Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM N. PETERSON, GARY ROGERS ) And MELVIN R. HETT. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-07-317-RAW Vs. ) ) JOHN GRISHAM, ) DOUBLEDAY DELL PUBLISHING GROUP, ) RANDOM HOUSE INC, ROBERT MAYER, ) BROADWAY BOOKS, DENNIS FRITZ, ) SEVEN LOCKS PRESS INC., ) and BARRY SCHECK . ) ) Defendants. )
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY, LIBEL, PUBLICITY PLACING A PERSON IN FALSE LIGHT, AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Plaintiffs, William N. Peterson, (hereinafter “Peterson”), Gary L. Rogers, (hereinafter
“Rogers”) and Melvin R. Hett (hereinafter “Hett”) by their attorneys Gary L. Richardson, Charles L.
Richardson and Kevin D. Adams of The Richardson Law Firm, PC, for their complaints against the
Defendants, jointly and severally. The Plaintiffs state as follows:
THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action in Civil Conspiracy to commit libel, slander, libel and slander per se,
publicity placing a person in false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress
seeking compensatory and punitive damages against John Grisham, Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Random House Incorporated, Robert Mayer, Broadway Books, Dennis
Fritz, Seven Locks Press Inc., and Barry Scheck.
1 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 2 of 116
2. This action is brought by William N. Peterson, Gary L. Rogers and Melvin R. Hett
against the Defendants alleging the Defendants conspired to do the following acts:
Commit libel against the Plaintiffs ;
Commit slander against the Plaintiffs;
Commit libel and slander per se against the Plaintiffs;
To generate publicity for self interest sake placing Peterson, Rogers and/or Hett in a
false light; and/or
To intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Peterson, Rogers and/or Hett;
3. Additionally, this action alleges that the defendants are jointly and severally libel for
Defamation (by libel and slander, libel and slander per se, by publicity placing a person
in false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress).
THE PARTIES
4. William N. Peterson is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of
Oklahoma. Peterson has served the people of the state of Oklahoma since 1980 as the
elected District Attorney for Pontotoc, Seminole and Hughes Counties. Peterson handled
the prosecution of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz for the 1982 murder of Debbie Sue
Carter. Peterson is a lifelong resident of Oklahoma who has lived most of his life in Ada,
Oklahoma. Peterson is married, the father of two children, and the grandfather of four.
Peterson served his country as a member of the United States Air Force. After receiving
an honorable discharge from the Air Force, Peterson attended the University of
Oklahoma where he graduated in 1971. Following college, Peterson attended Oklahoma
City University law school where he received his law degree in 1975. In 1979, Peterson
2 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 3 of 116
decided to forego the more profitable world of private practice choosing instead to use
his education and skills to serve the people of the state of Oklahoma as an assistant
district attorney. In 1980, Peterson became the elected District Attorney of Pontotoc,
Seminole and Hughes counties. Since being elected as District Attorney Peterson has
represented the people of the state of Oklahoma in thousands of cases ranging from
misdemeanor DUI cases to First Degree Murder cases. As a result of his service to the
community and prior to Defendants’ conduct, Peterson enjoyed an outstanding
professional reputation in the legal community. In 1990, Peterson was named
Outstanding District Attorney by the Oklahoma District Attorney’s Association. On
numerous occasions Peterson has been specially appointed to represent the state of
Oklahoma in criminal cases across the state when other District Attorney’s have recused
from those cases. Throughout the years, Peterson has been active in his local
community of Ada, Oklahoma as a member of the Masons, Shriners and his local
church. Because of the Defendants’ actions Plaintiff Peterson’s reputation has been
damaged. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff William N. Peterson, was a resident of
the state of Oklahoma.
5. Gary Rogers is a former Shawnee Police officer as well as a former Agent for the
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Gary Rogers served the people of the state of
Oklahoma for 37 years as a law enforcement officer. Rogers, along with other law
enforcement, investigated the 1982 murder of Debbie Sue Carter. Rogers has spent a
lifetime of serving the people of the state of Oklahoma as an investigator. Rogers put his
life in jeopardy almost on a daily basis as a Shawnee Police Officer and as an agent for
the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation, as well as an investigator for District Attorney
3 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 4 of 116
District 22. As a result of his service to the community and prior to the Defendants’
actions, Rogers enjoyed an outstanding reputation in the law enforcement community.
Because of the Defendants’ actions Plaintiff Roger’s reputation has been damaged. At
all relevant times herein, Plaintiff Gary Rogers was a resident of the state of Oklahoma.
6. Melvin Hett is a retired OSBI criminalist with 28 years in law enforcement. He
performed the hair comparison evidence in the Carter murder case. Because of the
Defendants’ actions Plaintiff Hett’s reputation has been damaged. At all relevant times
herein, Plaintiff Hett, was a resident of the state of Oklahoma.
7. John Grisham (hereinafter known as “Defendant Grisham” or “Grisham”) is a non-
practicing lawyer who is known throughout the world for writing fiction books. John
Grisham is also the author of The Innocent Man (Released October 10, 2006), which
was Grisham’s first attempt at writing a non-fiction book. The Innocent Man is a book
written about the 1982 murder of Debbie Sue Carter and the subsequent investigation,
prosecution, conviction and exoneration of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. Grisham
is a member of the board of directors of The Innocence Project, a non-profit
organization, located in New York City, New York. Defendant Grisham holds strong
views opposing the Death Penalty. Defendant Grisham relied upon Defendant Fritz,
Defendant Mayer and Defendant Scheck as sources for his book, The Innocent Man. At
all relevant times herein, Defendant John Grisham was a resident of the state of Virginia.
8. Doubleday Dell Publishing Group (hereinafter “Doubleday”) is the publisher of
The Innocent Man and Actual Innocence.
9. Random House Incorporated (hereinafter “Random House”) is a New York
Corporation that owns Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, the publisher of The Innocent
4 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 5 of 116
Man and Actual Innocence and Broadway Books the publisher of The Dreams of Ada.
Random House, Inc. is a New York corporation located at 1745 Broadway in New
York, New York. The registered service agent for Random House, Inc. is Katherine J.
Trager 1745 Broadway New York, New York, 10019.
10. Robert Mayer is the author of The Dreams of Ada (re-released with new afterword
by the author on October 24, 2006). The Dreams of Ada is a book written primarily
about the murder of Denice Haraway and the subsequent investigation, prosecution and
conviction of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot. The book is portrayed as non-fiction
and in the author’s note Robert Mayer claims “This story is true. Nothing has been
invented.” At all relevant times herein, Robert Mayer was a resident of the state of New
Mexico.
11. Broadway Books is the publisher of The Dreams of Ada, a division of Random
House Incorporated.
12. Dennis Fritz is the author and the main subject of Journey Toward Justice (released
October 6, 2006). Journey Toward Justice is portrayed as a non-fiction account of the
investigation, arrest, prosecution and subsequent exoneration of Dennis Fritz.
Defendant Fritz provided defamatory information about the Plaintiffs to Defendant
Grisham knowing that information would be disseminated publically. Defendant Fritz
also published defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers in his book
Journey Toward Justice. At all relevant times herein, Dennis Fritz was a resident of the
state of Missouri.
5 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 6 of 116
13. Seven Locks Press is the publisher of Journey Towards Justice. Seven Locks Press,
Inc. is a Maryland corporation. The registered service agent for Seven Locks Press is D.
Clavin Kytle 6600 81st Street Cabin John, MD 20731.
14. Barry Scheck was a lawyer representing Dennis Fritz and is the author of Actual
Innocence (Released 2003). Actual Innocence is a book that discusses, among other
things the investigation, prosecution, conviction and subsequent exoneration of Ron
Williamson and Dennis Fritz. Barry Scheck also writes about many of the same themes
that Defendant Grisham writes about in his book The Innocent Man, such as how
“snitch” testimony should be outlawed and the alleged unreliability of hair evidence.
Barry Scheck is a civil rights attorney and co-director of The Innocence Project, a non-
profit organization, located in New York City, New York. Actual Innocence was
published by Doubleday Dell Publishing Group a division of Random House
Incorporated. Defendant Scheck provided defamatory information about the Plaintiffs
to Defendant Grisham knowing that information would be disseminated publically. At
all relevant times the plaintiffs believe that Barry Scheck was a resident of the state of
New York; however, the Plaintiffs are certain he has never taken up residency in the
state of Oklahoma.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. All claims in this action arise under the statutory and common law of the state of
Oklahoma.
16. Jurisdiction is proper in this action under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. There is complete
diversity of Citizenship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
6 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 7 of 116
17. Venue is proper in this action under 28 U.S.C. section 1391 (a)(2). All of the
Plaintiffs claims set forth arise in this district and a substantial part of the Defendants’
wrongful acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
18. Defendant Grisham has claimed publically that he performed extensive factual
research preparing to write The Innocent Man.
19. Defendant Grisham has claimed publically that he spent 18 months researching and
writing The Innocent Man.
20. The Defendants herein coordinated their efforts to launch a massive joint defamatory
attack on the Plaintiffs. The Defendants launched this attack through the use of
speeches, interviews and simultaneously publishing three books that were all three
strategically released in October of 2006.
21. The first wave of this defamatory attack, designed to defame and publicly place the
Plaintiffs in a false light, came on October 6, 2006 with the publication of Journey
Toward Justice written by Dennis Fritz. Journey Toward Justice contains statements
knowingly and recklessly made which are false, half-truths, contains incomplete
information and omissions of material facts. The statements in Journey Toward Justice
were among other reasons designed to defame the Plaintiffs, and to create publicity that
cast them in a false light. Journey Toward Justice contains defamatory statements about
Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers, including libel per se. Journey Toward Justice contains
defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers. The defamatory statements
contained in Journey Toward Justice cast Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers in a false light.
These statements were additionally designed to bring about great public hatred,
7 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 8 of 116
contempt and ridicule of the Plaintiffs and to cause the Plaintiffs to be deprived of public
confidence, as well as be injured in their professions and occupations. These statements
damaged Plaintiff Peterson’s and Plaintiff Rogers’ personal reputation. These
defamatory statements were made with malice.
22. The front cover of the Journey Toward Justice, written by Defendant Fritz, contains
the endorsement of Defendant Grisham saying the book is “Compelling and
Fascinating”. The back cover of Journey Toward Justice contains quotes from
Defendant Scheck as well as Defendant Grisham. A Foreword in the book Journey
Toward Justice is written by Defendant Scheck in which he references a book he wrote
titled Actual Innocence in which Scheck devoted a chapter about the Williamson and
Fritz murder case. Defendant Scheck also references Defendant Mayer’s book, The
Dreams of Ada, in his Afterword.
23. In the Preface of the Journey Toward Justice, Defendant Fritz expresses thanks to
Defendant Grisham saying, “My deepest gratitude to John Grisham for his friendship,
inspiration and encouragement to write my story.” Journey Toward Justice, page xxi.
24. The second wave of this joint and massive defamatory attack designed to defame
and publicly place the Plaintiffs in a false light came on October 10, 2006 with the
publication of the next book, The Innocent Man written by John Grisham. The Innocent
Man contains malicious statements that were knowingly and recklessly made which are
false, half-truths, and contains incomplete information as well as omissions of material
facts. The statements in The Innocent Man were among other reasons designed to
defame the Plaintiffs and to create publicity that cast them in a false light. The
statements in The Innocent Man were designed to defame the Plaintiffs, as well as create
8 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 9 of 116
publicity that cast the Plaintiffs in a false light. The Innocent Man contains defamatory
statements about Plaintiffs Peterson, Rogers and Hett including libel per se. The
Innocent Man contains defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Peterson, Rogers and Hett
the defamatory statements contained in The Innocent Man cast Plaintiffs Peterson,
Rogers and Hett in a false light. These statements were, among other reasons, designed
to bring about great public hatred, contempt and ridicule of the Plaintiffs, as well as to
cause actions that would result in causing the Plaintiffs to be deprived of public
confidence and to be injured in their professions and occupations and personal
reputations. These statements damaged Plaintiff Peterson’s, Plaintiff Rogers’ and
Plaintiff Hett’s reputation. These statements were made with malice.
25. In the Author’s Note of The Innocent Man, Defendant Grisham expresses his thanks
to those who helped him with his book. One of those he thanked was Dennis Fritz, a
fellow co-conspirator saying, “Dennis Fritz revisited his painful history with remarkable
enthusiasm and answered all my questions.” The Innocent Man, page 359. In the
Author’s Note John Grisham also explains, “I relied heavily on The Dreams of Ada, by
Robert Mayer.” The Innocent Man, page 360.
26. The third wave of this defamatory attack designed, in part, to defame and publicly place
the Plaintiffs in a false light, came on October 24, 2006 with the re-publication of The
Dreams of Ada written by Robert Mayer. The re-published version of The Dreams of
Ada contains both new and old statements, many that were knowingly and recklessly
made and which are false, half-truths, contains incomplete information and omissions of
material facts. These statements were designed to defame the Plaintiffs, create publicity
that cast them in a false light and to bring about great public hatred, contempt and
9 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 10 of 116
ridicule of the Plaintiffs. The statements were designed as well to cause actions that
would cause the Plaintiffs to be deprived of public confidence and to be injured in their
professions and occupations and personal reputations. The Dreams of Ada contains
defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers including libel per se. The
Dreams of Ada contains defamatory statements about Plaintiffs Peterson and Rogers.
These defamatory statements contained in The Dreams of Ada cast Plaintiffs Peterson,
Rogers and Hett in a false light. The defamatory statements in The Dreams of Ada
damaged Plaintiff Peterson and Plaintiff Rogers’ reputation. These statements were
made with malice.
27. In December of 2007, after this lawsuit was filed complaining about the defamatory
statements contained in The Innocent Man, the book was released in paperback form.
28. By issuing the paperback version of The Innocent Man, after the filing of this lawsuit,
the Defendants responsible for the release of the paper back version of the book
intentionally and/or recklessly disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs Peterson, Rogers and
Hett.
29. Just as in Defendant Fritz’s book, Journey Toward Justice, Defendant Mayer’s book
contained an endorsement from John Grisham, referring to Mayer’s book as, “A riveting
true story of a brutal murder in a small town and the tragic errors made in the pursuit of
justice.”
30. In this newly added Afterward, written by Defendant Mayer, an insight is given into
what was intended by the defamatory attacks;
Bill Peterson, the man who had prosecuted Ward and Fontenot, was still ensconced as district attorney. Gary Rogers, formerly of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, was now the investigator for Peterson’s office. Both
10 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 11 of 116
were secure in their jobs—but they had reason to be apprehensive about their images. For more than a year, one of the best selling novelists in the world and an experienced trial lawyer, John Grisham, had been visiting Ada intermittently, researching his first nonfiction book. What he was writing was no secret: a book about two Ada men who had been convicted of the brutal murder of an attractive young woman and who had been sentenced respectively to life in prison and to death—two men who were later proven innocent. Grisham’s book—certain to be a bestseller, like his novels—was likely to give the police and the prosecutors of Ada, and perhaps the whole town, a black eye all across America.
The Dreams of Ada, With a New Afterword by The Author; page 489-490.
31. In a speech given at the University Of Virginia School Of Law in September of 2006,
Defendant Grisham openly revealed what he hoped to accomplish with the writing of The
Innocent Man. During his speech and in response to a question from the audience,
Defendant Grisham made the following statement in reference to his views on the death
penalty: “….my one hope for this book is that people read it and realize that this system we
have is simply too unfair to continue.” Speech given by Defendant Grisham at the University
of Virginia Law School on September 18, 2006.
32. These series of attacks on the Plaintiffs orchestrated by the Defendants was motivated
by the Defendants desire, among other things, to further efforts to abolish the Death Penalty.
33. During this speech at the University of Virginia Law School, Defendant Grisham
demonstrated his own opinion of the libelous material he had written, with blatant disregard
for the truth in a disgusting and defamatory attack on Plaintiff Peterson. Defendant Grisham
stated that: “…the prosecutor, who is the number one bad guy in this book, and he’ll
probably file the first lawsuit sometime in November, the book comes out in October”.
Defendant Grisham publicly stated that the number one bad guy in his book was Plaintiff
Peterson, a man of integrity as well as a public servant that has dedicated years of his life to
11 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 12 of 116
protecting the citizens of Pontotoc, Seminoles and Hughes counties. With this statement,
Defendant Grisham not only demonstrated a consciousness of guilt, but he demonstrated
that he was so motivated by his zeal to become known as a non-fiction writer as well as
fiction and to further his and his fellow Defendants’ efforts to abolish the Death Penalty that
he was willing to make a public servant the number one bad guy in his book, instead of Glen
Gore, the man who brutally murdered Debbie Sue Carter and then gave perjured testimony
in order to convict an innocent man, a story that Grisham uses to write his book.
34. After this lawsuit was filed, Defendant Grisham and Defendant Mayer communicated
through email. In one email exchange Defendant Grisham in substance stated to Defendant
Mayer that since the lawsuit had been filed that, “we’ll sell some books now”.
35. Based upon the facts alleged in paragraphs 33 and 34 of this complaint, and other
compelling facts, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally defamed the Plaintiffs
expecting to be sued and thereby boosting their book sales.
36. Defendant Grisham makes it clear, in a letter by him published on his website, saying
that that he intended to ruin the careers of theses Plaintiffs. In the last lines of this letter
Defendant Grisham states, “They, citizens and jurors, trust their authorities to behave
properly. When they don’t, the result is Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. Ada is a nice
town, and the obvious question is: When will the good guys clean house?” Despite
Defendant Grisham’s repeated claims that Plaintiff Peterson was the “bad guy” neither he
nor any of his co-defendants ever filed a complaint against Plaintiff Peterson with the
Oklahoma Bar Association despite Defendant Grisham and Defendant Scheck both being
lawyers. Both knowing their ethical responsibility to report fellow lawyers to the Bar
Association that they believe are “unfit” for the practice of law.
12 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 13 of 116
37. Defendant John Grisham gave an interview to a journalist from the Kansas City
Star on May 10, 2007. Defendant Grisham was in Kansas City attending a fundraiser for
The Innocence Project. During this interview Defendant Grisham spoke about his desire
to see the death penalty abolished and his belief that defendants accused of crimes
routinely do not receive fair trials. Defendant Grisham was quoted in the Kansas City
Star as making the statement in paragraph below.
38. “Snitch Testimony” should be outlawed, Grisham added. In some cases,
including that involving Williamson and Fritz, prosecutors have paid individuals for their
testimony.
39. By accusing Plaintiff Peterson of paying individuals for their testimony, as described
above in paragraph 38, Defendant Grisham falsely accused Plaintiff Peterson of criminal
conduct of violation of the civil rights of Williamson and Fritz, subornation of perjury,
obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes.
40. The probable effect of the statement described in paragraph 38 is that it would cause
an average lay reader to conclude that Plaintiff Peterson engaged in felonious criminal
conduct.
41. Both before the release of these books by the Defendants and after their release the
Defendants continued to combine, conspire and agree to defame the Plaintiffs and publicly
cast the Plaintiffs in a false light.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF PETERSON IN THE INNOCENT MAN 42. In the beginning of the book, primarily in the first chapter, Defendant Grisham
carefully tells the readers a series of facts concerning Glen Gore designed to establish
13 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 14 of 116
Glen Gore as an obvious suspect in the murder of Debbie Carter. On page 6
Defendant Grisham wrote:
Glen Gore stopped by and asked Debbie to dance. She did, but halfway through the song she suddenly stopped and angrily walked away from Glen Gore. Later, in the ladies’ restroom, she said she would feel safer if one of her girlfriends would spend the night at her place, but she did not say what worried her. Then on page 18 beginning on line 5 Defendant Grisham wrote: Glen Gore had been a regular at Duke’s place until he spent too much time flirting with Johnnie. When he became a bit too aggressive she stiffed armed him and Duke took charge. Gore was banished from the place. Whoever killed Debbie Carter tried awkwardly to pin the murder on Duke Graham…. Defendant Grisham fails to inform the reader that these facts were not known to
law enforcement or the prosecution until after Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz were
exonerated and DNA testing established Glen Gore as the real killer of Debbie Carter.
Defendant Grisham uses these and other out of sequence facts to develop his storyline
and to cast Plaintiff Peterson, Plaintiff Rogers and Plaintiff Hett in a false light.
43. Beginning on page 335 Defendant Grisham devotes a significant amount of time
describing the proceedings of the civil suit that followed the exoneration of Dennis
Fritz and Ron Williamson. On page 336 Defendant Grisham informs the reader that
Plaintiff Peterson are defendants in this suit. On page 336 line 21 Defendant Grisham
quoted Plaintiff Peterson’s quote to the Ada newspaper saying “In my opinion it’s a
frivolous lawsuit to attract attention. I’m not worried about it.” Then on page 343 line
12 Defendant Grisham writes “In the fall of 2002, the “frivolous” lawsuit was settled
for several million dollars.” Defendant Grisham’s use of “frivolous” was obviously a
reference to Plaintiff Peterson’s quote to the Ada newspaper. However, what 14 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 15 of 116
Defendant Grisham failed to inform his readers is that Plaintiff Peterson was
dismissed from the suit. With his quotations and careful wording, Defendant Grisham
cast the false impression that “large sums of money” was paid on Plaintiff Peterson’s
behalf, this is a false impression that cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light.
44. In The Innocent Man defendant Grisham overstates Ron Williamson’s reputation in
order to make his main character likable. Defendant Grisham acknowledged that his
main character Ron Williamson was not a very sympathetic character in an interview
with Charlie Rose given about his book. Defendant Grisham accomplishes this with
statements such as “Ada, saw Ron Williamson as its biggest hero. Now he’d married
a beauty queen from a nice family. His life was charmed.” (Page 42 line 20) The
foregoing statement about Ron Williamson is untrue; most people in Ada did not
even know who he was. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Grisham intentionally
overstated Ron Williamson’s status as a town hero in order to further his storyline and
make Ron Williamson seem sympathetic and the Plaintiffs appear as villains.
45. Near the end of The Innocent Man Defendant Grisham paints and inaccurate and
impression about the DNA testing in the Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz case.
Defendant Grisham writes about this on page 320 of his book. On page 320 with the
line “He was so convinced of their guilt that he happily went along with testing”
Defendant Grisham cast a false impression that the DNA testing was not Plaintiff
Peterson’s idea. The record of the case clearly reflects that Plaintiff Peterson is the
one that requested DNA testing in this matter.
15 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 16 of 116
46. On page 121, lines 1-6 of The Innocent Man1 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The bloody palm print stood in the way, and if it actually belonged to Debbie, then he and the police could move with urgency against Fritz and Williamson. Glenda was confused. How did Peterson know the outcome of the reprinting if the body had yet to be exhumed? How could he be so sure that the exhumation would incriminate Fritz and Williamson?
47. The statement above in paragraph 46 is false. This statement gives the reader the
impressions and/or belief that Plaintiff Peterson knew what the results of the palm
print examination would be before the reprinting of Debbie Carter’s palm prints. This
statement cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a dishonest and/or corrupt
prosecutor. This statement cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as committing the
criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a
criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Grisham, who claims to have extensively researched this book, knew the falsity of
these statements, or made the statement in reckless disregard for its falsity, because of
the reports and testimony of Jerry Peters and others during the following cases; State
V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 and State V. Gore CF-01-126 Fritz V. City Of
Ada, CIV-00-194-B
48. The probable effect of the statement described in paragraph 46 is that it would cause
an average lay reader to conclude that Plaintiff Peterson engaged in felonious criminal
conduct.
49. On page 148 line 11 of The Innocent Man Defendant Grisham wrote:
1 The citations given to The Innocent Man are from a hardcover copy with a copyright date of 2006 published by Doubleday a division of Random House, Inc. Plaintiff’s counsel has discovered the page and line numbers on different copies of The Innocent Man are different from others. The copy of the book counsel makes reference to in this Complaint has 360 pages including the afterword. 16 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 17 of 116
The lying began with the second witness, Glen Gore.
Also on page 148 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Only a prosecutor as determined as Bill Peterson would be brazen enough to allow a criminal like Glen Gore anywhere near his case. Gore had been brought to the preliminary hearing in cuffs and chains. He was serving a forty-year prison sentence for breaking and entering, kidnapping, and attempting to kill a police officer.
50. The statements above in paragraph 49 are false. The false impressions given by these
statements are that witnesses in addition to Glen Gore lied during the trial. These
statements give the reader the impressions and/or belief that Plaintiff Peterson
knowingly presented witnesses that were lying. These statements cast Plaintiff
Peterson in a false light as a dishonest and/or corrupt prosecutor. These statements are
defamatory and cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. The statements in paragraph
49 falsely states and/or implies that Plaintiff Peterson committed the criminal acts of
subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and/or violation of a criminal
defendant’s constitutional rights.
51. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 49 because of the reports,
pleadings and testimony during the following cases: State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
17 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 18 of 116
52. On page 14 of The Innocent Man beginning on line 1 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Gore hustled over to the station, where he was interviewed by Gary Rogers and D.W. Barnett, an Ada policeman. He told them that he had known Debbie Carter since high school and he had seen her at the Coachlight the night before. The entire police report of Gore’s interview reads as follows: Glen Gore works at Harold’s Club about 7:30 PM, 12-8-82. Glen went to school with Debbie. Glen saw her Monday Dec 6th at Harold’s Club. Glen saw her 12-7-82 at the Coachlight. They talked about painting Debbie’s car. Never said anything to Glen about having problems with anyone. Glen went to Coachlight about 10:30 PM with Ron West. Left with Ron about 1:15 AM. Glen has never been to Debbie’s apt. The report was prepared by D.W. Barrett, witnessed by Gary Rogers, and filed away with dozens of others.
Then on page 148 line 18 Grisham wrote:
Under cross-examination, Gore said he told the police about this on December 8, but their report of his interview does not mention Ron Williamson. Nor was their report submitted to the defense, as required by the rules of procedure.
53. The statement above in paragraph 52 implies that Plaintiff Peterson knowingly did
not submit the report of Glen Gore’s first interview. Defendant Grisham failed to
disclose that Plaintiff Peterson was not in possession of the report of Glen Gore’s first
interview and therefore could not have disclosed a report that was not in his
possession.Combined with the statement made in paragraph 49, of this complaint, the
book falsely paints the picture that Plaintiff Peterson knowingly put a lying witness
on the stand and that Plaintiff Peterson knowingly failed to turn over to the Defense
the first statement of that witness that was in direct contradiction to that witness’
testimony. The statement in paragraph 52, both independently and in combination
with the statement in paragraph 49 of the complaint, falsely states and/or implies that
Plaintiff Peterson committed the criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction
18 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 19 of 116
of justice and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. Not only do
these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Peterson of criminal conduct (libel per
se) these statements damaged his reputation and cast him in a false light.
54. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 52 because of the pleadings,
discovery and testimony involved in the following cases: State V. Williamson &
Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-
B. The falsity of this statement was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports
associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book)
associated with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’
investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
55. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 52 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
56. This statement in paragraph 52 accuses Plaintiff Peterson of committing felonious
criminal conduct of conspiracy to commit subordination of perjury, subordination of
perjury, and obstruction of justice.
57. On page 151 line 19 through page 152 line 1 Defendant Grisham wrote;
OSBI agent Jerry Peters, a “Crime Scene Specialists,” was called to the stand. It wasn’t long before he was in trouble. Barney smelled a rat and grilled Peters on his conflicting opinions about the palm print on the Sheetrock. A firm opinion in 1983, then, surprise, an about-face in May 1987. What prompted Peters to rethink his original opinion that the palm print did not belong to Debbie Carter, Ron Williamson or Dennis Fritz? Could it have been that this opinion didn’t really help
19 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 20 of 116
the prosecution? Peters did admit that nothing happened for 4 years, then a phone call early in 1987 from Bill Peterson prompted him to ponder his earlier judgment. After the exhumation and reprinting, he suddenly changed his mind and issued a report that was exactly what the prosecution wanted. Greg Saunders joined the assault on behalf of Dennis fritz, and it was obvious the evidence had been reconstructed.
58. The statement in paragraph 57 falsely implies that Plaintiff Peterson prompted Peters
to “ponder” his earlier judgment. This statement falsely creates the impression that
Plaintiff Peterson intentionally caused a witness to changed his expert opinion to fit
the prosecutions theory of the case.
59. This statement in paragraph 57 accuses Plaintiff Peterson of committing felonious
criminal conduct of conspiracy to commit subordination of perjury, subordination of
perjury, and obstruction of justice.
60. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 57, because of the reports and
testimony of Jerry Peters and others during the following cases; State V. Williamson
& Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126 Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-
194-B.
61. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 57 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
62. Defendant Grisham wrote Pages 152 Defendant Grisham wrote;
The Prosecution’s star witness was the amazing Terri Holland….After she testified, she was given a light sentence on the check charges, in
20 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 21 of 116
spite of having two prior felonies. Ward and Fontenot went to death row; Terri Holland fled the county.
63. The statements in paragraph 62 are false. Terri Holland the witness for the state was
given a standard plea deal for any defendant charged with the type of crime she was
accused of committing. The statements in paragraph 62 suggest that Plaintiff Peterson
gave lenient treatment to a witness in exchange for her testimony. This is untrue. This
false accusation damaged the reputation of Plaintiff Peterson.
64. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 62, because of the reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
65. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mayer intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 62 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
66. Defendant Grisham wrote on page 154 lines 6 through 11 of The Innocent Man;
It was remarkable that Bill Peterson, as an officer of the court and charged with the duty to seek the truth, could elicit such garbage. A crucial part of snitching is getting paid. Terri Holland was allowed to plea-bargain herself out of trouble and out of jail. She agreed to a monthly payment plan for restitution, but soon abandoned her obligations.
67. The statements in paragraph 66 are false. Terri Holland, the witness for the state, was
given a standard plea deal for any defendant charged with the type of crime she was
accused of committing. The statements in paragraph 66 states that Plaintiff Peterson
paid a witness in exchange for her testimony. This is untrue. This false accusation
21 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 22 of 116
damaged the reputation of Plaintiff Peterson by causing the reader of these statements
to believe that Plaintiff Peterson is corrupt.
68. The statement above in paragraph 66 is false. The statement that “It was remarkable
that Bill Peterson, as an officer of the court and charged with the duty to seek the
truth, could elicit such garbage” is defamatory and cast Plaintiff Peterson as an
individual that is corrupt and a prosecutor that is violating his ethical duty to seek the
truth. This false impression is made worse by Defendant Grisham’s false statement
that this witness was “paid” for her testimony. This statement gives the reader the
impressions and/or belief that Plaintiff Peterson knowingly presented a witness
knowing that witness was lying. This statement cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light
as a dishonest and/or corrupt prosecutor. This statement is defamatory and cast
Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. The statement in paragraph 66 falsely states and/or
implies that Plaintiff Peterson committed the felonious criminal conduct of
subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a criminal
defendant’s constitutional rights.
69. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 66, because of the reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
70. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 66 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
22 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 23 of 116
71. On page 165 of The Innocent Man on lines 7 through 19 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Harjo under oath and lying badly, explained to an earnest Bill Peterson that he had been cell mates with Fritz, and while at first things had been friendly, on Halloween night a conversation had turned ugly. Harjo was quizzing Dennis about the details of the murder. Dennis was having trouble with the details, and Harjo deftly managed to poke holes in his story. He became convinced that Dennis was guilty, so he confronted him. This made Dennis very nervous. He began pacing around the bullpen, obviously struggling with his guilt, and when he returned to their cell, he looked at Harjo, with tears in his eyes, and said, ‘We didn’t mean to hurt her’. In court, Dennis couldn’t sit through this crap. He yelled at the witness, ‘You are lying! You are lying!’ Judge Miller settled things down. Harjo and Peterson plowed ahead with their tales.
72. The statement above in paragraph 71 is false. Plaintiff Peterson did not know that the
witness Harjo was lying. By stating that “Harjo under oath and lying badly” and then
stating “Harjo and Peterson plowed ahead with their tales” Defendant Grisham falsely
accuses Plaintiff Peterson of committing the felonious criminal conduct of
subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a criminal
defendant’s constitutional rights.
73. The statement in paragraph 71 is false, defamatory and cast Plaintiff Peterson as an
individual that is corrupt and a prosecutor that is violating his ethical duty to seek the
truth. This statement gives the reader the impressions and/or belief that Plaintiff
Peterson knowingly presented a witness knowing that witness was lying and/or
assisted the witness in constructing his perjured testimony. This statement cast
Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a dishonest and/or corrupt prosecutor. This
statement is defamatory and cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light.
23 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 24 of 116
74. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 66, because of the reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
75. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck and/or Defendant Fritz intentionally
made the defamatory statement in paragraph 71 to Defendant Grisham while knowing
the statement was false.
76. On page 121 beginning on line 115 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The first set of palm prints had been taken by OSBI agent Jerry Peters on December 9, 1982, during the autopsy. At that time, the hands had been perfect, and Peters had no doubt that he had taken a full and thorough set of prints. When he issued his report three months later, he’d been certain in his findings that the bloody print from the Sheetrock was not left by Fritz, Williamson, or the victim. Now, through, four and a half years later, with the murder unsolved and the authorities looking for a break, he suddenly had doubts about his earlier work. Three days after exhumation, he issued a revised report in which he concluded that the bloody print matched Debbie Carter’s palm. For the first ad only time in his twenty-four year career, Jerry Peters changed his mind. The report was exactly what Bill Peterson needed. Armed with the proof that the bloody print did not belong to some unknown killer but had been left by Debbie as she struggled for her life, he was free to go after his prime suspects. And it was important to alert the townsfolk—the potential jurors.
Then on page 177 Defendant Grisham wrote beginning on line 3 and ending on
line 10 the following;
Larry Mullins described how he reprinted Debbie’s palms the previous May when her body was exhumed. He gave the new prints to Jerry Peters, who suddenly saw things he hadn’t seen four and a half years earlier. The prosecution’s theory the same one to be used against Ron Williamson, was that during the prolonged
24 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 25 of 116
and violent assault Debbie was wounded, her blood somehow ended up on her left palm, and this palm touched a tiny portion of Sheetrock just above the floor of her bedroom. Since the palm print did not belong to Ron or Dennis, and it certainly could not belong to the real killer, it had to be Debbie’s.
77. The statements in paragraph 76 are false and cast the Plaintiff in a false light. It is a
false statement of fact to state witness Jerry Peters “suddenly saw things he hadn’t
seen four and a half years earlier.” By writing that “Peters who suddenly saw things
he hadn’t seen four and a half years earlier. . . The prosecution’s theory . . ., it had to
be Debbie’s” Defendant Grisham also falsely and intentionally misstates “Peters had
no doubt that he had taken a full and thorough set of prints”. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant Grisham intentionally misstated these facts to bolster the false impression
that Peters changed his testimony to fit the prosecutions theory of the case.
Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and cast the Plaintiff in a false light as
someone who conspired to suborn perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice.
78. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 76, because of the reports and
testimony of Jerry Peters and others during the following cases; State V. Williamson
& Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501,
MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz
v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District
Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
25 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 26 of 116
79. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck and/or Defendant Fritz intentionally
made the defamatory statement in paragraph 76 to Defendant Grisham while knowing
the statement was false.
80. On page 195 on line 29 Defendant Grisham wrote:
How could the police and prosecutor sit on the tape for four and a half years and hide it from the defense?
Then on page 195 beginning on line 7 Defendant Grisham continues writing about the
polygraph video:
The 1983 tape would have been a powerful tool to show the jury. Four and a half years earlier, long before the prosecution had put together its roster of shady witnesses, and long before Ron had such a lengthy criminal record to answer to, he had sat before a camera and repeatedly denied any involvement.
Then further on the same page defendant Grisham writes beginning on line 25:
Now Barney stood before Judge Jones, with Rogers still in the witness chair and Peterson studying his shoes, with a clear Brady violation. He moved for a mistrial and was overruled.
Then on page 211 Defendant Grisham wrote beginning on line 22:
In a bizarre case of judicial second-guessing, Judge Jones called a hearing the following day to ponder the state’s Brady violation. Though Barney was exhausted and fed up with the case, he was still indignant that the cops and Peterson had deliberately withheld the 1983 videotape of Ron’s polygraph interrogation. But why bother at this point? The trial was over. The video was of no benefit after the fact.
81. The statements listed in paragraph 80 are false, defamatory and cast Plaintiff Peterson
in a false light. These statements falsely accuse Plaintiff Peterson of hiding “a
powerful tool to show the jury” from the defense. Defendant Grisham, being a
26 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 27 of 116
lawyer, made these statements knowing the 1983 video tape of his polygraph
examination would not “have been” “a powerful tool to show the jury” because the
following reasons, both individually and collectively; it did not prove or disprove
anything, it was not admissible because polygraphs are inadmissible in the state of
Oklahoma, the tape was not admissible because it was a self serving declaration and
therefore inadmissible hearsay, it was not material to guilt or punishment under
Brady, and the video was actually inculpatory because Ron Williamson denied that he
was ever in Debbie’s apartment and the evidence at the time suggested that his hair
was recovered from her apartment.
82. The statements in paragraph 80 are false and cast the Plaintiff in a false light.
Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and casts the Plaintiff in a false light as
someone who hide evidence and obstructed justice. The statements in paragraph 80
cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as an unethical and corrupt person.
83. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 80 because of the pleadings, reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010),
Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz
v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V.
City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
27 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 28 of 116
84. In paragraph 80 Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and falsely cast the Plaintiff
in a false light as someone who is dishonest, corrupt, conspired to suborn perjury,
suborned perjury and obstructed justice.
85. On page 105 Defendant Grisham wrote beginning on line 2:
Forget motive. Forget Glen Gore’s lies about seeing Ron at the Coachlight that night harassing Debbie Carter. Minor points; the cops had their man.
86. In paragraph 85 Defendant Grisham paints a false impression of Plaintiff Peterson
when this statement is read in conjunction with the statements in paragraph 52.
Defendant Grisham fails to inform the readers of his book that Plaintiff Peterson was
not aware of the fact that Glen Gore was lying until after Ron Williamson and Dennis
Fritz were exonerated and Glen Gore was identified as the true killer by DNA
evidence. These statements falsely cast Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and corrupt
individual who was willing to convict an innocent man at any cost.
87. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 85 because of the pleadings, reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010),
Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz
v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V.
City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
88. On page 111 and 112 Defendant Grisham wrote beginning on line 25:
28 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 29 of 116
The truth, though, was that the body was not stabbed and it was not burned, regardless of what Ward and Fontenot said in their bogus confessions and regardless of what Bill Peterson and Chris Ross told the jury. Denice Haraway was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head. Her remains were found the following January by a hunter deep in the woods near the settlement of Gerty, in Hughes County, twenty-seven miles from Ada and far from any place that had been searched. The true cause of death should have convinced everyone involved that Ward and Fontenot had indeed dreamed up their ridiculous tales and had been coerced into confessing. It did not. The true cause of death should have prompted the authorities to admit they were wrong and begin searching for the real murderer. It did not.
89. As described in paragraph 88 Defendant Grisham wrote “The truth, though, was that
the body was not stabbed and it had not been burned.” Defendant Grisham makes a
false statement unsupported by the evidence of the autopsy of Denice Haraway. The
medical examiner could not say whether or not she was stabbed. The medical
examiner’s testimony was in all the stabbing deaths he had examined, only a very few
could he see where the knife nicked the bone. The medical examiner could not say
one way or the other whether Denice Haraway was stabbed. Defendant Grisham uses
this false statement to cast the Plaintiff in a false light as someone who would make
statements that he knew was false to a jury and knowingly convict an individual he
knew to be innocent. This statement falsely casts Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and
corrupt individual.
90. In the statement described above in paragraph 88 Defendant Grisham makes the does
not disclose in his book that the confessions of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot were
corroborated by eyewitness testimony, physical evidence left at the scene of the
kidnapping, and Tommy Ward’s own sworn testimony at trial.
29 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 30 of 116
91. In the statement described above in paragraph 88 Defendant Grisham writes “The true
cause of death should have convinced everyone involved that Ward and Fontenot had
indeed dreamed up their ridiculous tales and had been coerced into confessing. It did
not”. Defendant Grisham failed to disclose that while being questioned in open court
by his own lawyer that Tommy Ward stated that he had not been threatened or abused
by the police.
92. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 88 because of the pleadings, reports and
testimony of the following cases; State v. Ward & Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V.
Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-
1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-
801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc
District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
93. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mayer intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 88 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
94. On page 114 beginning on line 3 of The Innocent Man Defendant Grisham wrote:
Stung by the criticism-it's rare for a small-town prosecutor to have a book written about one of his cases, and a very unflattering one at that - Peterson roared into action in the Debbie Carter matter. He had something to prove. The investigation was stale-the poor girl had been dead for more than 4 years-but it was time to nail someone. …………. They had no evidence, just gut feelings.
30 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 31 of 116
95. As described in paragraph 94 Defendant Grisham misstates the evidence the state
had against Defendants Williamson and Fritz. Defendant Grisham falsely cast
Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and corrupt individual who was willing to convict an
innocent man at any cost.
96. There is no basis, in fact, for Grisham to write that Plaintiff Peterson had “no
evidence just, just a gut feeling.”
97. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 94 because of the pleadings, reports and
testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010),
Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz
v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V.
City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
98. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck and Defendant Fritz intentionally made
the defamatory statement in paragraph 94 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the
statement was false.
99. Defendant Grisham uses a series of false statements to defame Plaintiff
Peterson and cast him in a false light. Beginning on the last line of page 121
Defendant Grisham wrote:
And it was important to alert the townsfolk—the potential jurors.
Then on page 122 Defendant Grisham wrongfully infers that Bill Peterson is the
“source” of information provided to the newspaper;
31 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 32 of 116
What, exactly, was found? Peterson wouldn’t confirm the details, but a “source” was willing to tell all. The source said, “The body was exhumed so the woman’s palm print could be made and compared with a bloody palm print found on her apartment wall. The source went on: ‘Elimination of the possibility that the bloody palm print was someone other than the victim was crucial to the investigation. ‘I do feel better about the case’, Peterson said.
On page 128 Defendant Grisham furthers his defamation by writing, beginning on
the first line, the following:
Armed with another dream confession, the case was coming together nicely for the cops and prosecutors. They had learned with Ward and Fontenot that a lack of physical evidence should not get in the way of an urgent prosecution. The fact that Debbie Carter was not stabbed was of little consequence. Juries will convict if they can be adequately shocked.
On page 132 line 13 Defendant Grisham continues his line of attack when
he wrote:
Though they withheld news about their first dream confession from Ron, the authorities did release the affidavit used for the arrest warrants. The story quoted the affidavit as saying “that both pubic and scalp hair were recovered from Miss Carter’s body and bedding that were consistent microscopically with that of Ronald Keith Williamson and Dennis Fritz.
100. As described above in paragraph 99 Defendant Grisham uses a series of false and
inaccurate statements to defame Plaintiff Peterson and cast Plaintiff Peterson in a
false light. First Defendant Grisham states “And it was important to alert the
townsfolk—the potential jurors”, giving the reader the impression that Plaintiff
Peterson notified the “townsfolk” with the intention to taint the “potential jurors”
thereby depriving Ronald Williamson and Dennis Fritz of a fair trial. Then Defendant
Grisham wrongly and inaccurately implies that Plaintiff Peterson leaked information
32 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 33 of 116
to the media as a “source”, “Peterson wouldn’t confirm the details, but a “source” was
willing to tell all.” Defendant Grisham continues with his defamatory attack by
stating that because of the previous prosecution that Plaintiff Peterson “learned” that
he could convict people without “physical evidence”. Defendant Grisham skillfully
selects the term “physical evidence” in his attempt to paint Tommy Ward and Karl
Fontenot as innocent and Plaintiff Peterson as corrupt and dishonest. Defendant
Grisham chose not to tell the readers that Tommy Ward was identified by at least five
eye witnesses as being at or near the scene of Denice Haraway’s disappearance.
Defendant Grisham knowingly failed to inform the reader that Tommy Ward was
identified walking with his arm around Denice Haraway as she left the convenience
store where she disappeared, leaving her purse behind. Defendant Grisham failed to
tell the reader that Tommy Haraway admitted, at the preliminary hearing and under
oath, that he the eyewitnesses were accurate and truthful and admitted that cigarettes
and beer found at the convenience store in fact belonged to him. Defendant Grisham
failed to tell the readers that Tommy Ward’s confession was corroborated by Karl
Fontenot’s confession and that Karl Fontenot never claimed that he “dreamed” his
confession. Defendant Grisham falsely cast Plaintiff Peterson as a corrupt and
dishonest person, not concerned with seeking justice for murder victims and their
families, but only concerned with winning at all cost, “they had learned with Ward
and Fontenot that a lack of physical evidence should not get in the way of an urgent
prosecution…….Juries will convict if they can be adequately shocked. Defendant
Grisham concludes this series of defamatory attack by attributing actions to Plaintiff
33 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 34 of 116
Peterson that he did not commit when he wrote, “the authorities did release the
affidavit used for the arrest warrants.”
101. As described above in paragraphs 99 and 100 Defendant Grisham misstates the
facts and evidence and withholds facts and evidence. With the statements described
above in paragraphs 99 and 100 Defendant Grisham falsely cast Plaintiff Peterson as
a dishonest and corrupt individual who was willing to convict an innocent man at any
cost.
102. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, and the facts that he withheld, in paragraphs 99 and
100 because of the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State v.
Ward & Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V.
Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010),
Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz
v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V.
City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
103. On page 133 beginning on line 7 Defendant Grisham wrote:
With a hot new crime on the docket, the gossip festered in jail. The snitching games. Always a part of jail life because the police were so willing to play along, began in earnest. The quickest way to freedom, or at least a reduced sentence, was to hear or claim to hear a prized suspect confess in whole or in part to his crime, and then trade this off in an attractive plea bargain with the prosecutor. In most jails, snitching was rare because informants feared retribution from other inmates. In Ada, snitching was a widely practiced because it worked so well.
34 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 35 of 116
104. As described above in paragraph 103 Defendant Grisham misstates the facts
stating that “In Ada, snitching was a widely practiced because it worked so well.”
The truth is that “snitching” was not frequently used in Ada. Defendant Grisham uses
this statement combined with false statements about Terri Holland being “paid” for
her testimony to cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a dishonest and corrupt
individual who was willing to use knowingly false testimony in order to obtain
convictions.
105. The statements described above in paragraph 103 combined with the false
statements concerning Terri Holland being “paid” for her testimony accuses Plaintiff
Peterson of committing felonious criminal conduct of conspiracy to commit
subordination of perjury, subordination of perjury, and obstruction of justice.
106. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, and the facts that he withheld, in paragraph 103
because of the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State v. Ward
& Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore
CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz
v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v.
Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City
Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
107. On page 139 on the last line Defendant Grisham wrote:
35 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 36 of 116
Working independently, but also quietly working together, they filed a truckload of motions and soon had the district attorney’s office scrambling.
108. The statement described above in paragraph 107 is a false statement used by
Defendant Grisham to support his intentionally inaccurate impression of Plaintiff
Peterson as an incompetent prosecutor that has to engage in corrupt and dishonest
practices in order to obtain convictions.
109. On page 143 line 15 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The challenge for a prosecutor at a preliminary hearing was to show just enough evidence to convince the judge that there were reasonable grounds that the defendant was guilty while not yet revealing everything to the defense. It was gamesmanship, with a bit of a risk. Normally, though, a prosecutor had little to worry about. Local judges find it hard to get reelected if they dismiss criminal charges. But with flimsy evidence against both Fritz and Williamson, Bill Peterson had to push hard at the preliminary. He had so little to offer that he could certainly hold nothing back. And the local newspaper would be there, anxious to report every word. Three months after its publication, The Dreams of Ada was still being hotly debated around town. The preliminary hearing would be Peterson’s first performance in a major trial since the book came out.
110. The statement described above in paragraph 109 cast a false impression of the
atmosphere that existed at the time of the Fritz and Williamson prosecutions. Judge
Miller was appointed, not elected. The evidence against Williamson and Fritz, while
they were ultimately proven innocent once DNA was discovered, was not flimsy.
Plaintiff Peterson did not present evidence for the benefit of the local media. The
statements used by Defendant Grisham in paragraph 109 are used to support his
intentionally inaccurate impression and cast Plaintiff Peterson as an incompetent
36 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 37 of 116
prosecutor that has to engage in corrupt and dishonest practices in order to obtain
convictions.
111. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, and the facts that he withheld, in paragraph 109
because of the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State v. Ward
& Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore
CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz
v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v.
Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City
Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
112. On page 145 Defendant Grisham wrote:
How could the state of Oklahoma put him on trial when he was so obviously sick?
On page 147 through page 148Defendant Grisham wrote
The silence of Judge Miller should have been shattered by Barney Ward. As defense counsel, he could have requested a competent psychological evaluation of his client. The next step would have been to seek a competency hearing, the same routine procedure David Morris had pursued two years earlier. A final step would have been an insanity defense.
On page 147 beginning on line Defendant Grisham writes:
After Ron Williamson had spent two months in jail, no one involved in his prosecution or defense had questioned his mental competency. The evidence was blatantly obvious. His medical history was extensive and readily available to the court. His rantings in jail, though somewhat regulated by the arbitrary dispensing of medications by his lawyer and jailers, were clear warnings. His reputation in Ada was well known especially to the
37 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 38 of 116
police. And his behavior in court had been seen before. Two years earlier, when the state attempted to revoke Ron’s suspended sentence on the escape charge, he so completely disrupted the hearing that he was sent to a mental hospital for evaluation. Presiding then was John David Miller, the same Judge Miller who was now holding the preliminary hearing. It was Judge Miller who had adjudicated him to be mentally incompetent at that time.
113. Defendant Grisham, who claims to have thoroughly researched this case before
writing this book, was aware when writing the statements described above in
paragraph 112 that at the time of trial Ronald Williamson’s attorney “had the
opinions of three mental health professionals that Appellant was competent and a
malingerer.” (Williamson v. State, 1991 OK CR 63, paragraph 145) Defendant
Grisham also failed to explain to his readers the definition of legal competency. The
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Grisham failed to explain what it meant to be legally
incompetent because then, even his lay readers would understand that Ron
Williamson was legally competent.
114. As described above in paragraph 112 Defendant Grisham cast another false
impression that Ron Williamson was sympathetic because he may have had an
insanity defense. Defendant Grisham cast this false impression by stating “A final
step would have been an insanity defense.” Defendant Grisham falsely cast this
impression that somehow Ronald Williamson’s rights were violated because he was
deprived of a viable defense. Defendant Grisham, being a lawyer was aware, that an
innocent man cannot assert an insanity defense to something he did not do. A
criminal defendant must admit he committed the crime and qualify under the
McNaughten Rule.
38 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 39 of 116
115. As described above in paragraph 112 Defendant Grisham knowingly makes
another false statement that “It was Judge Miller who had adjudicated him to be
mentally incompetent at that time.” Ron Williamson was not adjudicated incompetent
he was sent away for a competency evaluation and adjudicated a competent person.
116. Defendant Grisham uses the false statements described above in paragraph 112 to
portray Ronald Williamson as a sympathetic figure whose violent outburst in Court
were a result of his mental incompetence. This false impression is important to
Defendant Grisham’s story line because without this false explanation the readers of
his story would be unsympathetic to Ronald Williamson and understand why Plaintiff
Peterson believed strongly in Ron Williamson’s guilt. Defendant Grisham uses the
statements described in paragraph 112 cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a
corrupt and dishonest person who was willing to prosecute a mentally incompetent
person.
117. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, and the facts that he withheld, in paragraph 112
because of the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State v. Ward
& Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore
CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz
v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v.
Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City
Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
118. On page 145 Defendant Grisham wrote:
39 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 40 of 116
Bogus confessions were all too common in Pontotoc County.
119. The statement described above in paragraph 118 is a false statement knowingly
made by Defendant Grisham to support the false light that he cast Plaintiff Peterson in
as a corrupt and dishonest person who convicted criminal defendants by whatever
means necessary.
120. On page 154 Defendant Grisham wrote:
At the time, few people knew that Terri Holland had a history with Ron Williamson. Years earlier, when he was peddling Rawleigh products around Ada, he stumbled upon a little unexpected sex. He knocked on a door, and a female voice asked him to step inside. When he did, a woman named Marlene Keutel presented herself completely in the nude. There appeared to be no one else at home, and one thing quickly lead to another. Marlene Keutel was mentally unstable, and a week after the episode she committed suicide. Ron returned several times to sell her more products, but never found her at home. He did not know she was dead. Her sister was Terri Holland. Shortly after the sexual encounter, Marlene told Teri about it and claimed Ron had raped her. No charges were brought; none were contemplated. Though Terri knew her sister was crazy, she still believed that Ron was responsible for Marlene’s death. Ron had long since forgotten about the quickie, and had no idea who Terri Holland was. . . . Terrie Holland was.
121. If the statement described in paragraph 120 is in fact true Defendant Grisham cast
Plaintiff Peterson in a false light by intentionally failing to inform the readers that
Plaintiff Peterson was unaware of this allegation. Defendant Grisham’s intentional
omissions throughout the book, including his omission about Plaintiff Peterson being
unaware of he first statement given by Glen Gore, cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false
light as an unethical, immoral, and corrupt person.
122. On page 161 Defendant Grisham wrote;
Cindy McIntosh claimed she got close enough to hear the two talk, then notified the police that she had the goods. According to
40 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 41 of 116
McIntosh, Fritz and Williamson discussed some photographs submitted during the first preliminary hearing. Ron wasn’t there, of course, and he was curious about what Dennis had seen. The photos were of the crime scene, and Ron asked Dennis, ‘Was she [Debbie Carter] on the bed or on the floor?’ The floor, Dennis replied.
On page 176 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The next morning Bill Peterson called to the stand Cindy McIntosh, who admitted being in jail on bad-check charges when she met both Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson. She testified that she overheard the two talking, with Ron asking Dennis about the crime scene photos of Debbie Carter. ‘Was she on the bed or on the floor?’ Ron asked Dennis. On the floor, Dennis said. McIntosh admitted that she was not convicted on the check charges. ‘I paid off the checks, and they let me out,’ she said.
123. The statement described in paragraph 122 is used by Defendant Grisham to
further his storyline concerning “snitches” and to falsely create an impression in the
readers mind that of a corrupt criminal justice system in Pontotoc County headed by
Plaintiff Peterson. This false statement creates this false light by intentionally failing
to inform the readers that it is undisputed that the conversation Cindy McIntosh
testified to, did occur. Defendant Grisham fails to inform the readers that Dennis Fritz
testified at his trial under oath that the conversation occurred. Instead Defendant
Grisham chooses to write “Cindy McIntosh claimed she got close enough to hear the
two talk.” This intentional omission of Defendant Grisham’s behalf portrays Plaintiff
Peterson as a prosecutor that uses “snitches” and/or anyone to testify under oath to
obtain a conviction. Defendant Grisham uses these statements in conjunction with the
statements about Terri Holland to further his false story line that witnesses were
“paid” for there testimony. This statement cast Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and
41 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 42 of 116
corrupt person. This also statement suggest that Plaintiff Peterson engaged in
felonious criminal conduct by suborning perjury.
124. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, and the facts that he withheld, in paragraph 122
because of the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State v. Ward
& Fontenot, CRF-84-183, State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore
CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz
v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v.
Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City
Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
125. On page 167 Defendant Grisham wrote:
When the handcuffs were removed Denice glanced at the crowd and wondered which of the hundred or so potential jurors would eventually make it to the final twelve Which of those registered voters sitting out there would judge him.
126. In the statement described above in paragraph 125 Defendant Grisham cast the
false light that Denise Fritz was handcuffed in front of the jury. Defendant Grisham
who claims to have thoroughly researched this case before writing his book knew or
should have know this was inaccurate based upon interviews of those who were
present and clearly established Oklahoma law. Defendant Grisham uses this false
statement of fact and/or false impression to paint an inaccurate picture of unfairness
in the trial of Dennis Fritz, headed by Plaintiff Peterson. This statement furthers
42 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 43 of 116
Defendant Grisham’s effort to falsely cast Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and
corrupt person who is willing to convict criminal defendants at all cost.
127. On page 273 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Kim Marks and Leslie Delk drove to interview Dennis in connection with their investigation. They brought the Ricky Joe Simmons video and played the confession. Dennis, like Ron, was angry that someone else had confessed to the murder they were convicted of committing, yet this information had not been available at his trial. He developed a correspondence with Kim Marks, and she kept him posted on the developments of Ron’s case.
128. The above statements described in paragraph 127 are false. Defendant Grisham
intentionally misstated and/or cast the false impression that this evidence was not
given to the defense during his trial. Both independently and combined with
statements previously described concerning the polygraph video, described above in
paragraph 80, Defendant Grisham cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. These
statements falsely accuse and/or suggest Plaintiff Peterson of hiding the video of
Ricky Joe Simmons confessing to the crime Dennis Fritz and Ronald Williamson was
convicted of. This video was given to the defense and would have been available at
trial, pursuant to the rules of evidence.
129. The statements in paragraph 127 are false and cast the Plaintiff in a false light.
Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and cast the Plaintiff in a false light as
someone who hide evidence and obstructed justice. The statements in paragraph 127
cast the Plaintiff in a false light as someone who is dishonest, corrupt, conspired to
suborn perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice.
43 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 44 of 116
130. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 127 because, in addition to interviews
he claims to have conducted, the pleadings, reports and testimony of the following
cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126,
Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-
1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-
1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B.
131. In addition to the quotes of Defendant Grisham listed above and below Defendant
Grisham also uses a historical account of a lynching to create the false impression in
his reader’s mind that the town of Ada itself was predisposed to engage in vigilante
justice. Defendant Grisham chose to place this passage at the end of chapter four after
he had described the murders of Denice Haraway and Debbie Carter and made the
false statement “The lives of Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers were consumed with the
two murders.” (page 81 line 22) On page 82 Defendant ended chapter four with his
account of a lynching that occurred in 1909. The last line in chapter four reads “For
decades, the lynchings were Ada’s proudest moment.” Defendant Grisham uses this
story not only to cast Plaintiff Peterson and Plaintiff Rogers in a false light, but the
entire town of Ada, Oklahoma.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF ROGERS IN THE INNOCENT MAN
132. On page 152 line 12 Defendant Grisham wrote:
44 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 45 of 116
….she testified in the first Ward/Fontenot trial in Sept 1985 and gave the jury all the lurid details that Detectives Smith and Rogers had furnished Tommy Ward during his dream confessions.
On page 152 line 25 Defendant Grisham wrote;
What an amazing stroke of luck for the cops! Not only had they generated a dream confession-their favorite investigatory tool-but now they had another snitch, their second favorite weapon.
133. The statements above in paragraph 132 are false. With the statements described
above in paragraph 132 Defendant Grisham, among other things, falsely accuses
Plaintiff Rogers of and/or cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as someone who “had
furnished Tommy Ward during his dream confessions” and as someone who
“generated a dream confession.” These statements also imply that Plaintiff Rogers
knowingly recruited and/or used “snitch” witnesses while knowing those witnesses
were being untruthful. These statements give the reader the impressions and/or belief
that Plaintiff Rogers committed the felonious criminal activity of subornation of
perjury, obstruction of justice, violation of the civil rights of Tommy Ward, Dennis
Fritz and Ron Williamson and conspiracy to commit of perjury, obstruction of justice,
violation of the civil rights of Tommy Ward, Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson. This
statement cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as a dishonest and/or corrupt law
enforcement officer. This statement is defamatory and cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false
light.
134. In the statements described in paragraph 132, independently and in conjunction
with paragraphs 91 and 157, Defendant Grisham intentionally withholds relevant
facts in order to cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light and to portray Tommy Ward and
45 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 46 of 116
Karl Fontenot as innocent. Defendant Grisham chose not to tell the readers that
Tommy Ward was identified by at least five eye witnesses as being at or near the
scene of Denice Haraway’s disappearance. Defendant Grisham knowingly failed to
inform the reader that Tommy Ward was identified walking with his arm around
Denice Haraway as she left the convenience store where she disappeared, leaving her
purse behind. Defendant Grisham failed to tell the reader that Tommy Haraway
admitted, at the preliminary hearing and under oath, that the eyewitnesses were
accurate and truthful and admitted that cigarettes and beer found at the convenience
store in fact belonged to him. Defendant Grisham failed to tell the readers that
Tommy Ward’s confession was corroborated by Karl Fontenot’s confession and that
Karl Fontenot never claimed that he “dreamed” his confession. Defendant Grisham
failed to tell the readers that the only mention of a dream in Tommy Ward’s
confession came at the end of his confession when he stated it all seems like a dream
now.
135. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 132, independently and in
conjunction with paragraphs 91 and 157, because of the reports, pleadings and
testimony during the following cases; State v. Ward & Fontenot, CRF-84-43, State
V. Williamson & Fritz CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State
(D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-
1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v.
Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
46 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 47 of 116
136. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mayer intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 132, independently and in conjunction with paragraphs 91 and
157, to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was false.
137. On page 14 of The Innocent Man beginning on line 1 Defendant Grisham wrote
Gore hustled over to the station, where he was interviewed by Gary Rogers and D.W. Barnett, an Ada policeman. He told them that he had known Debbie Carter since high school and he had seen her at the Coachlight the night before. The entire police report of Gore’s interview reads as follows: Glen Gore works at Harold’s Club about 7:30 PM, 12-8-82. Glen went to school with Debbie. Glen saw her Monday Dec 6th at Harold’s Club. Glen saw her 12-7-82 at the Coachlight. They talked about painting Debbie’s car. Never said anything to Glen about having problems with anyone. Glen went to Coachlight about 10:30 PM with Ron West. Left with Ron about 1:15 AM. Glen has never been to Debbie’s apt. The report was prepared by D.W. Barrett, witnessed by Gary Rogers, and filed away with dozens of others.
Then on page 148 line 18 Grisham wrote:
Under cross-examination, Gore said he told the police about this on December 8, but their report of his interview does not mention Ron Williamson. Nor was their report submitted to the defense, as required by the rules of procedure.
138. The statements in paragraph 137 are false. These statements imply that Plaintiff
Rogers knowingly did not submit the report of Glen Gore’s first interview. Defendant
Grisham failed to disclose that Plaintiff Rogers was not in possession of the report of
Glen Gore’s first interview, that Plaintiff Rogers was not even aware that Glen Gore
had given this statement to the Ada police, and falsely claims that Plaintiff Rogers
interviewed Glen Gore. The statements in paragraph 137, both independently and in
combination, falsely states and/or implies that Plaintiff Rogers committed the
criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a
47 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 48 of 116
criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. Not only do these statements wrongfully
accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct (libel per se) these statements damaged
his reputation and cast him in a false light.
139. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 137 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony of Danny Barrett and others involved in the
following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-
126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also
readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada
Police Department Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the
investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B).
140. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck and defendant Mayer intentionally
made the defamatory statement in paragraph 137 to Defendant Grisham while
knowing the statement was false.
141. On page 15 line 1 Defendant Grisham falsely states:
At 3:00 the following afternoon, December 9, Dr. Fred Jordan, a state medical examiner and forensic pathologist, performed an autopsy. Present were Agent Gary Rogers and Jerry Peters, also with the OSBI.
142. The statement in paragraph 141 is false. Plaintiff Rogers was not present with
Jerry Peters at the autopsy. The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was
made, among others reasons, to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a
48 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 49 of 116
conspiracy concerning the bloody palm print of Debbie Carter described above. This
statement, both independently and in combination with other statements, cast Plaintiff
Rogers in a false light falsely states and/or implies that Plaintiff Rogers committed
the criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a
criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. Not only do these statements wrongfully
accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct (libel per se) these statements damaged
his reputation and cast him in a false light.
143. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 141 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony involved in the following cases; State V.
Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the
OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department
Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the
Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
144. On page 17: lines 13-15 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The police put together a list of twenty-three people who were at the Coachlight on December 7, and interviewed most of them. No one recalled seeing Ron Williamson, though most new him.
145. The statement in paragraph 144 is false and cast the Plaintiffs in a false light. This
statement implies that the witnesses were questioned about whether Ron Williamson
was at the Coachlight the night of Debbie Carter’s murder. The Plaintiffs allege that
this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons, to support Defendant
49 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 50 of 116
Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. In
this statement Defendant Grisham fails to inform the readers that Plaintiff Rogers was
not even aware of whom Ron Williamson was until March 8, 1983 when he
interviewed Robert Deatherage. This statement, both independently and in
combination with other statements, cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light falsely states
and/or implies that Plaintiff Rogers committed the criminal acts of subornation of
perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s
constitutional rights. Not only do these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers
of criminal conduct (libel per se) these statements damaged his reputation and cast
him in a false light.
146. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 144 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony involved in the following cases; State V.
Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the
OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department
Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the
Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
147. On page 68 lines 1-19Defendant Grisham wrote:
The post- polygraph began with a fury. Rogers, playing the bad cop, began cursing and threatening and saying, ‘You’re hiding something, Fritz,” over and over, Smith tried to play the role of Frit’s true friend, but it was a juvenile act and an old one at that. Rogers was dressed like a cowboy, boots and all, and his style was
50 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 51 of 116
to strut around the room, fuming, cursing, threatening, talking about death row and lethal injections, then suddenly he would lunge at Fritz, jab him in the chest, and tell him he was going to confess. The routine was frightening enough, but not very effective. Fritz said over and over, “Get out of my face.” Rogers finally accused him of the rape and murder. He got angry, and his language became even more abusive as he described how Fritz and his sidekick, Williamson, broke in on the girl, raped her and killed her, and now he, Rogers, was demanding a confession. With no evidence, only a confession could’ve solved the case, and the cops were desperate to squeeze one out of Fritz. But he didn’t budge. He had nothing to confess, but after two hours of verbal abuse he wanted to give them something.
On page 124 line 25 through page125 line 23 Defendant Grisham writes:
They took him to a small interrogation room at a police station in Kansas City. Smith and Rogers went through the Miranda warnings, then announced that they intended to get a confession. Dennis kept thinking of Ward and Fontenot and was determined to give them nothing. Smith became the nice guy, his pal who really wanted to help. Rogers was instantly abusive—cursing, threatening, poking Dennis in the chest repeatedly. Four years had passed since their last session. In June 1983, after Fritz had ‘severely flunked’ the second polygraph, Smith Rogers, and Featherstone had kept him in the basement of the Ada Police Department for three hours and badgered him. They got nothing then, and they were getting nothing now. Rogers was furious. The cops had known for years that Fritz and Williamson raped and murdered Debbie Carter, and now the crime had been solved. All they needed was a confession. ‘I have nothing to confess,’ Fritz said over and over. What evidence do you have? Show me the evidence. One of Roger’s favorite lines was, ‘You’re insulting my intelligence.’ And each time Fritz was tempted to say, ‘What intelligence?’ But he did not want to get slapped. After two hours of abuse, Fritz finally said, ‘All right, I’ll confess.’ The cops were relived; since they had no proof, they were about to crack the case with a confession. Smith hustled out to find a tape recorder. Rogers quickly arranged his notepad and pens. Let’s have it. When they were all set, Fritz looked directly at the tape recorder and said, ‘Here’s the truth. I did not kill Debbie Carter and know nothing about her murder.’ Smith and Rogers went ballistic— more threats, more verbal abuse. Fritz was rattled and frightened, but he held firm. He maintained his innocence, and they finally called off the interrogation. He refused extradition to Oklahoma.
51 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 52 of 116
148. The statement in paragraph 147 is false and cast the Plaintiffs in a false light. This
statement falsely accuses Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct. This statement accuses
Plaintiff Rogers of assault and violation of a criminal defendant’s civil rights. This
statement also portrays Plaintiff Rogers in a false and defamatory manner casting him
in a false light as abusive and corrupt. Plaintiff Rogers never assaulted threatened or
verbally abused Dennis Smith during his police interrogation. The Plaintiffs allege
that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons, to support Defendant
Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. In
this statement Defendant Grisham fails to inform the readers that the interview of
Dennis Fritz’s polygraph was video taped and none of the behavior Defendant
Grisham describes is depicted. This statement, both independently and in combination
with other statements, cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light falsely states and/or
implies that Plaintiff Rogers committed the criminal acts of subornation of perjury,
obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights.
Not only do these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct
(libel per se) these statements damaged his reputation and cast him in a false light.
149. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 147 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony of Danny Barrett and others involved in the
following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-
126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also
52 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 53 of 116
readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada
Police Department Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the
investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B).
150. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fritz intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 147 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
151. On page 70, line 19 – 20 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers were routinely updating Peterson on the investigation.
152. The statement described above in paragraph 151 is false and has no basis in fact.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. This statement, both independently and in combination with other
statements, cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light falsely states and/or implies that
Plaintiff Rogers committed the criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. Not only do
these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct (libel per se)
these statements damaged his reputation and cast him in a false light.
153. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 151 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony of Danny Barrett and others involved in the
53 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 54 of 116
following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-
126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also
readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada
Police Department Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the
investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B).
154. On page 81 line 22 through page 82 line 3 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The lives of Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers were consumed with the two murders. For Rogers, the pressure was even worse. One year before the disappearance of Denice Haraway, a similar crime had been committed in Seminole, thirty miles north of Ada. An eighteen-year-old girl named Patty Hamilton was working at an all-night convince store when she vanished. A customer walked in and found the store empty, the cash register cleaned out, two open soft drink cans on the counter, no sign of a struggle. Her car was found outside the store. She was gone without a clue, and for a year the police had assumed she’d been abducted and murdered. The OSBI agent in charge of the Patty Hamilton case was Gary Rogers. Debbie Carter, Denice Haraway, Patty Hamilton—agent Rogers had the unsolved murders of three young women on his desk.
155. The statement described above in paragraph 154 is false and has no basis in fact.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. This statement, both independently and in combination with other
statements, cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light falsely states and/or implies that
Plaintiff Rogers committed the criminal acts of subornation of perjury, obstruction of
justice, and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. Not only do
54 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 55 of 116
these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct (libel per se)
these statements damaged his reputation and cast him in a false light.
156. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 154 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony of Danny Barrett and others involved in the
following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-
126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this statement can was also
readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated with State v. Williamson, The Ada
Police Department Reports (Red book) associated with State v. Williamson, and the
investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada,
CIV-00-194-B).
157. On page 90 beginning on line 27 through page 93 line 27 Defendant
Grisham wrote
And he threatened again to turn Tommy over to those ‘two cops’ waiting in the next room, as if a lengthy torture session could be in the works. Tommy was stunned and confused and very frightened. When he refused to confess to Featherstone, the nice cop turned him over to Smith and Rogers, who were already angry and seemed ready to throw punches. Featherstone stayed in the room, and as soon as the door closed, Smith lunged at Tommy, yelling, ‘You Karl Fontenot, and Otis Titsworth grabbed that girl, took her out to the power plant, raped her and killed her, didn’t you?’ No Tommy said, trying to think clearly and not panic. Talk to us, you little lying sonofabitch, Smith growled. You just flunked a polygraph, we know you’re lying, and we know you killed that girl! Tommy was trying to place Odell Titsworth, a name he had heard but a man he’d never met. Odell lived somewhere around Ada, he thought, and he had a bad reputation, but Tommy could not remember meeting him. Maybe he’d seen him once or twice, but at the moment he couldn’t remember, because Smith was
55 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 56 of 116
yelling and pointing and ready to punch him. Smith repeated his theory about the three men snatching the girl, and Tommy said no. No, I had nothing to do with it. ‘I don’t even know Odell Titsworth.’ Yes, you do, Smith corrected him. Stop lying. Karl Fontenot’s involvement in their theory was easier to understand because he and Tommy had been friends off and on for a couple of years. But Tommy was bewildered by the accusations and terrified of the smug certainty of Smith and Rogers. Back and forth they went with their threats and verbal abuse. The language deteriorated and soon included every profanity and obscenity on the list. Tommy was sweating and dizzy and trying desperately to think rationally. He kept his responses short. No. I didn’t do it. No I wasn’t involved. A few times he wanted to lash out with sarcastic comments, but he was scared. Smith and Rogers were erupting, and armed, and Tommy was locked in a room with them and Featherstone. His interrogation showed no signs of ending anytime soon. After sweating through three hours with Featherstone and suffering an hour of torment from Smith and Rogers, Tommy really needed a break. He needed to find a restroom and smoke a cigarette and clear his head. He needed help, to talk to someone who could tell him what was going on. Can I take a break? He asked. Just a few more minutes, they said. Tommy noticed a video camera on a nearby table, unplugged and neglecting the verbal battering underway. Surely, he thought, this cannot be standard police procedure. Smith and Rogers repeatedly reminded Tommy that Oklahoma uses lethal injection to kill its killers. He was facing death, certain death, but there might be a way to avoid it. Come clean, tell what happened, lead them to the body, and they would use their influence to get him a deal. ‘I didn’t do it,” Tommy kept saying. He had a dream, Featherstone informed his two colleagues. Tommy repeated the dream, and again it was met with disapproval. The three cops agreed that the dream made little sense, to which Tommy replied again, ‘Most dreams don’t’. But the dream gave the cops something to work with, and they began adding to it. The other two men in the truck were Odell Titsworth and Karl Fontenot, right? No, Tommy insisted. The men in his dream were not identified. No names. Bullshit. The girl was Denice Haraway, right? No, the girl was not identified in his dream. Bullshit. For another hour, the cops added the necessary details to Tommy’s dream, and every new fact was denied by him. It was just a dream, he kept saying over and over and over. Just a dream. Bullshit, said the cops. After two hours of non-stop hammering, Tommy finally cracked. The pressure came from fear—Smith and Rogers were angry and seemed perfectly able and willing to slap him around if not outright shoot him—but also from the horror of wasting away
56 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 57 of 116
on death row before finally getting executed. And it was obvious to Tommy the he would not be allowed to leave until he gave the cops something. After five hours in the room, he was exhausted, confused, and almost paralyzed with fear. He made a mistake that would send him to death row and eventually cost him his freedom for life. Tommy decided to play along. Since he was completely innocent, and he assumed Karl Fontenot and Odell Titsworth were too, then give the cops what they wanted. Play along with their fiction. The truth would quickly be discovered. Tomorrow or the next day, the cops would realize that the story did not check out. They would talk to Karl, and he would tell the truth. They would find Odell Titsworth, and he would laugh at them. Play along. Good police work will find the truth. If his dream confession was sufficiently ridiculous, how could anyone believe it? Didn’t Odell go in the store first? Sure, why not, Tommy said. It was only a dream. Now the cops were getting somewhere. The boy was finally breaking under their clever tactics. Robbery was the motive, right? Sure, whatever, it was only a dream, and Tommy played along. It was only a dream.
On page 94 lines 18 – 23 Defendant Grisham wrote:
With each call back from Baskin, Smith and Rogers made modifications to Tommy’s dream. The hours dragged on, the suspect was beyond fatigue. They tag-teamed, back and forth, good cop, bad cop, voices low and almost sympathetic, then burst of yelling, cursing, threatening. ‘You lyin’ little sonofabitch!’ was their favorite. Tommy had it screamed at him a thousand times.
On page 95 lines 3 through 29 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Tommy was brain-dead and barely able to mumble. He tried to recite their tale but kept getting the facts mixed up. Smith and Rogers would stop him, repeat their fiction, and make him start over. Finally, after four rehearsals with little improvement and their star fading fast, the cops decided to turn on the camera. Do it now, they said to Tommy. Do it right, and none of that dream bullshit. ‘But the story ain’t true,’ Tommy said. Just tell it anyway, the cops insisted, then we’ll help you prove it’s not true. And none of that dream bullshit. At 6:58 P.M., Tommy Ward looked at the camera and stated his name. He had been interrogated for eight and a half hours, and he was physically and emotionally wasted. He was smoking a cigarette, his first of the afternoon, and sitting before him was a soft drink can, as if he and the cops were just finishing up a friendly little chat, nice and
57 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 58 of 116
civilized. He told his tale. He, Karl Fontenot, and Odell Titsworth kidnapped Denice Haraway from the store, drove out to the power plant on the west side of town, raped her, killed her, and then tossed her body somewhere near a concrete bunker out by Sandy Creek. The murder weapon was Titsworth’s lock-blade knife. It was all a dream, he said. Or meant to say. Or thought he said. Several times he used the name ‘Titsdale.’ The detectives stopped him and helpfully suggested the name ‘Titsworth.’ Tommy corrected himself and plodded on. He kept thinking, Any blind cop could see I'm lying.
On page 100 lines 20 – 24 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Rogers, Smith, and Featherstone knew [the importance of Miranda warnings] because they made sure Tommy’s Miranda procedure was properly recorded. What was not seen on the video was the five and a half hours of nonstop threats and verbal abuse. The confessions of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot were constitutional disasters . . .
158. These statements in paragraph 157 are false and cast the Plaintiffs in a false light.
These statements falsely accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct. These
statements accuse Plaintiff Rogers of assault, subornation of perjury, obstruction of
justice, violation of a criminal defendant’s civil rights, and a conspiracy to commit
the aforementioned offenses. These statements also portray Plaintiff Rogers in a false
and defamatory manner casting him in a false light as abusive and corrupt. Plaintiff
Rogers never assaulted threatened or verbally abused Tommy Ward during his police
interrogation, nor did Plaintiff Rogers stand by as another officer engaged in such
behavior. As described above in paragraphs 132 through 136 Plaintiff Rogers did not
generate or add facts to a suspect’s statement and/or confession as written by
Defendant Grisham. Defendant Grisham fails to inform the reader that while being
questioned under oath that Tommy Ward testified that he was not abused, threatened
or mistreated. The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among
58 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 59 of 116
others reasons, to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict
Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. These statements, both independently and in
combination with other statements, cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light falsely states
and/or implies that Plaintiff Rogers committed the criminal acts of subornation of
perjury, obstruction of justice, and/or violation of a criminal defendant’s
constitutional rights. Not only do these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers
of criminal conduct (libel per se) these statements damaged his reputation and cast
him in a false light.
159. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 157 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony of Rusty Featherstone, Tommy Ward and others
involved in the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90 And State
V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The falsity of this
statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated with State v.
Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated with State v.
Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the civil suit (Fritz
V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
160. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mayer intentionally made the defamatory
statements in paragraph 157 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
161. On page 96 lines 4 – 10 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The next morning, Smith and Rogers called a press conference and
59 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 60 of 116
announced they had solved the Haraway case. Tommy Ward, age twenty-four, of Ada, had confessed and implicated two other men who were not yet in custody. The cops asked the press to sit on the story for a couple of days, until they could round up the other suspects. The newspaper complied, but a television station did not. The news was soon broadcast over southeastern Oklahoma.
162. The statement described above in paragraph 161 is false and has no basis in fact.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. This statement, both independently and in combination with other
statements, including but not limited to those described above in paragraph 76 in
which Grisham accuses Plaintiff Peterson of alerting the “townsfolk” and paragraph
99 in which he accused authorities of releasing the arrest warrant affidavit, was made
to cast Plaintiff Rogers and/or Plaintiff Peterson in a false light and/or imply that
Plaintiff Rogers and/or Plaintiff Peterson are unethical, corrupt and willing to use
whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction. These statements also
falsely cast Plaintiff Rogers in a light of violation OSBI policy.
163. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 161 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
60 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 61 of 116
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
164. On page 113 lines 20 – 24 Defendant Grisham wrote:
But he was soon appalled by the actions of Smith and Rogers, and by the legal proceedings against Ward and Fontenot. There was no evidence other than the confessions, and, as shocking as they were, they were so full of contradictions that they could not be believed.
165. In the statement described above in paragraph 164 Defendant Grisham references
Defendant Mayer’s alleged thoughts and feelings about the conviction of his relative,
Tommy Ward. Defendant Grisham uses this statement to cats the false impression of
the lack of evidence against Karl Fontenot and Tommy Ward. Defendant Grisham
intentionally fails to include relevant facts concerning the evidence against Karl
Fontenot and Tommy Ward, including but not limited to the following; that Tommy
Ward was identified by at least five eye witnesses as being at or near the scene of
Denice Haraway’s disappearance, that Tommy Ward was identified walking with his
arm around Denice Haraway as she left the convenience store where she disappeared
(leaving her purse behind), that Tommy Haraway admitted (at the preliminary hearing
and under oath) that the eyewitnesses were accurate and truthful and admitted that
cigarettes and beer found at the convenience store in fact belonged to him, that
Tommy Ward’s confession was corroborated by Karl Fontenot’s confession and that
Karl Fontenot never claimed that he “dreamed” his confession, that Tommy Ward
testified under oath that he was not threatened or abused by the police. Defendant
Grisham intentionally leaves out the aforementioned facts so that he can build on his
inaccurate theme that Karl Fontenot and Tommy Ward were wrongly convicted. This
61 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 62 of 116
false theme of wrongful conviction of Karl Fontenot and Tommy Ward is central to
Defendant Grisham’s storyline, which cast the Plaintiffs in this case in a false light,
that the Plaintiffs involved in this case are unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
166. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 164 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
167. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Mayer intentionally made the defamatory
statements in paragraph 164 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
168. On page 123 line 13 through page 124 line 23 Defendant Grisham wrote;
Fifteen minutes later he heard a series of car doors slam nearby. He got up, barefoot, and was walking to the front door when he saw a small army of combat-ready troops, dressed in black and heavily armed, moving across the lawn. What the hell? He thought. For a split second he considered calling the police. The doorbell rang, and when he opened the door, two plainclothes cops grabbed him, pulled him outside, and demanded to know, ‘Are you Dennis Fritz?’ ‘Yes, I am.’ ‘Then you’re under arrest for first- degree murder,’ one growled while the other slapped on the handcuffs. ‘What murder are you talking about?’ Dennis asked, then had a quick thought: How many Dennis Fritzes are there in Kansas City? Surely they’ve got the wrong one. His aunt appeared at the door, saw the SWAT team advancing on Dennis,
62 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 63 of 116
submachine guns aimed at the ready, and became hysterical. His mother ran from her bedroom as the police entered the house to ‘secure’ it, though, when questioned, they were unclear as to whom and what they wished to secure. Dennis did not own a firearm. There were no other known or suspected murderers on the premises, but the SWAT boys had their procedures. Just as Dennis was convinced he was about to be gunned down at the front door, he glanced up and saw a white Stetson hat moving his way. Two nightmares from his past were approaching on the driveway. Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers happily joined the fracas, with ‘shit-eating grins’ from ear to ear. Oh, that murder, Dennis thought. In their finest hour, the two small-town cowboys had conned the Kansas City Fugitive Apprehension Unit into conducting the dramatic but senseless raid. ‘Can I get my shoes?’ Dennis asked, and the cops reluctantly agreed. Fritz was placed in the backseat of a police car, where he was joined by an ecstatic Dennis Smith. One of the K.C. detectives did the driving. As they left, Fritz looked at the heavily armed SWAT boys and thought, How stupid. Any part-time deputy could’ve made the arrest at the local grocery store. As stunned as he was by the arrest, he had to chuckle as he noticed how dejected the K.C. police looked.
169. In the statement described above in paragraph 168 Defendant Grisham references
a false description of the arrest of Defendant Fritz in Kansas City that was also
published in Defendant Fritz’s book Journey Toward Justice. The description given
above is factually inaccurate and contains complete fabrications. There was not a
SWAT team involved in Fritz’s arrest, there were no men dressed in combat gear, and
there were no heavy weapons involved. There was just one plain clothes officer and
two Kansas City Police uniformed officers that went to his door and made the arrest.
Plaintiff Rogers did not “happily joined the fracas, with ‘shit-eating grins’ from ear to
ear.” Defendant Grisham uses this statement independently along with other
statements to build on his factually inaccurate theme of Plaintiff Rogers being an
overzealous law enforcement officer who would stop at nothing, including violating
the law to obtain the conviction of Dennis Fritz. The aforementioned statement and
63 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 64 of 116
theme is defamatory and cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.
170. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 168 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
171. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fritz intentionally made the defamatory
statements in paragraph 168 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
172. On page 125: line 24 through page 128 line 2 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Later that day, Saturday, Ron was led from the jail to the police station for another interview. Smith and Rogers, back from their thrilling arrest of Fritz, were waiting. Their goal was to make him talk. The interrogation had been planned since the day before the arrest. The Dreams of Ada had just been published, and there was criticism of the methods of Smith and Rogers. They decided that Smith, who lived in Ada, should be replaced by Rusty Featherstone, who lived in Oklahoma City. They also decided not to use video. Dennis Smith was in the building but stayed away from the interview room. After leading the investigation for over four years, and believing for much of that time that Williamson was guilty, he nonetheless avoided the crucial interrogation. The Ada Police Department was well stocked with audio and video equipment, and it was frequently used. Interrogations, and especially confessions, were almost always recorded on tape. The police were quite aware of the powerful impact of showing a confession to a jury. Ask Ward and Fontenot. Ron’s second
64 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 65 of 116
polygraph four years earlier had been taped by Featherstone at the Ada Police Department. When confessions were not recorded on video, they were often taken by audio. The police had plenty of tape recorders. And when neither audio nor video was used, the suspect was usually asked to write, if he could in fact read and write, his own version of what happened. If they suspect happened to be illiterate, then a detective would write the statement, read it back to the defendant, and ask him to sign it. None of these methods were used on May 9. Williamson, who was quite literate and had a much wider vocabulary than either of his two interrogators, watched as Featherstone took notes. He said he understood his Miranda rights and agreed to talk. The police version reads as follows: Williamson said, ‘Okay December 8th, 1982, I was hanging out at the Coachlight frequently and I was there one night looking at a girl, a pretty girl, and I thought I should follow here home.’ Williamson paused, then acted as if he wished to say something that started with the letter F, but then paused again. Then he continued, ‘Thought what if something bad would happen that night, and followed her home.’ Williamson then paused and talked about when he stole a stereo. Williamson then said, ‘I was with Dennis, and we went to the Holiday Inn, and told a girl that we had a bar in our car, and got her and she jumped.’ Williamson talked in sporadic phrases and Agent Rogers asked Williamson to concentrate and get back to talking about the Debbie Carter case. Williamson said, ‘Okay, I had a dream about killing Debbie, was on her, had a cord around her neck, stabbed her, frequently, pulled the rope around her neck.’ Williamson said, ‘I am worried about what this will do to my family,’ and then he said, ‘My mother is dead now.’ Agent Rogers asked Williamson if he and Dennis were there that night and Williamson answered ‘yes.’ Agent Featherstone asked Williamson, ‘Did you go there with the intention to kill her?’ Williamson responded, ‘Probably.’ Agent Featherstone asked, ‘Why?’ Williamson responded, ‘She made me mad.’ Agent Featherstone asked, ‘How do you mean? Mean to you? A bitch?’ Williamson responded, ‘No.’ Williamson paused briefly then said, ‘Oh my God you can’t expect me to confess, I’ve got my family, I’ve got my nephew to protect. My sister, it will tear her up. It can’t hurt my mother now since she is dead. It’s been on my mind since it happened.’ At about 1938 hours, Williamson said, ‘If you’re going to try me on this, I want Tanner in Tulsa. No, I want David Morris.’ The mention of a lawyer spooked the detectives, and they stopped the confession. They called David Morris, who instructed them to stop interrogating Ron Immediately. The statement was not signed by Ron. It was never shown to him. Armed with another dream
65 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 66 of 116
confession, the case was coming together nicely for the cops and prosecutors.
173. In the statement described above in paragraph 172 Defendant Grisham
cast the false impression that Rusty Featherstone replaced Smith for
Williamson’s interrogation because of the book, Dreams of Ada, this is not
true and was explained in the depositions associated with Fritz V. City Of
Ada, CIV-00-194-B. Defendant Grisham uses this false statement both
independently and along with others to build on his false theme that Plaintiff
Rogers and Plaintiff Peterson were motivated to convict Ron Williamson and
Dennis Fritz in part because of the pressure they felt from the publishing of
the Dreams of Ada. Defendant Grisham cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light by
withholding from the reader the explanation for Agent Featherstone
participating in the Ron Williamson interview. This was explained in the
depositions associated with Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B Agent
Featherstone was brought in because he had polygraphed Ron Williamson and
they got along fairly well, Grisham goes to great lengths to describe the
Agents access to recording devices and how a statement should be taken.
Defendant Grisham then states that none of these methods were used, without
explaining why to the reader. Defendant Grisham failed to explain to the
reader the reason a recording device was not used. The reason that a recording
device was not used was explained in the aforementioned depositions. When
Ron Williamson was brought to Plaintiff Rogers’ office he was some what
subdued. Ron Williamson was brought in and seated and Agent Rogers read
66 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 67 of 116
him his Miranda warning. Before anything else could be said or done, Ron
Williamson started talking and agent Featherstone started writing it down. As
Plaintiff Rogers explained in his deposition Agent Rogers did not want to stop
Ron Williamson while he was talking and try and set up a recording device, so
Plaintiff Rogers let him talk after a couple of minutes, Ron Williamson
requested a lawyer and one was contacted for him. The interview was stopped
at the request of the lawyer Ron Williamson requested be called for him, so
Plaintiff Rogers and Agent Featherstone had no opportunity to have Ron
Williamson review and sign his statement. Defendant Grisham uses the
passage described above in paragraph 172 to build on the false theme that
bogus confessions “were all too common in Pontotoc County” as described
above in paragraph 118 and paragraph 88. This false light that Defendant
Grisham creates in his book cast Plaintiff Rogers as a corrupt and dishonest
investigator who either through coercion or lying and perjury obtained bogus
confessions. As describe in paragraph 172 Defendant Grisham wrote that
Williamson was quite literate and had a much wider vocabulary than either of
his two interrogators. This is a false statement without a basis in fact or
Defendant Grisham having a legitimate basis for making it, Defendant
Grisham never interviewed Ron Williamson and there was no recording of the
interrogation. Defendant Grisham uses this statement independently along
with others to cast the false impression that Agent Rogers was not very
intelligent and incapable of performing his job. When Defendant Grisham
states “Armed with another dream confession, the case was coming together
67 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 68 of 116
nicely for the cops and prosecutors” Defendant Grisham cast the false
impression that Plaintiff Rogers were lying about statements made by Ron
Williamson. With this statement Defendant Grisham cast Plaintiff Rogers in a
false light as someone who is dishonest, corrupt and is willing to commit
felonious criminal conduct including but not limited to perjury and obstruction
of justice. Defendant Grisham uses this statement independently along with
other statements to build on his factually inaccurate theme of Plaintiff Rogers
being an overzealous law enforcement officer who would stop at nothing,
including violating the law to obtain the conviction of Ron Williamson and
Dennis Fritz. The aforementioned statement and theme is defamatory and cast
Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.
174. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 172 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
175. On page 129 line 11 through 18 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Christian thought little of the conversation, but did repeat it to a fellow officer. It was repeated again and again, and finally made it to Gary Rogers. The detective saw an opportunity for additional
68 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 69 of 116
evidence against their killer. Two months later, he asked Christian to repeat what Ron had told him. Rogers typed up a report, added quotation marks where he thought appropriate, and the police and prosecutor then had their second dream confession. Not a single word was included to reflect Ron’s many denials of involvement in the crime.
176. The statement described above in paragraph 175 is false and factually inaccurate.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. Plaintiffs allege that the false statement made in paragraph 175 was
designed by defendant Grisham to cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as someone
who is corrupt and dishonest.
177. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 175 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
178. On page175 line 1 through 29 Defendant Grisham wrote:
The next informant was Mike Tenney, the jailer-trainee who’d been used by the police to gather some dirt on Dennis. With little experience or training in law enforcement, Tenney began his career at the jail, and his first assignment had been Dennis Fritz. Eager to impress those who might hire him permanently, he spent a lot of time outside Dennis’s cell, chatting about everything but especially
69 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 70 of 116
about the Carter murder. He had plenty of advice. In his learned opinion, Dennis’s situation looked grave, so the best thing to do would be to cut a deal, negotiate a plea bargain, save his own skin, and testify against Ron Williamson. Peterson would be fair. Dennis had played along, careful to say nothing because anything might be repeated in court. Being a rookie, Tenney had not testified much and had not rehearsed his lines. He began by trying to recall a story about Dennis and Ron hopping bars in Oklahoma City, a story not even remotely connected to the Carter murder. Saunders objected. Judge Jones sustained. Then Tenney stepped into hot water when he testified that he and Dennis discussed the issue of a plea bargain. Twice he mentioned a plea bargain, a highly prejudicial issue because it strongly implied that Dennis had contemplated pleading guilty. Greg Saunders objected loudly and moved for a mistrial. Judge Jones overruled. Tenney finally managed to testify without the lawyers jumping to their feet. He explained to the jury that he had spoken often with Dennis, and after every conversation he had hustled back to the front desk at the jail and written down everything that was said. According to his handler, Gary Rogers, this was the way things were done. Good police work.
179. The statement described above in paragraph 178 is false and factually inaccurate.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. Plaintiffs allege that the false statement made in paragraph 178 was
designed by defendant Grisham to cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as someone
who is corrupt and dishonest.
180. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 178 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
70 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 71 of 116
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
181. On page 192 line 15 through 21 Defendant wrote:
The truth was that Gary Allen couldn’t identify anyone and had no idea when the incident occurred. He was a drug addict, well known to the police. He knew Dennis Smith because they had attended classes at the local college. Smith approached him shortly after the murder and asked if he’d seen or heard anything suspicious in the early hours of December 8. Allen said he had seen two men squirting themselves with a water hose at the house next door, but could not remember the date. Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers jumped to the conclusion that it was Fritz and Williamson washing off the blood of Debbie Carter. They pressed Allen for details, even showed him a photo of the murder scene. They suggested that the two men were Fritz and Williamson, but Allen could not, and would not, identify the two. Shortly before the trial, Gary Rogers stopped by Allen’s apartment and again suggested details. Wasn’t it really Fritz and Williamson, and didn’t he see them outside, early in the morning, sometime around December 8? No, Allen could not be certain. Rogers brushed his coat away from his hip so Allen could see his service revolver. He said that Allen might get lead poisoning if his memory didn’t improve. It did, but just barely enough to testify.
182. The statement described above in paragraph 181 is false and factually inaccurate.
The Plaintiffs allege that this misstatement of fact was made, among others reasons,
to support Defendant Grisham’s storyline of a conspiracy to convict Ron Williamson
and Dennis Fritz. Plaintiffs allege that the false statement made in paragraph 181 was
designed by defendant Grisham to cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as someone
who is corrupt and dishonest. The statements described in paragraph 181 accuse
Plaintiff Rogers of committing felonious criminal conduct and are liable per se.
71 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 72 of 116
183. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of the statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, referenced in paragraph 181 because of the
pleadings, discovery and testimony the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90 And State V. Gore CF-01-126, Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B. The
falsity of this statement can was also readily apparent by the OSBI Reports associated
with State v. Williamson, The Ada Police Department Reports (Red book) associated
with State v. Williamson, and the investigation by the Plaintiffs’ investigator in the
civil suit (Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B).
184. On page 194 line 20 through page 195 line 11 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Rogers made a huge mistake. He mentioned Ron’s 1983 interrogation, on video, in which Ron had steadfastly denied any involvement. Barney was incredulous. Why had he not been told of this tape? Pretrial discovery required the prosecution to hand over all exculpatory evidence. Barney had timely filed the proper motions, months earlier. The prior September the court had ordered the prosecution to provide defense counsel with all statements made by Ron relative to the murder investigation. How could the police and prosecutor sit on the tape for four and a half years and hide it from the defense? Barney had very few witnesses at his disposal, since the case against Ron was basically an ‘admission’ case, one in which the state was using a variety of witnesses, albeit a rather sketchy collection, to testify that Ron, at various times and in various ways, admitted to the murder. The only real way to fight such testimony was to deny it, and the only person who could deny making the admissions was Ron himself. Barney planned to put Ron on the stand in his own defense, but he was terrified of the prospect. The 1983 tape would have been a powerful tool to show the jury. Four and a half years, earlier, long before the prosecution had put together its roster of shady witnesses, and long before Rod had such a lengthy criminal record to answer to, he had sat before a camera and repeatedly denied any involvement.
72 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 73 of 116
185. The statements listed in paragraph 184 are false, defamatory and cast Plaintiff
Rogers in a false light. These statements falsely accuse Plaintiff Rogers of hiding “a
powerful tool to show the jury” from the defense. Defendant Grisham, being a
lawyer, made these statements knowing the 1983 video tape of his polygraph
examination would not “have been” “a powerful tool to show the jury” because the
following reasons, both individually and collectively, it did not prove or disprove
anything, it was not admissible because polygraphs are inadmissible in the state of
Oklahoma, the tape was not admissible because it was a self serving declaration and
therefore inadmissible hearsay, it was not material to guilt or punishment under
Brady, and the video was actually inculpatory because Ron Williamson denied that he
was ever in Debbie Carter’s apartment and the evidence at the time suggested that his
hair was recovered from her apartment.
186. The statements in paragraph 184 are false and cast the Plaintiff in a false light.
Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and cast the Plaintiff in a false light as
someone who hide evidence and obstructed justice. The statements in paragraph 184
cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as an unethical and corrupt person.
187. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew the falsity of these statements, or made the statement in
reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 184 because of the pleadings, reports
and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz, CRF-87-90, State
V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-647, PCD-1992-
1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v. Champion HC-1988-
73 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 74 of 116
894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court O-1992-587, and
Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
188. In paragraph 184 Defendant Grisham defames the Plaintiff and falsely cast the
Plaintiff in a false light as someone who is dishonest, corrupt, conspired to suborn
perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF HETT IN THE INNOCENT MAN
189. On page 149 defendant Grisham wrote:
The lying began with the second witness, Glen Gore, who…..
Then on page 157 Grisham wrote
Gary Rogers followed with a tedious narrative of the investigation, then OSBI agents Melvin Hett and Mary Long testified about the forensics involved in the case-fingerprints, hair analysis, and the components of blood and saliva.”
Grisham continued by writing on page 158:
The only proof that remotely tied Fritz to the murder was the hair analysis testimony of Melvin Hett ……….Barney and Greg Saunders knew the hair and fingerprint testimony was suspect.
190. The statement described in paragraph 189 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who committed the felony offense of perjury, as an
unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who intentionally lied about evidence in a
capital murder trial.
191. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 189 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
74 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 75 of 116
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
192. On page 176 Defendant Grisham wrote:
With the snitches out of the way, Peterson returned to more credible proof. Slightly more credible. He called to the stand four consecutive witnesses who worked for the state crime lab.
On page 176 Grisham describes these witnesses as (Peters, Mullins, Long, Hett)
Then on page 178 Grisham wrote:
The state’s last witness was by far its most effective. Peterson saved his knockout punch for the last round, and when Melvin Hett finished testifying the jury was convinced. Hett was the OSBI hair man, a veteran testifier who’d helped send many people to prison.
193. The statement described in paragraph 192 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who committed the felony offense of perjury, as an
unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who intentionally lied about evidence in a
capital murder trial. By his statements “With the snitches out of the way, Peterson
returned to more credible proof. Slightly more credible” and “Hett was the OSBI hair
man, a veteran testifier who’d helped send many people to prison.” Grisham cast
plaintiff Hett in a false light as a dishonest, unethical and corrupt person. Defendant
Grisham comments that Plaintiff Hett’s credibility is just slightly more credible than
that of the “snitches” which he has already commented and/or implied were liars and
who perjured themselves. Defendant Grisham does not tell the entire story. Defendant
75 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 76 of 116
Grisham fails to inform the reader that Plaintiff Hett has had numerous cases in which
law enforcement officers presented “suspects” and where Plaintiff Hett eliminated the
samples using hair analysis. In these cases it was later confirmed through DNA
testing that Plaintiff Hett was correct. These statements cast Plaintiff Hett in a false
light making Plaintiff Hett appear as an incompetent professional whom is only
interested in convicting people, regardless of the evidence. These statements damage
Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and reputation.
194. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Grisham intentionally defamed Plaintiff Hett,
told half truths about Plaintiff Hett and cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light because it
was necessary for Defendant Grisham’s storyline to discredit the scientific evidence
that implicated Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. Plaintiffs further allege that
without discrediting the scientific evidence that Defendant Grisham would be unable
to convincingly advance his false storyline of an over zealous prosecutor who had
recently been stung by the release of an unfavorable book who was “out to nail
someone” and would resort to any length to obtain a conviction including subornation
of perjury and hiding evidence and a heavy handed, corrupt, unintelligent, OSBI
Agent who was willing to obtain confessions at any cost including, threats coercions
and simply lying and perjuring himself.
195. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 192 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
76 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 77 of 116
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
196. On page 180 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Since the police knew who killed Debbie Carter, they helpfully informed Melvin Hett. When he received the samples from Susan Land the word “suspect” was written by the names of Fritz and Williamson
197. The statement described in paragraph 196 while technically correct cast the
Plaintiff Hett in a false light. Defendant Grisham fails to tell the reader that the word
“suspect” was written by all of the names of the samples that were submitted to Mel
Hett to analysis. Defendant Grisham also implies that this was done by the police, it
was not done by the police it was done by the OSBI lab to ensure that the hair
samples collected at the crime scene as evidence was not confused with the samples
of the individuals submitted for comparisons. In paragraph 196, both independently
and in combination with other statements, Defendant Grisham cast the false
impression that Plaintiff Hett committed felonious criminal conduct of perjury and
obstruction of justice by falsifying his expert testimony and reports. Defendant
Grisham fails to inform the readers of other expert witnesses that supported Plaintiff
Hett’s conclusions. With these statements Defendant Grisham cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who committed the felony offense of perjury, as an
unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who intentionally lied about evidence in a
capital murder trial. These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and
reputation.
77 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 78 of 116
198. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 196 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
199. On page 180 Defendant Grisham wrote:
It was tedious work, and not without it’s uncertainties. Hett flip flopped several times as he labored with his microscope. Once he was certain a hair belonged to Debbie Carter, but later changed his mind and decided it came from Fritz. Such is the nature of hair analysis. Hett flatly contradicted some of Susan Land’s findings, and even managed to impugn his own work. He initially found that a total of thirteen pubic hairs came from Fritz and only two from Williamson. Later, though, he changed his numbers-twelve for Fritz and two for Williamson. Then eleven for Fritz, plus two scalp hairs.
200. The statement described in paragraph 199 is factual false and cast Plaintiff Hett in
a false light as an individual who is either incompetent professionally and/or
committed the felony offense of perjury, as an unethical, corrupt and dishonest person
who intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. Plaintiff Hett did not
“flip-flop” several times, changing his mind and the numbers of hairs as stated by
Defendant Grisham. Plaintiff Hett did not “impugn” his own work. The numbers of
hairs reported and in Plaintiff Hett’s notes were always the same and will be proven
transcripts from Preliminary Hearing, all of the jury trials, OSBI case file and reports.
78 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 79 of 116
201. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Grisham simply made up the facts in paragraph
199 to support the conclusion that he was trying to cast.
202. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 199 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
203. On page 181 Defendant Grisham wrote:
On April 7, 1988, after the Fritz trial was under way, Melvin Hett finally issued his third and final report. The Gore hairs were not consistent with the questioned hairs. It took Hett almost two years to reach this conclusion, and his timing was beyond suspicious.
204. The statement described in paragraph 203 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who committed the felony offense of perjury, as an
unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who intentionally lied about evidence in a
capital murder trial. By his statement “Beyond suspicious” Grisham cast plaintiff Hett
in a false light as a dishonest, unethical and corrupt person. Defendant Grisham does
not give the entire story; Defendant Grisham fails to inform his readers that Plaintiff
Hett’s results were confirmed by other experts. Defendant Grisham fails to inform his
reader that a defense expert even agreed with Plaintiff Hett that some of the hairs
recovered from Debbie Carter’s apartment were microscopically consistent with one
79 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 80 of 116
or both of the defendants. These statements cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light making
Plaintiff Hett appear as an incompetent professional whom is only interested in
convicting people, regardless of the evidence. These statements damage Plaintiff
Hett’s credibility and reputation.
205. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 203 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
206. On page 181 Defendant Grisham wrote:
In spite of its perils and uncertainties, Melvin Hett was a staunch believer in hair analysis. He and Peterson became friendly, and before the Fritz trial, Hett passed along scientific articles touting the reliability of evidence that was famously unreliable. He did not, however provide the prosecutor with any of the numerous articles condemning hair analysis and testimony. Two months before the Fritz trial, Hett drove to Chicago and delivered his findings to a private lab called McCrone. There, one Richard Bisbing, and acquaintance of Hett’s reviewed his work.”
207. The statement described in paragraph 206 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who is unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who
intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. With the statement; “In
spite of its perils and uncertainties, Melvin Hett was a staunch believer in hair
analysis. He and Peterson became friendly, and before the Fritz trial, Hett passed
80 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 81 of 116
along scientific articles touting the reliability of evidence that was famously
unreliable”, Defendant Grisham does not tell the entire story and as such cast Plaintiff
Hett in a false light. Defendant Grisham claims that hair evidence is “famously
unreliable” in casting Plaintiff Hett in a false light however, Defendant Grisham fails
to inform his readers that at the time that his book was published that there were
numerous scientific articles by respected scientist, including FBI examiners, that
contradicted Defendant Grisham’s assertion that hair evidence was “famously
unreliable”. These statements cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light making Plaintiff Hett
appear as an incompetent professional whom is only interested in convicting people,
regardless of the evidence. These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and
reputation.
208. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 206 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
209. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 206 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
210. On page 181-182 Defendant Grisham wrote:
81 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 82 of 116
In less than six hours, Bisbing refuted almost all of Hett’s findings. Looking at only the eleven pubic hairs that Hett was certain were microscopically consistent with Fritz, Bisbing found that only three were accurate. Only three “could” have come from Fritz. Hett was wrong about the other eight. Undaunted by such a low estimation of his work by another expert, Hett drove back to Oklahoma, ready to testify without changing his opinion.
211. The statement described in paragraph 210 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who is unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who
intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. With the statement;
“Undaunted by such a low estimation of his work by another expert, Hett drove back
to Oklahoma, ready to testify without changing his opinion”, Defendant Grisham
does not tell the entire story and as such cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light. Defendant
Grisham does not explain to the reader that while the defense expert Bisbing may
have disagreed with Plaintiff Hett on which hairs or the number of hairs that were
microscopically consistent with Dennis Fritz, the defense expert confirmed Plaintiff
Hett’s findings that hairs recovered from the murder scene were microscopically
consistent with Dennis Fritz’s hair. The statements in paragraph 210, both
independently and in combination with the statements described in paragraphs 189,
192, 196, 203 and 206, cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light making Plaintiff Hett appear
as an incompetent professional whom is only interested in convicting people,
regardless of the evidence. These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and
reputation.
212. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 210 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
82 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 83 of 116
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
213. On page 182 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Hett was the star expert, with an aura of reliability that was bolstered by his experience, vocabulary, confidence, and strong conclusions that some of the known hairs of Dennis Fritz were consistent with some of those found at the crime scene. Six times during his direct testimony he said that Dennis’s hair and the suspicious hairs were microscopically consistent and could have come from the same source. Not once did he share with the jury the truth that the hairs could have just as easily not come from the same source.
On page 200 Defendant Grisham wrote :
The four hairs could just as easily not have come from Ron, but Hett didn’t mention this.
214. The statement described in paragraph 213 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who is unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who
intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. With the statement; “Not
once did he share with the jury the truth that the hairs could have just as easily not
come from the same source”, Defendant Grisham implies that Plaintiff Hett was
obligated or was otherwise being dishonest in not stating “the hairs could have just as
easily not come from the same source.” Defendant Grisham does not explain to the
lay reader that hair examiners do not use this terminology in either reports or
testimony. In order to make that particular negative statement, an examiner would
83 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 84 of 116
first state that the hairs are not consistent microscopically. When an examiner states
that hairs are consistent microscopically, it would be stated that they could have the
same source. The statements in paragraph 213, both independently and in
combination with the statements described in paragraphs 189, 192, 196, 203, 206, and
210, cast Plaintiff Hett in a false light making Plaintiff Hett appear as an incompetent
professional whom is only interested in convicting people, regardless of the evidence.
These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and reputation.
215. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 213 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
216. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the
defamatory statement in paragraph 213 to Defendant Grisham while knowing
the statement was false.
217. On page 183 Defendant Grisham wrote:
Hett wrapped up his testimony by summarizing for the jury his findings. Eleven pubic hairs and two scalp hairs could have come from Dennis. It was the same eleven pubic hairs he’d driven to the McCrone laboratories in Chicago and shown to Richard Bisbing for a second opinion.
84 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 85 of 116
218. The statement described in paragraph 217 are false and cast Plaintiff Hett in a
false light as an individual who is unethical, corrupt and dishonest person who
intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. With the statement; “It was
the same eleven pubic hairs he’d driven to the McCrone laboratories in Chicago and
shown to Richard Bisbing for a second opinion”, Defendant Grisham implies that
Plaintiff Hett was unsure of his findings and sought a second opinion from another
expert. Defendant Grisham cast a false impression about the reason that Plaintiff Hett
flew to Chicago to met with defense expert Bisbing. Plaintiff Hett flew to Chicago to
allow the expert hired by the defense examine the hair evidence so that the defense
expert could offer his own expert opinion at the upcoming trial. Defendant Grisham
fails to inform the lay reader that prosecution experts and experts paid by defendants
often disagree on their expert opinions and that does not mean that one expert is
lying. Defendant Grisham suggest in the statement in paragraph 217 that because the
expert witness paid by the defense disagreed with Plaintiff Hett’s findings, that
Plaintiff Hett was dishonest in not changing his opinion to conform with the defense
expert. The statements in paragraph 217, both independently and in combination with
the statements described in paragraphs 189, 192, 196, 203, 206, 210 and 213, cast
Plaintiff Hett in a false light making Plaintiff Hett appear as an incompetent
professional whom is only interested in convicting people, regardless of the evidence.
These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and reputation.
219. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 217 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
85 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 86 of 116
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
220. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 217 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
221. On page 201 middle Defendant Grisham wrote:
Hett’s most egregious act, though, was the manner in which he testified. Instead of educating the jurors, Hett chose instead to simply bless them with his opinions. To help a jury evaluate the evidence, most hair analysts bring into court enlarged photos of the hair in dispute. A photo of a known hair is mounted next to a questioned hair, and the expert goes into great detail explaining similarities and dissimilarities. As Hett said, there are about twenty-five different characteristics in hair, and a good examiner will show the jury exactly what he or she is talking about. Hett did nothing of the sort. After working on the Carter murder for nearly five years, hundreds of hours, three different reports, he did not show the jury one single enlarged photograph of his work. Not a single hair taken from Ron Williamson was compared with a single hair taken from Debbie’s apartment. Hett was, in effect, telling the jury to simply trust him. Don’t ask for proof, just believe his opinions.
222. Defendant Grisham’s statement that “Not a single hair taken from Ron
Williamson was compared with a single hair taken from Debbie’s apartment.” Is
factually incorrect statement.
223. The statements described in paragraph 221 and 222 are false and cast Plaintiff
Hett in a false light as an individual who is unethical, corrupt and dishonest person
86 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 87 of 116
whom intentionally lied about evidence in a capital murder trial. Defendant
Grisham’s statement that “Hett’s most egregious act, though, was the manner in
which he testified. Instead of educating the jurors, Hett chose instead to simply bless
them with his opinions. To help a jury evaluate the evidence, most hair analysts bring
into court enlarged photos of the hair in dispute. A photo of a known hair is mounted
next to a questioned hair, and the expert goes into great detail explaining similarities
and dissimilarities”, is not accurate. Most hair examiners do not bring photographs of
questioned hairs into the courtroom because, a single photograph can only capture
and minute portion of a hair and is not representative of the comparison. The
statement in paragraph 221 both independently and in combination with the
statements described in paragraphs 189, 192, 196, 203, 206, 210, 213 and 217, cast
Plaintiff Hett in a false light making Plaintiff Hett appear as an incompetent
professional whom is only interested in convicting people, regardless of the evidence.
These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and reputation.
224. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grisham, who claims to have extensively
researched this book, knew or should have known the falsity of these statements, in
paragraph 221 because of the current research in the field of hair examination, the
pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,
CRF-87-90, State V. Gore CF-01-126, Williamson v. State (D-1988-501, MA-1992-
647, PCD-1992-1010), Fritz v. State (F-1988-892 and PC-1992-801), Fritz v.
Champion HC-1988-894, Fritz v. Cole MA-1991-904, Fritz v. Pontotoc District Court
O-1992-587, and Fritz V. City Of Ada, CIV-00-194-B.
87 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 88 of 116
225. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the defamatory
statement in paragraph 221 to Defendant Grisham while knowing the statement was
false.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF PETERSON IN JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE
226. On page 253, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:
Then there were Caldwell and Harjo, who lied so viciously against me. I suspected that Peterson, Rogers or Smith had gotten to both of them.
227. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 226.
228. The statement described above in paragraph 226, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
229. The statement described above in paragraph 226, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described within this complaint by his co-
defendants, cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as an individual who influenced
witnesses to commit perjury and/or is so dishonest that he would influence witnesses
to commit perjury.
230. The statement described above in paragraph 226, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
88 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 89 of 116
231. On Page 308, last paragraph, 3rd line from the bottom of the page
Defendant Fritz wrote:
I despise Peterson, despised him in every way one man can despise another whose disregard for the truth and the value of life was so blatant and evil.
232. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 231.
233. The statement described above in paragraph 231, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states that Plaintiff
Peterson has a “disregard for the truth and the value of life was so blatant and evil.”
234. The statement described above in paragraph 231, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, cast Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as an
individual who has a disregard for human life and truth and is evil.
235. On page 453, 2nd paragraph Defendant Fritz wrote:
The underling fear that Peterson had somehow switched my hair samples with those from the crime scene evidence wouldn’t give me a moments peace.
236. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 235.
237. The statement described above in paragraph 235, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
238. The statement described above in paragraph 235, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described in this complaint by his co-defendants,
casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as an individual who influenced witnesses to
89 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 90 of 116
commit perjury and/or is so dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit
perjury, and tamper with and/or plant evidence.
239. The statement described above in paragraph 235, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
240. On page 455, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:
I had the opportunity to tell how the district attorney had so wrongfully railroaded both me and Ronnie through his vindictive prosecution.
241. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 240.
242. The statement described above in paragraph 240, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
243. The statement described above in paragraph 240, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described within this complaint by his co-
defendants, casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as an individual who while
motivated, by a vindictive prosecution, knowingly convicted Williamson and Fritz of
a crime they did not commit. This statement implies that Plaintiff Peterson influenced
witnesses to commit perjury and/or is so dishonest that he would influence witnesses
to commit perjury, and tamper with and/or plant evidence.
90 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 91 of 116
244. The statement described above in paragraph 240, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
245. On page 138, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:
Barney started telling Gregg of his personal feelings for Peterson and how those crooked bastards would go to any extent to railroad someone just for a conviction, even without any evidence.
246. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 245.
247. The statement described above in paragraph 245, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
248. The statement described above in paragraph 245, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described within this complaint by his co-
defendants, casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a “crooked bastard” whom
“would go to any extent to railroad someone just for a conviction”. This statement
implies that Plaintiff Peterson influenced witnesses to commit perjury and/or is so
dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit perjury, and tamper with
and/or plant evidence.
249. The statement described above in paragraph 245, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
91 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 92 of 116
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
250. On page 239, last sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:
Who the hell was he to put our families through this nightmare without having any real evidence to support his purported allegations?
251. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 250.
252. The statement described above in paragraph 250, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
253. The statement described above in paragraph 250, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described in this complaint by his co-defendants,
casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light as a prosecutor who without ant “real
evidence” was prosecuting him. Defendant Fritz withholds relevant facts and
mischaracterizes the evidence. This statement implies that Plaintiff Peterson abused
his position as a prosecutor, influenced witnesses to commit perjury and/or is so
dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit perjury, and tamper with
and/or plant evidence.
254. The statement described above in paragraph 250, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
92 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 93 of 116
255. On page 349, paragraph number 4, line 2 Defendant Fritz wrote:
The main reason that I was found guilty was that the District Attorney totally camouflaged his lack of evidence with so-called evidence of my alleged association with the co-defendant, Ronnie Williamson.
256. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 255.
257. The statement described above in paragraph 255, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
258. The statement described above in paragraph 255, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described in this complaint by his co-defendants,
casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. This statement implies that Plaintiff Peterson
abused his position as a prosecutor, influenced witnesses to commit perjury and/or is
so dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit perjury, and tamper with
and/or plant evidence.
259. The statement described above in paragraph 255, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced state constitutes libel per se.
260. On page 363, 1st sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:
Those dirty bastards have done it to me again.
93 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 94 of 116
261. Defendant Fritz has no basis in fact to make the statement described above in
paragraph 260.
262. The statement described above in paragraph 260, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or falsely
implies that Plaintiff Peterson is unethical, corrupt and dishonest.
263. The statement described above in paragraph 260, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, described within this complaint by his co-
defendants, casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. This statement implies that
Plaintiff Peterson abused his position as a prosecutor, influenced witnesses to commit
perjury and/or is so dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit perjury,
and tamper with and/or plant evidence.
264. The statement described above in paragraph 260, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Peterson of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis Fritz. The above
referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF ROGERS IN JOURNEY TOWARD JUSTICE
265. In Journey Toward Justice Defendant Fritz wrote a factually false account of his
arrest in Kansas City. This account begins on page 8 line 3 through the last line of
page 11. The entire account defames Plaintiff Rogers and cast him in a false light.
Listed below are highlighted quotes from those pages:
94 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 95 of 116
I was unable to make out a handful of men in uniforms crouching on the lawn. I froze as I counted. There were maybe twenty officers altogether, all pointing what appeared to be automatic weapons at me. (pg. 8 lines 5-8)……..I hadn’t done anything that warranted a SWAT team. (pg. 8 lines 23- 24)…..The man slapped handcuffs on my wrists….(pg. 9 line10)…..Beyond the line of armed officers….(pg. 10 line 10)…..The SWAT officers maintained a tight band around me, their handguns and automatic weapons aimed at my head. (pg. 10 lines 27-28)…..From behind the SWAT officers, two men emerged. Their identities were unmistakable, and I felt sick at the sight of them. The man in western garb and a large white Stetson hat was Gary Rogers, an investigator with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. (pg 11 line 4- 7)…..Side by side, Smith and Rogers strutted and swaggered, smiles of victory on their faces, as they approached me where I stood handcuffed and surrounded. Fear swept through me in a torrent. At last, I understood what this was about. (pg. 11 line 11-14)
266. The statement described above in paragraph 265 is a factually inaccurate
description of the arrest of Dennis Fritz.
267. Dennis Fritz relayed the description of his arrest described in paragraph 265 to
Defendant Grisham knowing that this description either would be or was likely to be
repeated in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man.
268. The statement described in paragraph 265 provided the basis for a similar
description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 123 line 5
through page 124 line 24.
269. The statement described in paragraph 265 was placed in the book Journey Toward
Justice and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of
portraying Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
95 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 96 of 116
270. The statement described above in paragraph 265, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Fritz’s own book and the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Mayer, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or
falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is overzealous, heavy handed, unethical, corrupt
and dishonest.
271. The statement described above in paragraph 265, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light. This
statement implies that Plaintiff Rogers abused his position as law enforcement officer
by orchestrating the arrest of Defendant Fritz with excessive force. The statement
portrays Plaintiff Rogers as overzealous, heavy handed, unethical, corrupt and
dishonest. The statement described above is factually incorrect because there was no
SWAT team used in Defendant Fritz’s arrest. There were no automatic weapons pointed at
Defendant Fritz. There were no weapons drawn at all. There were no weapons pointed at
Defendant Fritz. There were not “twenty” officers present at the arrest of Defendant Fritz.
There were only one plain clothes Kansas City Police Department Officer and two uniformed
Kansas City Police Department Uniformed officers present at Defendant Fritz arrest.
Defendant Fritz was never “slammed” into the wall during his arrest. There were no small
groups of neighbors standing and pointing their fingers at Defendant Fritz during his arrest.
And “Smith and Rogers” were never “strutted and swaggered” and they did not have “smiles
of victory on their faces”
272. The statement described above in paragraph 265, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Rogers of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
96 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 97 of 116
perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis
Fritz. The above referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
273. In Journey Toward Justice Defendant Fritz wrote a factually false account of an
interview after his arrest in Kansas City. This account begins on page 36 line 1 and
continues through the last line of page 39. The entire account defames Plaintiff
Rogers and cast him in a false light. Listed below is a portion of what is written on
those pages:
Rogers suddenly turned from my direct line of vision and walked back across the room. He removed his Stetson hat and set it on top of his closed brief case. Rolling up his shirt sleeves, as if to tell me it was tie to get into the ring, he bluntly said, “We have filed the death penalty on you in a bill of particulars, and we are going to make it stick.” Waling closer to me in a cat-like fashion, he persisted by saying, “Did you hear me, Dennis? We have filed the death penalty on you, and we definitely have enough good evidence on you to send you to lethal injection.” (Page 37 lines 12- 18)
….Finally, leaning even closer, he repeatedly jabbed his forefinger into my breast bone, over-emphasizing each and every word as his lips spat, “We are going to kill you for what you did, and there’s nothing that you can do about it. We have a solid case of murder in the first degree against you, so get it off your chest, Fritz, and be the man we think you are. (Page 37 lines 22-27)
274. The statement described above in paragraph 273 is a factually inaccurate
description of the post-arrest interview of Dennis Fritz.
275. Dennis Fritz relayed the description of his post-arrest interview described in
paragraph 273 to Defendant Grisham knowing that this description either would be or
was likely to be repeated in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man.
97 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 98 of 116
276. The statement described in paragraph 273 provided the basis for a similar
description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 124 line 25
through page 125 line 23.
277. The statement described in paragraph 273 was placed in the book Journey Toward
Justice and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of
portraying Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
278. The statements described in paragraph 273 are false for many reason including
but not limited to the following: Plaintiff Rogers never screamed, shouted, cursed, or
jabbed his finger into Defendant fritz chest. Plaintiff Rogers never made a statement "…. we
are going to kill you for what you did". Plaintiff Rogers never rolled up his sleeves as if
getting ready to fight. Defendant Fritz never said that he was going to confess, sending Smith
scrambling for a tape recorder. Dennis Smith did not stay behind and talk to Defendant Fritz
while Plaintiff Rogers went back to the hotel. Both Plaintiff Rogers and Dennis Smith left at
the police department at the same time.
279. The statement described above in paragraph 273, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Fritz’s own book and the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Mayer, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or
falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is overzealous, heavy handed, unethical, corrupt
and dishonest.
280. The statement described above in paragraph 273, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light. This
statement implies that Plaintiff Rogers abused his position as law enforcement officer
98 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 99 of 116
threatening, physically assaulting an incustodial defendant, and attempting to coerce a
statement from an incustodial defendant.
281. The statement described above in paragraph 273, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Rogers of felonious
criminal conduct of subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit subornation of
perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dennis
Fritz. The above referenced statement constitutes libel per se.
282. In Journey Toward Justice Defendant Fritz wrote a factually false account of
Plaintiff Rogers and Dennis Smith’s presence at a court appearance after Defendant
Fritz’s arrest in Kansas City. This account begins on page 57 line 25 and continues
through the last line of page 59. The entire account, regarding Plaintiff Rogers
presence at this court appearance is a fabrication and defames Plaintiff Rogers and
cast him in a false light. Listed below is a portion of what is written on those pages:
Glancing to the back of the courtroom, I saw Smith and Rogers hurriedly exit. Looking back over my shoulder, I saw my mother and aunt rush to reach me before I was led away. Mom squeezed her way through the crowd and lunged against me, hugging me with all the love she had to give. With her face against my shoulder, she sobbed as she told me she loved me and would be there for me all the way through. I was able to kiss her quickly on her forehead before the guards intervened and separated us. Outside the courtroom, I was immediately flanked by Smith and Rogers. As we walked briskly down the corridor, I sensed their frustration and anger. “Fritz, you might be able to hide from us for a while, but we will get you back. I guarantee you it will be sooner than you think,” Rogers insisted. “You have only put off the inevitable. Very soon you are going to have to pay for what you did. You can count on that.” “Dennis, would you still like to have our little talk we agreed upon?” Smith said as he tightened up his grip on my arm. I looked at him with contempt. “I don’t have anything to say to you, except that when I get back to Oklahoma, I’m going to do everything that I can do to prove my innocence,
99 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 100 of 116
and nothing you can say or do will stop that. (Pg. 59, lines 10-31)
283. The statement described above in paragraph 282 is a fabrication; Plaintiff Rogers
was not present at Defendant Fritz court appearance in Kansas City.
284. The statement described in paragraph 282 was placed in the book Journey Toward
Justice, at least in part, with the intent of portraying Plaintiff Rogers in a negative
light.
285. The statements described in paragraph 282 are false for many reasons including
but not limited to the following: Plaintiff Rogers was not present at defendant Fritz
court appearance in Kansas City.
286. The statement described above in paragraph 282, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Fritz’s own book and the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Mayer, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or
falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is overzealous, heavy handed, unethical, corrupt
and dishonest.
287. The statement described above in paragraph 282, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light. This
statement implies that Plaintiff Rogers abused his position as law enforcement officer
threatening, physically assaulting an incustodial defendant, and attempting to coerce a
statement from an incustodial defendant.
288. In Journey Toward Justice Defendant Fritz wrote a factually false account of his
transport by Plaintiff Rogers and Agent Featherstone back to Ada, Oklahoma and
subsequent booking into county jail. (Beginning on page 61 line 8 through page 69
100 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 101 of 116
line 10) Defendant Fritz’s entire account of he, Plaintiff Rogers and Agent
Featherstone being present in the car together and statements that Defendant Fritz
attributes to each party are a fabrication. Agent Featherstone did not ride in the same
vehicle as Plaintiff Rogers and Defendant Smith from Oklahoma City to Ada,
Oklahoma. Agent Featherstone, who lived in the Oklahoma City area, followed in a
separate vehicle so that Plaintiff Rogers would not have to drive him back to the
Oklahoma City area from Ada. Listed below is a portion of the defamatory
statements written in those pages:
I had survived the humiliation and disgrace of hobbling through the Kansas City and Oklahoma City airports in leg shackles and hand cuffs,…(pg. 61 line 8-10)….Since leaving Oklahoma City, none of us had uttered a word. Featherstone drove steadily, staring straight ahead. Rogers, in the back seat, glanced in my direction occasionally and smirked, presumably to let me know that he had accomplished his mission in bringing his man back to Ada. (pg. 61 line 15-19)
……”Another damned train,” Featherstone remarked. He quickly glanced into the rear-view mirror at Rogers. “Yeah, they back up here several times a day, but I’m sure ol’ Fritz here won’t mind the wait since this will be his last taste of civilization for a good while,” answered Rogers. A look of scorn flowed from his eyes to mine. I glared back. “If I go down on this, Rogers, then you, Smith, and Rusty up there are gonna have to pay for illegally convicting me. I’m ready for what you got, and I don’t think it’s much.” “You know, Fritz, you had a little vacation up there in Kansas City, but it’s like I told you before we left: You can hide for a little bit but now it’s time for you to pay the price. We gave you more than a chance to help yourself out but you’re gonna be a hard-ass and dig your own grave, so, have it your way and we’ll see where it gets you. “It’s a wonder to me how any of you can sleep at night knowing that you don’t have any real evidence to convict me on. And besides that,” I said, nodding toward Featherstone, “when you left the room at the airport in Kansas City, your buddy up there more or less told me that I didn’t flunk those polygraph tests.” Featherstone stiffened his shoulders and turned to look at me. He spoke sharply, “Mr. fritz, you can say
101 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 102 of 116
anything you want to say but the fact remains that your polygraphs consistently showed you were lying about not being in her house. And the majority of the other questions, you clearly fell in the deceptive range on your responses.” Featherstone’s tone was defensive. His cheeks turned a livid red. (pg. 63 10th line from the bottom—pg. 64 line 18)
289. The statement described above in paragraph 288 is a fabrication; Plaintiff Rogers,
Defendant Fritz and Agent Featherstone did not ride in the same vehicle from
Oklahoma City to Ada, Oklahoma.
290. The statement described in paragraph 288 was placed in the book Journey Toward
Justice, at least in part, with the intent of portraying Plaintiff Rogers in a negative
light.
291. The statements described in paragraph 288 are false for many reasons including
but not limited to the following: Defendant Fritz was not shackled on his trip back
from Kansas City. Airline regulations forbid prisoners being leg shackled. Defendant
Fritz was handcuffed in front and a jacket was draped over them and he was dressed
in civilian clothes. Defendant Fritz’s description of the trip from the Oklahoma City
airport to Ada and his conversations with Agent Featherstone and Plaintiff Rogers did
not happen and could not have happened because Agent Featherstone was in a
separate car. Plaintiff’s allege that Defendant Fritz fabricated the above statements
concerning his failure of the polygraph in an attempt to cast doubt on admissions that
he made during his post-polygraph interview concerning an incident in which he
(Defendant Fritz) and Ron Williamson kidnapped a women and Defendant Fritz’s
admission that when he kidnapped the woman he intended to rape her.
102 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 103 of 116
292. The statement described above in paragraph 288, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Fritz’s own book and the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Mayer, is defamatory, as it falsely states and/or
falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is overzealous, heavy handed, unethical, corrupt
and dishonest.
293. The statement described above in paragraph 282, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light. This
statement implies that Plaintiff Rogers abused his position as law enforcement officer
threatening, physically assaulting an incustodial defendant, and attempting to coerce a
statement from an incustodial defendant.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF PETERSON IN THE DREAMS OF ADA
294. In the Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote the following about Plaintiff
Peterson on page 298 Line 16-18:
But Wyatt feared that the district attorney had already gotten to Lurch, and that to remain uninvolved in the case, he would deny being at J.P.’s that evening.
295. The statement described above in paragraph 294 has no basis in fact.
296. The statement described in paragraph 294 was placed in the book The Dreams of
Ada, at least in part, with the intent of portraying Plaintiff Peterson in a negative light.
297. The statement described above in paragraph 294, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that Plaintiff Peterson is corrupt, dishonest, unethical and
103 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 104 of 116
influenced and/or attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses in a criminal
prosecution. The statement in paragraph 294 is libel per se.
298. The statement described above in paragraph 294, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. This
statement implies that Plaintiff Peterson is corrupt, dishonest, unethical and
influenced and/or attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses in a criminal
prosecution.
299. In the Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote the following about Plaintiff
Peterson on page 464 Line 10-12:
Peterson did not notify the defense attorneys of this new finding. Nor did he tell the press or the public, who were left to believe there was evidence that Denice Haraway had been stabbed as well as shot.
300. The statement described above in paragraph 299 is a factually inaccurate, when
Plaintiff Peterson received the report he gave the defense a copy.
301. Defendant Mayer relayed the statement alleged in 299 to Defendant Grisham
knowing that this description either would be or was likely to be repeated in
Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man.
302. The statement described in paragraph 299 provided the basis for a similar
description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 111 and 112.
303. The statement described in paragraph 299 was placed in the book Dreams of Ada
and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of portraying
Plaintiff Peterson in a negative light.
104 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 105 of 116
304. The statement described in paragraph 299 is false for numerous reasons including
but not limited to the following: Defendant Mayer makes a false statement
unsupported by the evidence of the autopsy of Denice Haraway. The medical
examiner could not say whether or not she was stabbed. The medical examiner’s
testimony was in all the stabbing deaths he had examined, only a very few could he
see where the knife nicked the bone. The medical examiner could not say one way or
the other whether Denice Haraway was stabbed. Defendant Mayer uses this false
statement to cast the Plaintiff in a false light as someone who would make statements
that he knew was false to a jury and knowingly convict an individual he knew to be
innocent. This statement falsely cast Plaintiff Peterson as a dishonest and corrupt
individual.
305. The statement described above in paragraph 299, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that Plaintiff Peterson is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous.
This comment leaves the reader with the impression and belief that Plaintiff Peterson
concealed this report from the defense. This would be a violation of a defendant’s
due process rights.
306. The statement described above in paragraph 299, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, casts Plaintiff Peterson in a false light. This
statement as it falsely states and/or falsely implies that Plaintiff Peterson is corrupt,
unethical, and overzealous. This comment leaves the reader with the impression and
105 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 106 of 116
belief that Plaintiff Peterson concealed this report from the defense. This would be a
violation of a defendant’s due process rights.
STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUT PLAINTIFF ROGERS IN THE DREAMS OF ADA
307. In The Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote the following on page 56 line 12-
18:
Shortly after Rusty Featherstone told Tommy Ward he had flunked the lie-detector test, Gary Rogers and Dennis Smith came in and took over the questioning. The mood in the room had changed. It was no longer an interview. It was an interrogation. The manner of the interrogators was no longer gentle. For five hours this new questioning continued, interrupted only by visits to the bathroom or by the phone calls Rogers made to Ada.
308. The statement described above in paragraph 307 is a factually inaccurate.
Defendant Mayer mischaracterizes the manner in which Plaintiff Rogers questioned
Tommy Ward.
309. Defendant Mayer relayed the statement alleged in 307 to Defendant Grisham
knowing that this description either would be or was likely to be repeated in
Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man.
310. The statement described in paragraph 307 provided the basis for a similar
description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 111 and 112.
311. The statement described in paragraph 307 was placed in the book Dreams of Ada
and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of portraying
Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
312. The statement described above in paragraph 307, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
106 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 107 of 116
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous.
313. The statement described above in paragraph 307, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false
light. This statement cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light because it falsely implies
that Plaintiff Rogers is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to coerce
confession from criminal suspects. The statement in paragraph 37 is libel per se.
314. In The Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote the following on page 57 Line 7-
13:
The next morning, Smith and Rogers called a news conference. They told the local press that they believed they had solved the Haraway case. They said that Tommy Ward, twenty-four, of Ada, had confessed to the robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder of Denice Haraway, and had been arrested. They said he had implicated two other men, who were being sought. The names of the other suspects would be withheld pending their apprehension.
315. The statement described above in paragraph 314 is a factually incorrect. Plaintiff
Rogers did not call a news conference as alleged in paragraph 314.
316. Defendant Mayer relayed the statement alleged in 314 to Defendant Grisham
knowing that this description either would be or was likely to be repeated in
Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man.
317. The statement described in paragraph 314 provided the basis for a similar
description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 96 line 4-10.
107 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 108 of 116
318. The statement described in paragraph 314 was placed in the book Dreams of Ada
and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of portraying
Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
319. The statement described above in paragraph 314, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to use
whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction. These statements also
falsely states that Plaintiff Rogers violated OSBI policy.
320. The statement described above in paragraph 314, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in Defendant Mayer’s own book and in the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.
This statement cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light it falsely implies that Plaintiff
Rogers is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to use whatever means
necessary in order to obtain a conviction. These statements also falsely cast Plaintiff
Rogers in a light as one whom violated OSBI policy.
321. In The Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote on page 423 line 19 – 24
Chris Ross sat in his office, his feet up on his desk, relaxing. Gary Rogers stopped by to chat, in obvious good sprits. He asked if the D.A.’s office would still trade a life sentence in return for Denice Haraway’s body. Ross said that would be up to the Haraway family; that if such an offer were made by the defendants, he thought the family would agree.
322. The statement described above in paragraph 321 is a factually incorrect. This
conversation never occurred.
108 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 109 of 116
323. The statement described in paragraph 321 was placed in the book Dreams of Ada
and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of portraying
Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
324. The statement described above in paragraph 321, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to use
whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction.
325. The statement described above in paragraph 321, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in Defendant Mayer’s own book and in the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.
This statement cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light it falsely implies that Plaintiff
Rogers is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to use whatever means
necessary in order to obtain a conviction.
326. In the Dreams of Ada Defendant Mayer wrote the following beginning on page
493 Line 6-15:
The exoneration of Williamson and Fritz cast further doubt on the guilt of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot; it called into question the judgment, techniques, and veracity of certain Ada law-enforcement officials. Some citizens who had been recognized the absurdity of the confessions of Ward and Fontenot still had trouble believing that those confessions had been choreographed by the police, and that the district attorney had put innocent men in prison. But the Carter case showed that they had marshaled a false case against two innocent men. Who could say that they had not done the same thing to Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot?
109 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 110 of 116
327. The statement described above in paragraph 326 is a factually incorrect. This
conversation never occurred.
328. The statement described in paragraph 326 was placed in the book Dreams of Ada
and/or relayed to Defendant Grisham, at least in part, with the intent of portraying
Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.
329. The statement described above in paragraph 326, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in both Defendant Mayer’s own book and the
books of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, is defamatory, as it falsely states
and/or falsely implies that is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous and willing to use
whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction.
330. The statement described above in paragraph 326, both independently and in
conjunction with other statements, in Defendant Mayer’s own book and in the books
of Defendant Grisham and Defendant Fritz, casts Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.
This statement cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light it falsely implies that Plaintiff
Rogers is corrupt, unethical, overzealous, willing to use whatever means necessary in
order to obtain a conviction and that Plaintiff Rogers in the Fritz and Williamson case
purposely framed them, and because it worked so well when they did it to Ward and
Fontenot.
COUNT I (Civil Conspiracy)
331. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the
second amended complaint as if set forth fully herein.
110 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 111 of 116
332. The Defendants conspired, agreed, and combined with each other to commit the
allegations set forth below in counts 1-4.
333. The Defendants defamed the Plaintiffs, through both libel and slander. The
Defendants well knew that through their actions that the Plaintiffs would be exposed to
public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy. The Defendants knew and/or intended for
their actions to cause the Plaintiffs to be deprived of public confidence and be injured in
their professions and occupations. The Defendants statements were made knowing they
were false and/or with reckless disregard for the falsity of the statements. The
Defendants actions harmed the Plaintiffs reputations.
334. The Defendants actions were designed among other reasons to bring about great
public hatred, contempt and ridicule of the Plaintiffs in such a way that would cause
individuals and news organizations to disseminate the defamation and publicity placing
the plaintiffs in a false light without any further action being required on the Defendants’
part. The Defendant’s actions were designed with total disregard for the good
reputations of Plaintiffs Peterson, Rogers and/or Hett; and in fact, have demonstrated a
plan and desire to ruin their careers and good reputations while promoting their own self
interest.
335. The Defendants knowingly and/or recklessly gave publicity to a matter concerning
the Plaintiffs that placed the Plaintiffs before the public in a false light. The false light
that that the plaintiffs were placed in is of such a nature that it would be highly offensive
to a reasonable person. The Defendants had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard
as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiffs would
be placed. The Defendants actions cast the Plaintiffs in a false light.
111 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 112 of 116
336. The Defendants actions, in the setting in which they occurred, were so extreme and
outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and are to be considered
atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society, the Defendants maliciously and
with intentionally and/or reckless conduct caused severe emotional distress to the
Plaintiffs beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.
Count II (Defamation)
337. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the
second amended complaint as if set forth fully herein.
338. The Defendants defamed the Plaintiffs, through both libel and slander. The
Defendants well knew that through their actions that the Plaintiffs would be exposed to
public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy. The Defendants knew and or intended their
actions to cause the Plaintiffs to be deprived of public confidence and be injured in their
professions and occupations. The Defendants statements were made knowing that theses
statements were false and/or with reckless disregard for the falsity of these statements.
339. The Defendants actions were designed to bring about great public hatred, contempt
and ridicule of the Plaintiffs in such a way that would cause individuals and news
organizations to disseminate the defamation and publicity placing the plaintiffs in a false
light without any further action being required on the Defendants’ part.
340. The Defendant’s actions were designed to ruin the Plaintiffs’ reputations and
careers, and amount to slander per se and liable per se. The Defendants falsely accused
the Plaintiffs of felonious criminal conduct.
341. The Plaintiffs’ reputations were damaged as a result of the Defendants’ actions.
112 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 113 of 116
Count III (Publicity Placing Person in False Light)
342. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the
second amended complaint as if set forth fully herein.
343. The Defendants knowingly and/or recklessly gave publicity to a matter concerning
the Plaintiffs that placed the Plaintiffs before the public in a false light. The false light
that that the plaintiffs were placed in is of such a nature that it would be highly offensive
to a reasonable person. The Defendants had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard
as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the Plaintiffs would
be placed.
344. The Plaintiffs were cast in a false light because of the defendants’ actions.
Count IV (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
345. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the
second amended complaint.
346. The Defendants actions in the setting in which they occurred were so extreme and
outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered
atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society and the Defendants intentionally or
recklessly caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs beyond that which a
reasonable person could be expected to endure.
Damages
113 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 114 of 116
347. As a result of the Defendants actions, collectively and individually, as alleged in
Counts 1 through 4, the Plaintiffs, individually, suffered emotional pain and suffering,
emotional distress, severe emotional distress, loss of reputation, and prospective economic
loss.
348. As a result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, collectively and individually,
defaming and casting the Plaintiffs (individually) in a false light, the Defendants profited
through the sale of books, movie rights, book rights, personal appearance fees and in other
ways unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time. The Plaintiffs seek as compensation for the
damage the Defendants, collectively and individually, caused all profits that Defendants
acquired through their wrongful and tortuous actions.
349. In damaging the Plaintiffs the Defendants showed reckless disregard for the rights of
the Plaintiffs, and as a result Plaintiffs seek recovery of punitive damages.
350. Plaintiffs seek the costs of suit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on each count of the complaint.
Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and
against Defendants, jointly and severally, actual and punitive damages, their costs of suit and
such other relief this Court may deem just and proper on each count of the complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L Richardson, OBA#7547 Richardson Law Firm 6450 S Lewis, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74136 Office 918 492-7674 Facsimile 918 493-1925
114 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 115 of 116
Charles L. Richardson, OBA# 13388 Richardson Law Firm 6450 S Lewis, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74136 Office 918 492-7674 Facsimile 918 493-1925
Kevin D. Adams, OBA#18914 Richardson Law Firm 6450 S Lewis, Suite 300 Tulsa, OK 74136 Office 918 492-7674 Facsimile 918 493-1925
By: /s/ Kevin D Adams Kevin D Adams
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the 25th day of February, 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants:
Cheryl A, Pilate Morgan & Pilate 500 Santa Fe Drive, Suite A Olathe, Kansas 66061
Ron Wright Wright, Stout, Fite & Wilburn PO Box 707 Muskogee, OK 7442-0707
115 Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 116 of 116
Robert D. Nelon Jon Epstein Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 North Broadway Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8865
/s/ Kevin D Adams ______
116