers' questions at the time of the Crotwell incident corroborating RSK's statement to the police. However, Long Beach Police officers denied any contact with Jeff but were impeached by the log of polygraph expert Michael Pella who administered a polygraph exam to Jeff at the officers’ request that showed no deception (TRIAL, 21950-21957, 21962-21965). At trial, prosecutor Bryan Brown agreed with the defense that the Long Beach officers' testimony was untruthful concerning their contact with Jeff (TRIAL, 22356, 22376). The trial court judge noted that Woodward was not a reliable witness (TRIAL, 19451). Following RSK arrest, Jeff was interviewed on May 31, 1983. Jeff had only good things to say about his former partner. The transcript of that interview is available here. He verified RSK’s alibi to police for the time surrounding Crotwell’s death. He also recalled readily and unprompted that RSK’s Mustang was brown and white (See the transcript of Jeff Graves, p. 13). The police interviewed Jeff twice before May 31st, but no notes were taken of these conversations; although all interviews and conversations were consistent with each other (RT, 2345).
THE FRAUD CONTINUES , PART 2 It is required that at least part of the crime occur within the county prosecuting the case. In this instance, the only evidence that arguably could be linked to the Crotwell death are the skeletal remains found in Laguna Hills, Orange County. If those remains are not Crotwell the case was unlawfully tried in Orange County and RSK was unlawfully convicted. Consequently, Orange County Law Enforcement was as desperate to tie these bones to Crotwell as the friends were desperate to find a car & driver. Dr. Peter Yatar, the official Orange County Medical Examiner assigned to autopsy the skeletal remains, went out of his way to employ the most rigorous analysis of the bones. He used six of them to determine the most accurate estimate of the person's height, 5'6" to 5'8". Obviously, the remains were not those of Crotwell who stood 6'1", and so Bryan Brown, the RSK prosecutor in Orange County, knew he could not use the remains to bootstrap the Crotwell case onto his accusations against RSK - unless he hired a private consultant to challenge the findings of Dr. Yatar, the county's expert. He found and hired Dr. Judy Suchey, an associate professor of anthropology at a nearby school, the California State University at Fullerton. Dr. Suchey's assignment was to re-examine the skeletal remains and to challenge Dr. Yatar's analysis and findings. She was given access to Dr. Yatar's autopsy report and given the height of Keith Crotwell - perhaps in his father's missing person report or other document - at 6'1". Dr. Suchey knew immediately that if she used fewer bones than did Yatar, the estimated height would balloon upward due to increased error. Height estimates become more accurate as more bones are included (Trotter & Gleser, 1958). But Suchey disagreed with the experts. “I do not use what most textbooks use,” she testified. “I use the maximum” (PRELIM, 11/04/1983, p. 109). Thus, she used only two bones instead of six (TRIAL, p. 19488), and used Dr. Yatar's measurements of those two bones, and got a result she did not report. Then she added an extra inch to the length of the femur and got results of 5' 9 4/10" - 6' 3/10" her final estimate. Dr. Suchey offered no explanation for her adding one inch to the length of the femur leg bone. Dr. Yatar's official autopsy report listed his measurements of all the bones he used to estimate height, and they are identical to Dr. Suchey's measurements except for the femur. Dr. Yatar measured the femur to be 18” or 452.2 mm in length, while Dr. Suchey measured it to be 19.17” or 487 mm. Dr. Suchey offered no explanation for this. Another fact that distinguishes the Orange County remains from the Crotwell skull are the tool marks on the Orange County vertebrae. There are no corresponding tool marks on the skull vertebrae. The Los Angeles County coroner who autopsied the skull said he examined the end vertebra looking for any evidence of what means might have caused the separation, but saw none (TRIAL, 19313). Prosecutor Bryan Brown accused the LA coroner of not having lifted flesh off the neck to look under it for tool marks. Dr. Bucklin explained that when vertebrae are severed, there is normally no flesh remaining between them. He stated that Bryan Brown was mistaking soft tissue on the sides of intact vertebrae for the end of the Crotwell vertebra, where the bone was fully exposed. He examined that exposed area and saw no tool marks. Tool marks on the Orange County skeleton and no marks on Crotwell. The two are not related. The Orange County remains were found outdoors in the open air which may have allowed other skin/flesh to dry and adhere to the end vertebra, decompose there and obscure the view of tool marks, whereas the Crotwell vertebra was in ocean water and constantly washed clean by water actions and picked clean by ocean animals, and so preserving the end of the vertebra for visual inspection.
VANDALISM In May 1975, prosecutors refused to file charges (LA Times, 3/15/87, p. 4). This so enraged Crotwell’s friends when they learned of it that RSK’s car was vandalized overnight as it was parked in front of his apartment on Ocean Boulevard. Red lipstick was used to scrawl death threats on the car: “An eye for an eye. Death to you.” When RSK discovered the damage, he reported it to the police who came out, took a few photos of the vandalized car, and made a report, but this report was apparently “lost” when the defense asked for it during discovery
LATE NIGHT THUGS Prosecutors’ refusal to file charges also enraged Detective Woodward who assembled a group of his fellow LBPD officers late at night to meet RSK on an Ocean Boulevard street corner across from RSK’s apartment. RSK wrote of the encounter: “All the spaces where I usually parked the car were full, unusual for a weeknight, so I had to take one on busy Ocean Blvd., across the street from our apartment, a corner space. As soon as I got out of the car I was surrounded by a group of men, not young guys but mature men in their 30s and 40s. I was taken by surprise, not knowing who they were or what to expect. It was well after dark, but streetlights and lights from passing cars made it easy to see. They were dressed casually for 1975, one or two in Levis and colored T-shirts, one or two in slacks, golf shirt, that sort of thing. They were all white, except for one tall black man who stepped forward from the shadows. I had met him a couple of months before Long Beach Homicide detective Mike Woodward. His fellows moved closer, encircling me, cutting me off from my car, the street or any way out. ‘Who did you kill tonight?’ Woodward asked. My mind reeled. At first, I thought I was being mugged by a group of grown men, but now I realized it was a group of cops. Woodward was the detective who first contacted me for an interview regarding the murder of Keith Crotwell. ‘I didn't kill anyone,’ I said, and I looked right at him and stood my ground. ‘ We know you did,’ he replied, glancing around at his gang. ‘We know you did and we are going to get you for it.’ Someone pushed me from behind, but I caught myself without stumbling or falling over. Woodward held out his had to prevent any further assault. ‘We will get you for sure. Maybe not tonight, but we'll be back.’ And with that he turned away and his little band of men dissolved into the night. Cars on the boulevard swished by and I was alone. And uneasy. Three to four years later I was with my other Jeff (Jeff Seelig) and one day on a lunch break I had been browsing at a mall in Torrance and found a gold Italian horn on sale. It was nearly two inches long, 18 carat gold and beautiful. Although the horn was on sale at a good price, the store did not have any chains that complemented it for a likewise reasonable price, so on the way home when I reached Long Beach, I went to one of the jewelry stores downtown to find a chain. The store was on or near the corner of a block, but as downtown Long Beach in the late 1970s had become somewhat seedy, some stores were closed-up, their lights out, and the area was not exceedingly well lit. The well-lit store provided an island of bright light in contrast. An older man seemed to be both the jeweler and the clerk. He was very helpful and after 10-15 minutes I walked out with a chain to match the Italian horn. I paused at the corner for the light to change, and I noticed a tall figure of a man off to one side tuning his back to me. It was Mike Woodward the homicide cop. No doubt about it. I continued on my way, and he left me alone. I never found out what he was doing there. Had he been following me? Was it a coincidence he was there just as I exited the store? I am sure he recognized me, yet he turned away. Strange.”
FELONY WARRANT A mysterious court record and the recollections of Kent May's sister, Karen, indicate that Kent May got into some trouble in 1983, just before RSK's preliminary hearing. He owed a lot of money for drugs he had purchased from a woman he lived with off and on. May secretly used his sister's checking account to write a check for $5,000. When his lady friend tried to cash the check, it bounced, and she became very upset and went to the authorities and had him charged with writing her a bad check and a felony warrant was issued for his arrest. According to Karen he was disappearing a lot at this time and staying out of sight (INV, 05/30/1985). During this same time RSK had been arrested for the Gambrel case, the Crotwell case had been added in based on Officer Bell’s phony report, and a preliminary hearing was about to begin in a few months. Long Beach Police officers Bell and Collette traced Kent May to Yountville, northern California, to arrange his testimony for RSK's preliminary hearing. However they also had the felony warrant to arrest Kent May, but he had told Karen that he wanted to "wheel and deal" with the RSK prosecutors to get the felony warrant lifted. Bell and Collette caught up with Kent May in a public park in Yountville on May 30, 1983 (LBPD, 06/03/1983). Collette had a prior, court documented, under-the-table deal with a witness to exchange leniency in a pending court case for his testimony for the prosecutor in another case. Joe West, the witness, had charges pending against him, and Collette offered him favorable treatment in exchange for his testimony against the defendant in People v. Morris, L.A. Super. Ct., Crim. Nos. 23427, 25305 (1982). Collette lied about the existence of such a deal under oath, but then it was exposed, and Collette's witness tampering led to a successful appeal of the defendant's conviction for murder with special circumstances. Here, Collette with officer Bell met with Kent May on May 30, 1983, for a long discussion (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 78). May testified under oath that after that long discussion it was the first time he felt firm in his memory that the suspect's car had stock wheels/hubcaps, just like RSK's car. When first questioned Kent May thought the suspect’s car had fancier wheels than RSK’s car, like a custom package. Back then he was especially interested in cars and their upgrades (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, p. 76). In addition, after this long discussion Kent May changed his memory of the events in question the night before Easter, 1975. Instead of May striking up a conversation with the suspect and then going to get Crotwell as first remembered, now Kent May remembered the stranger intruded into a conversation May was having with Crotwell while sitting on a low sea wall. This intrusion by the suspect was used by the prosecutor to show the suspect's MO (modus operandi) in meeting victims and gaining their trust (TRIAL, 24004). But this would not have been available to RSK's prosecutor to parade before the jury if Kent May had not changed his memory to say just what prosecutor Bryan Brown needed. RSK did not do what Kent May's newfound memory revealed. It is a fantasy, a fiction. It is another lie by Lyin' Bryan, bought from Kent May and paid for by a felony warrant that disappeared.
KENT MAY'S TRUTH As shown above, Kent May's memory changed over time as to significant facts, not minor details depending on the passage of time and how long he thought about it. That's not normal. Memory will fade but not change: "... it is common knowledge that memory and sense impression fade with the passage of time, and any belief that they become clearer or even remain the same as time passes is contrary to the natural order of things." Eyewitness Identification In Criminal Cases, Patrick M. Wall (Charles C. Thomas, 1965, p. 127).
At RSK's preliminary hearing November 3, 1983, Kent May, under oath to tell the truth, told us why his memory was so changeable. Here he is under cross-examination by defense counsel, Mr. McBride: Q. You went down on March 29th, 1975, to Big John's Pizza?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't remember that date, do you?
A. No.
Q. What is it that causes you to remember the approximate date, if you will, of the incident?
A. What is it?
Q. Yes. Is it its proximity to Easter that causes you to remember?
A. Because I've been told basically what time of year it was approximately.
Q. The District Attorney asked you March 29th and he also said the Saturday before Easter; is that your memory, or is that what you got from the question that was asked?
A. That's what I got from the question (PRELIM , 11/03/1983, 53-54).
Q. Was it a Friday or Saturday night?
A. Either or, I'm not sure. I don't remember (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 56).
***************************************
Q. Did you tell, did you tell the Long Beach officers in 1983 that after the argument with Lisa(sic) you walked over to the Mustang and began a conversation with the individual that was in or adjacent to the Mustang?
A. No.
Q. You didn't tell him that?
A. I don't remember saying that no.
Q. Did you tell him that you saw an individual after the argument standing by a Mustang after you completed your argument with Leslie?
A. I don't remember saying that.
Q. I would like to show you a document, Long Beach Police Department, dated June 3rd, 1983, apparently the reporting officer is Sergeant Bell. This area that is bracketed, would you just read that to yourself, please. Read it to yourself, sir, and see if it refreshes your recollection or not.
A. Okay.
Q. Does this report by Officer Bell state that you told him that after the argument with Lisa (sic) that you saw a male white either standing or sitting on a black over white Ford Mustang in the parking lot of the Belmont Pool, and at that time the subject asked you if you drank or wanted, if you wanted a beer. Is that what you told the officer in 1983?
A. I don't remember stating that.
Q. Does that refresh your memory?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. That's what the report says though?
A. Yes, sir (TRIAL, 19277-19278).
A. No.
Q. You didn't tell him that?
A. I don't remember saying that no.
Q. Did you tell him that you saw an individual after the argument standing by a Mustang after you completed your argument with Leslie?
A. I don't remember saying that.
Q. I would like to show you a document, Long Beach Police Department, dated June 3rd, 1983, apparently the reporting officer is Sergeant Bell. This area that is bracketed, would you just read that to yourself, please. Read it to yourself, sir, and see if it refreshes your recollection or not.
A. Okay.
Q. Does this report by Officer Bell state that you told him that after the argument with Lisa (sic) that you saw a male white either standing or sitting on a black over white Ford Mustang in the parking lot of the Belmont Pool, and at that time the subject asked you if you drank or wanted, if you wanted a beer. Is that what you told the officer in 1983?
A. I don't remember stating that.
Q. Does that refresh your memory?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. That's what the report says though?
A. Yes, sir (TRIAL, 19277-19278).
***************************************
Q. Did you tell the police in 1975 that you actually went to the Mustang yourself, had a beer with the individual in the Mustang yourself and then went to get Keith from Big John's?A. I don't recall.
Q. Could that have happened?
A. Uhm, I am not sure. I don't recall, like I said.
Q. Was -- Keith wasn't outside of Big John's while you were arguing with Leslie?
A. No, I don't believe he was (TRIAL, 19280-19281).
Q. Could that have happened?
A. Uhm, I am not sure. I don't recall, like I said.
Q. Was -- Keith wasn't outside of Big John's while you were arguing with Leslie?
A. No, I don't believe he was (TRIAL, 19280-19281).
***************************************
Q. Mr. May, showing you the page I had showed you earlier with regard to Long Beach Police Department, a report by Officer Bell, would you just read to yourself, this bracketed portion?
A. Okay.
Q. Okay, does the report by officer Bell indicate that you told him that after the argument was over that you told him that a man who had driven up in a Mustang started to talk to you, he had asked you if you wanted a beer and that the two of you then walked over to his car. Is that what the report reflects?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does that refresh your memory?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Could it have happened that way?
A. I don't recall. I wouldn't be able to tell you.
Q. Pardon?
A. I wouldn't be able to tell you if it happened that way or not. It’s been too long.
Q. Your memory is just too hazy about it?
A. It's been a long time (TRIAL, 19280-19281).
A. Okay.
Q. Okay, does the report by officer Bell indicate that you told him that after the argument was over that you told him that a man who had driven up in a Mustang started to talk to you, he had asked you if you wanted a beer and that the two of you then walked over to his car. Is that what the report reflects?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does that refresh your memory?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Could it have happened that way?
A. I don't recall. I wouldn't be able to tell you.
Q. Pardon?
A. I wouldn't be able to tell you if it happened that way or not. It’s been too long.
Q. Your memory is just too hazy about it?
A. It's been a long time (TRIAL, 19280-19281).
***************************************
- Q. Do you remember telling officers in 1975 that the argument that you had between Leslie and yourself took place around two a.m. after or around the time that Big John's was closing?
- A. I believe it was around closing time. I don't remember the exact time they were closing. In would say to be safe between eleven and one o’clock on the morning.
- Q. Could you have told them at two a.m.?
- A. I don't –
- Q. -- in 1975?
- A. I don't recall.
- Q. Obviously your memory then would be a lot fresher than it is today?
- A. It would be a little bit better, yes.
- Q. I would like to show you a police report prepared apparently by the city of Long Beach, Officer Bell, in which you give a statement to him on May 20th, 1975. Would you just read to yourself this area that I have bracketed, please? Just read it to yourself.
- A. Okay.
- Q. Okay. Does officer Bell report that you told him in '75 that you and Leslie had an argument around two a.m. after Big John's had closed. Is that what that report reflects?
- A. Yes, it did.
- Q. Does that refresh your memory?
- A. Yes (TRIAL, 19273-19275).
- NOTE: This contradicts what Kent May previously testified earlier that same day but to the prosecutor, that the argument occurred at 11pm to 1am before Big John’s closed.
- WHATEVER HAPPENED TO KENT MAY'S MEMORY?
- Nobody will ever know for certain, but there are several possibilities from the drugs he took, to a felony warrant hanging over his head at the time, to his own late admission under oath at trial.
- Kent May admitted under oath to tell the truth that he had no memory of the night before Easter, March 29, 1975. He testified under oath that someone had to tell him what time of year it was. Friday or Saturday night? Kent May testified he didn't know. It could be either one (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 53-54). In 1975 Kent May remembered events quite differently than he did at the preliminary hearing in 1983. And when interviewed just five months before the preliminary hearing on May 31, 1983, he continued to remember the events as he did in 1975. He remembered what he told police for eight years, then forgot it in five months at the preliminary hearing.
- At this same time the summer of 1983, according to Karen May, Kent's sister, he was staying out of sight and dodging a felony warrant for his arrest (INV, 5/30/85). He told Karen that he was going to "wheel and deal" with the Kraft prosecutor to get the warrant lifted. At the preliminary hearing he testified that he was not comfortable changing his first recollection that the Mustang he saw in 1975 was not RSK’s car because it had fancy wheels until he had a long discussion with law enforcement officers several months previously (PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 78). At that time, he met with LBPD officers Bell and Collette at a public park in northern California (LBPD, 6/03/83). After that long discussion he changed his memory to be that the car had stock hubcaps like RSK’s car. In fact, Kent May changed his memory and his testimony regarding all events of the night in question after this long discussion to what the prosecutor wanted, and the warrant went away. There is no record of the warrant today, just a Superior Court case number, M191910, with nothing behind it but Kent May's name.
- Kent May testified that he was already drunk on beer when he took seven yellow pills marked with the number "10" that he thought were Valium and washed them down with more beer (LBPD, 5/20/75; PRELIM, 11/03/1983, 43ff). Dr. Lawrence Plon, a pharmaceutical expert, testified at trial that Valium is a drug that people can grow to tolerate and need progressively larger quantities to get the same effect, but first-time users feel the full effect (TRIAL, 22297ff). May testified he had never taken downers like Valium before. Dr. Plon also testified that when taken with alcohol the two each increase the effect of the other, making a much stronger effect. Dr. Plon further testified that Valium is frequently used to block the memory of surgical patients so they don't recall unpleasant procedures. Therefore, one possibility for May’s inconsistent and fungible memory is that the Valium and alcohol Kent May took prevented memories from forming in his brain. If so, all his recollections from 1975 through trial in 1988 are made up and untruthful.
- SUMMARY
- At trial prosecutor Bryan Brown told the jury the Crotwell case "is an important case because it shows a method of operation that Mr. Kraft has developed" (TRIAL, 24005). "He sees them on the wall. He approaches them, starts a conversation, builds confidence. ... These guys trusted Mr. Kraft to give them something that wasn't going to hurt them and they took it. And Mr. Kraft got them to take it because of the conversation that he had had with these kids earlier outside the car. He developed a relationship of trust to some extent" (TRIAL, 24004).
- But none of this would have been available for Bryan Brown to parade before the jury if Kent May had not changed his memory to say just what Bryan Brown needed. RSK didn't do what prosecutor Brown describes here. A fantasy, a fiction. Another lie by Lyin' Bryan, bought from Kent May and paid for by a felony warrant that disappeared.
- It remains unclear how, where, or when Keith Crotwell died. The last person known to have seen him was his friend, Kent May, on the night of March 30, 1975 — the evening before Easter. During that encounter, Crotwell was reportedly explaining to May the drugs they were about to take, describing their effects, and advising how many tablets May would need to take to get high. Six weeks later, Crotwell's skull was found underneath a nearby ocean jetty, and an autopsy found the cause of death was probable drowning. An examination of vertebrae still attached found no tool marks and nothing else to suggest the skull was separated from the rest of the body by anything other than natural decomposition in the ocean. Crotwell's friends who had been with him earlier in the night he disappeared launched a search for the car he was last seen in, a nearly new 1974 Mustang II, white with a black roof, and its driver described as a male/white, 28 yrs, short and stocky, 5'8", 180 lbs. [Four months later and far away in distant Orange County skeletal remains without a skull were found. But they were not consistent with Crotwell's stature or time of death. Also, these remains had tool marks on the neck vertebrae suggesting the person had been decapitated, unlike Crotwell's skull vertebrae. that had no such marks.]
- RSK' s physical attributes do not match or even come close to those of the stranger. All witnesses who saw him and paid attention to his appearance said the stranger was short and stocky, or the equivalent 5-7 to 5-8 and 180 pounds. In contrast, RSK stood 5' 10 1/2" tall and weighed 165 pounds, an average man. Contemporary photos show this. RSK is not and never has been short and stocky.
- At trial all witnesses who were there the night before Easter unerringly identified RSK by his face. But earlier in May, 1975, the prime witness, Kent May, who was the only witness to stand close to the stranger, was unable to pick RSK from a photo lineup. Other witnesses who found RSK's car did not report it to the police immediately, but two days later. One of them, Terry Ditmar, testified that he walked around the car studying it, and so did witness Randy Cooper. On the two days before reporting the car to police they got to see RSK come and go using his car, and they studied his face, too. Witnesses who could not identify RSK in May of 1975 could do it in June, 1975. All photo IDs are tainted by friends’ stakeout of RSK and his car.
- All witnesses testified under oath to describe the car that drove off with Crotwell, never to be seen again, to be a white Mustang with a black roof. But RSK's Mustang was brown over white. Witness Kent May, who stood next to the car and got into it, testified under oath to tell the truth that the Mustang he stood next to and got into was, "black over white, not Brown." Kent May further testified that the Mustang he got into had automatic transmission and high bucket seats, but RSK's car had neither. Further, in 1975, at Kent May's first police interview, when shown photos of RSK's Mustang he said he thought the car he was in "had fancier wheels."
- RSK did not admit during a taped interview that he had been with Keith Crotwell on any night and drove away with him. You can scour the taped interview of RSK by Officer Bell, 5/19/75 , you will not find any admission by RSK that he was with Keith Crotwell at any time, including on the night before Easter 1975. It Just Ain't So. The event told by RSK is described to Officer Bell for the second time ("As I say ..." Tape Transcript, p. 2), see tape #1, as being "somewhere in the past, the last 2-3 months." That would have been February, 1975, through April, 1975. Jeff Graves told defense investigators he remembered it being three weeks prior to his interview with the police, or late April, 1975 and he passed a polygraph without deception. Whenever it was, it was not a Saturday night because RSK had to work Sunday morning. Every Sunday as RSK told Officer Bell. And Bell verified RSK's Sunday hours with his employer, Aztec Aircraft, a Piper Aircraft dealership at Long Beach Airport. To his face in the interview on tape Officer Bell said, "Okay, Fine," but then the next day when he dictated the phony report he changed what RSK said into a confession he did not make. He set in motion a vicious fraud that persisted through RSK's trial, was given to the jury and persists to this day. But RSK did not say that.
- Long Beach officer Bell lied about no tape being made and so only his phony report caused RSK to be bound over for trial on the Crotwell case. When the tape was revealed two years later and showed that the preliminary hearing had been corrupted by this fraud, the Crotwell case should have been dismissed because without the hidden tape RSK was unable to challenge the phony report and the phony confession it ascribed to RSK. However, homophobic judge McCartin stepped in to deny the defense motion to dismiss, contrary to state case law.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence linking RSK to the Granada Parking lot on Saturday, March 29, 1975, the night before Easter. No photos, no fingerprints, no DNA, no personal effects, nothing. All eyewitness accounts describe the stranger as being short and stocky, 5-7 to 5-8 and 180 pounds. Randy Kraft was never a short and stocky person, standing 5'10 1/2" tall and weighing 165 pounds, an average man. Not short and stocky. And all eyewitness identifications of RSK are tainted and unreliable because the eyewitnesses staked out RSK and his car before they subsequently identified RSK. It Just Ain't So.
There is no evidence to place RSK's car, a white Ford Mustang II, white with a medium brown roof, in the Granada parking lot on Saturday, March 29, 1975, the night before Easter. No photos, No official citations, no police reports, news stories. Nothing. All eyewitness descriptions of the suspect’s car describe a white Mustang with a black vinyl roof, i.e. not RSK's car. Some witnesses report that the suspect car had automatic transmission, high bucket seats, a black interior, and fancy wheels. RSK's car had none of those things. It Just Ain't So. RSK did not admit during a taped interview that he had been with Keith Crotwell on any night and drove away with him. You can scour the taped interview of RSK by Officer Bell, 5/19/75 , you will not find any admission by RSK that he was with Keith Crotwell at any time, including on the night before Easter 1975. It Just Ain't So.
CONSEQUENTLY, and for all the above reasons, Randy Kraft did not meet Kent May and Keith Crotwell on March 29, 1975, or any time, did not leave the parking lot with them in his car, and did not return Kent May to the parking lot and then drive away with Keith Crotwell in his car.
THEREFORE, whatever happened to Keith Crotwell was done by some unknown person, not Randy Kraft. Randy Kraft did not kill Keith Crotwell. It Just Ain't So.
POSTSCRIPT In the Crotwell proceedings, Judge Donald McCartin, the homophobe, made several decisions reflecting clear bias against RSK. He refused to dismiss the charge even after Bell’s perjury concerning the taped interviews existence came to light. He also denied RSK the opportunity to testify to exculpatory facts that his taped conversation with officers concerned events that occurred on a date other than the night before Easter; that his car was a basic 1974 four-cylinder stick-shift Mustang, distinct from another deluxe white Mustang with a dark vinyl top frequently seen near his home in 1975, and that he reported to work on time on Easter Sunday of that year. Finally, during closing arguments, McCartin permitted the prosecution to mislead the jury by suggesting—over defense objection—that Dr. Yatar failed to check beneath the neck skin for tool marks, even though no such skin existed in the first place.
POSTSCRIPT In the Crotwell proceedings, Judge Donald McCartin, the homophobe, made several decisions reflecting clear bias against RSK. He refused to dismiss the charge even after Bell’s perjury concerning the taped interviews existence came to light. He also denied RSK the opportunity to testify to exculpatory facts that his taped conversation with officers concerned events that occurred on a date other than the night before Easter; that his car was a basic 1974 four-cylinder stick-shift Mustang, distinct from another deluxe white Mustang with a dark vinyl top frequently seen near his home in 1975, and that he reported to work on time on Easter Sunday of that year. Finally, during closing arguments, McCartin permitted the prosecution to mislead the jury by suggesting—over defense objection—that Dr. Yatar failed to check beneath the neck skin for tool marks, even though no such skin existed in the first place.