The Giovanni Reid Case
Happenstance
or Conspiracy?
By: Charlotte Williams, Writer
Rosie, Contributor
_____________________________________
CONTENTS
Introduction
I. Giovanni's Story
II. Giovanni's Arrest
III. The Government's Witnesses
IV. The Interrogation
V. Giovanni's Court-Appointed Defense
VI. The Missing FramesA. “A Prayer for the City”
B. Payments to the Government Witnesses
C. The Elusive Nurse
D. The Government's Unexpected Witness
E. The Mysterious Bag Lady
F. The Medical Interns
G. More Unanswered Questions“… And Justice for All”
___________________________________
The Giovanni Reid case is about a sixteen-year-old adolescent who tried to interrupt a crime that was already in progress, and as a result, was later accused and convicted of having acted as a co-conspirator to robbery and murder. His family believes in his innocence and has stood by him throughout his many years of incarceration. They have spent thousands of dollars on attorney fees and appeals.
I became acquainted with Mr. Reid's case through my daughter, Rosie. Due to the sensitive nature of my daughter's investigative work on this case, to protect her identity, she will be identified as Rosie. Rosie met Mr. Reid while participating in a program that brought university students together with participating residents at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (SCI at Graterford), located in Montgomery County , Pennsylvania . Rosie told me that after carefully observing Mr. Reid at their weekly, university-led rap sessions held at the prison, she felt that he looked out of place there. This, she said made her curious enough to find out the circumstances surrounding his incarceration. The more she learned, the more questions she said she had about his due process. And I might add that, the more I learned, the more disenchanted I became with our criminal justice system.
Although Rosie has since graduated from college, she has made it her mission to bring attention to Mr. Reid's unjust incarceration. And after careful consideration, I decided to join her. We are telling his story in the hopes that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania might acknowledge that a possible error was made when Reid was convicted on suspect testimony. Further, we are hoping that the government will investigate what this story brings to light. Additionally, we are hoping that the end result from writing this story will be that he will either be released from prison or granted a new hearing or trial. After examining court transcripts, police interview reports and other official documents, I have become convinced of his innocence. If no other case, I feel that the Giovanni Reid case merits an investigation for plausible explanations.
This case involves the heartless and senseless robbery and murder of Mr. Robert Janke (pronounced Yahn key), a then twenty-two-year-old university medical student. In the early dawn hours of August 10, 1991 , Mr. Janke was gravely wounded after using a nearby pay phone to call a friend who had moments before dropped him off in front of his house. He realized after his friend had pulled off, that he had inadvertently left his house keys in her car. He then walked to a nearby pay phone at Seventeenth and South Streets (in Philadelphia , Pa.) to call her. While waiting in front of an abandoned storefront for her to return, he was reportedly robbed of $5.00 and shot in the head. He succumbed to his wound the following day.
In my view, this type of unconscionable crime screams out for justice to be done. However, on the other hand, in our quest to exact justice, we cannot morally sanction the unjust conviction of an innocent man. This case seemed to have had all of the necessary frames in which to develop a clear and accurate picture for an acquittal for Reid, but that would not be the case. With so much questionable testimony, it now appears as if the completed picture might have been superimposed to help create the illusion of his guilt. Along with Reid, five other young men were questioned for the murder of Mr. Janke. They were: cousins - Dajuan (Juannie) Bennett, 17, Carlton Bennett, 23, Dwayne Bennett, 24 and brothers - Richard King, 23, and Tyrone Mackey, 22.
I interviewed Giovanni Reid for his side of the story - a story that the jury never got a chance to hear because he was never put on the stand to testify in his own behalf . Reid's version helps to clear up why the government's own witnesses could not place him near the victim when he was shot. Reid's story is diametrically different from the picture painted by lead prosecutor, Michael McGovern, of six depraved Black males roaming around looking for someone to rob, or in street slang, looking to "get paid ". McGovern sketched a delusional, frightening picture of six Black males, all without a conscience roaming around the city of Philadelphia in search of someone to rob. And, if that weren't enough, court transcripts also show that three of them were drawn toting guns.
According to Giovanni Reid, on that early August morning in 1991, he, Dajuan, Richard, and Tyrone had just left "Tyrone's mother's house" to walk to a nearby IHOP Restaurant. (For purposes of clarity, from this point on, I will refer to Tyrone's mother's house as Richard and Tyrone's house, since the brothers lived in the same house with their mother.) While on their way there, they encountered Dajuan's cousins - Dwayne and Carlton Bennett. After Dwayne inquired of Dajuan where the four of them were going, he then invited himself and Carlton to join them. Reid told me that "Dwayne kept expressing his desire to rob someone; and on two occasions, attempted to approach someone with the intentions of doing just that; and on both occasions we all stopped him from doing it." (This corroborates what Richard King said in his statement to police: "Wayne kept talking about how he wanted to get paid, and we were saying, "no," but he said he wanted some money, he kept talking about it all the way." Dwayne is sometimes called "Wayne" by his peers.)
Reid said that on the walk home, Dwayne's attitude had not changed in that he continued to express his desire to rob someone. (Days later, Tyrone Mackey would tell a homicide detective a frightening story about how Dwayne had earlier targeted a cab driver to try and rob. This happened at Eighteenth Street between Chestnut and Market Streets. He said that Dwayne actually stood in the middle of the street talking to the driver, all the while hoping that he could get one of them to join him in executing his plan. Tyrone Mackey said that Dwayne changed his mind when everyone ignored him and kept walking. Mackey would also cite two other incidents for the detective.)
Walking southbound on the narrow sidewalk of Seventeenth Street in a bunch, Reid said that they instinctively broke up into two sets of threes. He said that he was in the second group with two of the three cousins (Carlton and the confessed killer, Dwayne); and that the third cousin walked ahead of them with brothers, Tyrone and Richard. Next, he recalled how he and Carlton had been engrossed in conversation as they passed by Mr. Janke (the victim) while he was at the phone booth. He said that about a half a block separated his party from the first group.
While he was strolling down the street conversing with Carlton , he said that unbeknownst to both of them, Dwayne had dropped back from walking alongside of them. (Days later, Tyrone Mackey mentioned to a homicide detective during his interview, that Dwayne always seemed to lag behind the group. He said, "Wayne would stay behind us, always looking around.") Reid told me that he came to realize Dwayne was no longer walking alongside of them when he heard the confessed killer "arguing with someone." He told me that he stopped and turned around only to find Dwayne "messing with this guy; so I stopped and told Carlton to get his cousin."
Reid said that Richard, who had been walking ahead of him in the first bunch and was unaware of what was going on, just happened to look back at that crucial moment and call out to him to "come on." (This minor detail is corroborated in Richard King's police statement where he mentions calling out to Reid to "come on." Could King have meant that as in, "Come on and catch up with us?") Continuing, Reid said that he and Carlton ignored Richard so that they could make an attempt to get Dwayne to leave Mr. Janke alone. Unfortunately, he said that just as Carlton took a couple of steps toward his cousin Dwayne, is when Dwayne pulled out a gun and shot Mr. Janke execution style.
Reid told me that a few days after the shooting, "Dwayne was going around telling anybody who would listen to him that he was the one that killed the guy the other day, the one that they showed on the news." In addition, Reid also told me that Dwayne told anyone who was willing to listen to him that he, Carlton , Dajuan, Tyrone and Richard were all in the vicinity when he did it. So, as not to be wrongly implicated in a crime in which he had no participation, Tyrone Mackey did the right thing and initiated contact with the police.
Several years after the shooting, Mr. Mackey told a private investigator (P.I.) how he was not at home when the police phoned to say that they were on their way over to pick him and his brother up. The message was left with Tyrone's then pregnant girlfriend, who in turn phoned him to give him the message. Mackey stated that after his girlfriend phoned him, that he went straight home and phoned Giovanni Reid and the three cousins - Carlton , Dajuan and the confessed killer Dwayne Bennett - to inform them of what was going on. However, he related to the private investigator that outside of his brother, seventeen-year-old Dajuan Bennett was the only one at home when he phoned. Along for the ride to the police station were: the two brothers - Tyrone Mackey and Richard King; Mackey's then pregnant girlfriend, and Dajaun Bennett.*
According to Mr. Mackey, that was how the same three who had been walking ahead of the others on the morning in question, ended up being picked up to go to the police station all at the same time. All three rightfully cooperated by giving statements to homicide detectives. However, they erred when they spoke without an attorney present. Seventeen-year-old Dajuan was not represented by a parent/guardian during questioning. Each expressed to the detectives how they did not want to be wrongly implicated in a crime in which they had no complicity. But their attempt to erase themselves from the picture became a double-edge sword. Their character was publicly assassinated along with the others, and two innocent people ended up losing their freedom (Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett).
Giovanni told me that Tyrone caught up with him the day after he spoke to the police. He said that Tyrone mentioned to him how he, Richard and Dajuan had gone to the police station the day before and told homicide detectives about what Dwayne had done. He said that Tyrone then suggested that he turn himself in lest he become wrongly implicated.
Reid told me that before he had the chance to turn himself in the following day, that the police had stormed his home while he was away. He said that the police admonished his mother, Melvina Reid, who was home at the time, that they wanted him to come in for questioning. He said that she accompanied him to the police station the following day. Mrs. Reid told me that she contacted an attorney but that he backed out of representing her son at the last minute. Giovanni Reid also spoke to the homicide detectives without the presence or advice of legal counsel. Little did Giovanni know that after telling homicide detectives his version of events, that he would never again see the light of day. He was placed under arrest for conspiracy to murder.
At the time of his arrest, Giovanni Reid was a high school senior making average grades and working after school for an interior designer. He was arrested on August nineteenth, two weeks after the murder, and detained for nearly a year and a half before his trial commenced. Reid, a then sixteen-year-old youth who had never before been in trouble with the law, was charged as an adult.
He was first remanded to Philadelphia 's Youth Studies Center where he remained until he turned eighteen. He was then sent to the Philadelphia County 's Holmesburg Prison where he remained until his trial ended. After his conviction in January 1993, he was moved to the SCI at Graterford and placed in the hole . Reid told me that officials at the prison told him that they were placing him there because of his tender age. He remained there for two weeks and was then sent to SCI at Camp Hill for two months before being sent back to Graterford, where this time he would be thrown into population. This is where the now thirty-year-old Giovanni Reid resides today, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a crime that he maintains he had no participation in.
III. The Government's Witnesses
Ms. Lorraine Hill, a purported uninvolved eyewitness, was the prosecution's key witness. She remained steadfast about what she saw that morning while on her way to work. But, be that as it may, her testimony left many unanswered questions as well as a puzzling mosaic of her own behavior.
The Commonwealth refused to accept the notion that out of six, young Black men, that only one of them would have malice in his heart. However, they were quick to embrace their witness Lorraine Hill's assertion that there had been three dark-skin ned assailants. She told the police that while one stood in front of the victim, that the other two sat one on each side of him. Her version meant that the Commonwealth had to come up with two other men and place them one on each side of the victim, Mr. Janke; hence, Reid and Carlton Bennett. Why them? Because they were the only ones left up for grabs after Dajuan Bennett and brothers - Richard King and Tyrone Mackey gave statements and became government witnesses .
Another factor that made Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett the two most likely to be bagged, was the fact that they were the two who had been walking closer to the end of the block to where the lone contemplator of the crime, Dwayne Bennett, stood with his victim. When government witness Richard King was asked by an interviewing officer in the homicide division, "Why have you come forward to the police with this information?" In a reference to Dwayne, he answered, "cause I knew what was going to happen when he started telling the whole world; I didn't want to get blamed for something I didn't do." And, since the government was unable to implicate all six males in this heinous crime, they had to settle on the two that were left. Besides, having only one assailant to prosecute would have smeared the pictorialization of the six-man-boogeyman, robbery pack. At least this way the government could get a possible slam dunk on three out of the six. Vicarious sufferings?
I asked Reid about the type of association that he held with the guys he was with that morning. He answered that he knew them from his neighborhood and that he and one of Carlton 's brother's were friends and classmates. Nevertheless, it was a loose type of neighborhood association as indicated by the government's witness, Richard King. (When he was asked during his police interview, "Who are Carlton , "Gee" and Wayne ?" King responded, ""Gee", is Giovanni, that's all I know him by; Tyrone knows where he lives." The officer's question came after he asked King to write down on a police-drawn map the names and the positions of each person present at the time of the shooting.)
Though Dajuan Bennett had initially agreed to be a witness for the government, he would later refuse to testify. You see, not only did the government want him to testify against his friend Giovanni Reid, but they also wanted him to testify against his cousins - Carlton and Dwayne. All three cousins - Dajuan Bennett, Carlton Bennett and Dwayne Bennett - shared the same household with their mothers and other family members. From the very beginning, police interview records support that Dajuan, his cousin Carlton and the other three who had been present when the shooting occurred, all without hesitation identified Dwayne as the lone robber and killer of Mr. Janke. However, this was not a bone of contention; what was however, was whether or not Mr. Reid was a co-conspirator to robbery and murder.
Not that this is what happened in the Reid case, but as I continue to write this story, I am reminded of the Scottsboro case in 1930s Alabama . This landmark United States Supreme Court case (Powell v. Alabama) established the principle that indigent criminal defendants be afforded counsel when charged with a capital offense. The case centered around nine Black boys whose lives were turned upside down after being falsely accused of having raped two White women on a train. The boys were arrested despite the fact that the story had been made up by the women; that's right, the rapes never occurred. When the young fellas realized that their proclaim of innocence was falling on deaf ears with the police, to satisfy their interrogators, they gave in, stopped professing their innocence, and began pointing the finger at one another.
At some point during the police interrogation in the Reid case, a different picture began to emerge. The motif that appeared before, during and after police involvement with the three young witnesses (Richard, Tyrone, and Dajuan) and suspects was that Dwayne did it and that he acted alone. But, for some reason or other (after hours of interrogation), the three young men began speculating for the detectives why they thought Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett might have been closer to the end of the block to where the killer stood with his victim.
Despite the fact that Reid and Bennett were several feet away from the killer when he shot Mr. Janke, the young men began toying around with placing Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett in the same picture frame with the confessed killer. It was at this juncture that their stories became inconsistent. This was the crossroad where obvious guesswork on the part of the three young witnesses came into play. It became clear to me that they were trying to make their story coincide with Ms. Hill's. Police statements show that their answers were no longer consistent, and that they began to do a lot of flip-flopping.
Since Ms. Lorraine Hill was unable to identify anyone, it was essential to get an involved witness to corroborate her story that there were two males who stood one on each side of Mr. Janke, because without that, the Commonwealth had no case against either man. Mr. Mackey, whose girlfriend was pregnant at the time, told a private investigator that after being threatened with being locked up for something that he did not do, that he began to go along with whatever the police wanted.
Early during Dajuan's interrogation, the seventeen-year-old was asked by a detective, "Why did you come forward to us, the police, and tell us that Wayne (Dwayne) shot the guy?" and he responded, "I was scared that you all were going to lock me up for murder. I didn't know he was going to shoot anybody. I was a block away." Dajuan Bennett and Tyrone Mackey's police reports are consistent with King's in that Mr. Reid was not standing near the professed killer when he robbed and shot Mr. Janke.
Ms. Hill gave her scenario of what happened to the police detectives four days before the original three, soon-to-be government witnesses gave theirs. Tyrone Mackey, his brother Richard King and Dajaun Bennett seemed consistent throughout their statements to the police in that Dwayne robbed and shot Mr. Janke. Never did any of them outright say that it was Dwayne, Carlton and Giovanni. So, why did it suddenly change?
When a parent hears something break in a room where children are playing, he/she usually stops what they are doing, goes into that room and asks, "Is everyone alright?" However, after finding no injuries, the next question that usually follows is, "Who did it?" Not wanting to be falsely accused and having to face the consequences, the innocent party points out everyone at that time who was involved. Most of us can relate to the singsong mantra of, "it wasn't me, it was so and so and them." But, if "so and so and them" are blood related, w-e-l-l, the parent just might be faced with, "ums", "uhs" and "I don't knows".
The Bennett cousins appeared to be the exception, because from the very beginning they placed the onus where it belonged, which was on their cousin, Dwayne. They could have easily lied and pointed the finger at the three who were unrelated to them, but they did not do that. Since each of the three involved witnesses (Dajuan Bennett, Tyrone Mackey and Richard King) was interrogated in a different room, why then was Dwayne's name the only one to keep popping up as if he had acted alone? Why was Dwayne the only one out of the six to be lashed out at? Why does everyone except for Dwayne mention not wanting the incident to be on their conscience? And, why did Dwayne become angry with the five for being upset with him over what he had done? Do you really believe that this is how willing partners in a robbery/murder behave?
V. Giovanni's Court-Appointed Defense
Before Reid's trial got underway, it appears that an easel had already been assembled for coloring the public's perception of him, from adverse pre-trial publicity to subliminal messages that he was someone to be feared. Reid told me that during his preliminary hearing, that he could not help but to notice the unmistakable silhouette of bulletproof vests worn under the clothing of three of his friends who had become government witnesses. He also said that a bulletproof shield had been erected in the courtroom. It is my considered opinion that the decision to try him with a co-defendant only served to reinforce public disdain for him. Aside from that, it provided prosecutor Michael McGovern, with the canvas to use a broad brush, with which he painted the illusion of Reid's guilt on.
Reid's court-appointed attorney was former Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge, Michael E. Wallace. Several years before the Reid trial, Mr. Wallace was faced with his own set of legal problems. He had been accused of accepting a bribe from Union leaders during the 1980's Roofers Union scandal in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Published reports at that time said that he, along with several other Common Pleas and Municipal Court judges were indicted for colluding with corrupt union leaders and members of organized crime (mob). It was reported that they were paid to look the other way whenever a defendant from the union or mob appeared before them.
According to Reid, Wallace had prepared him for taking the stand, but when it came time for him to do so, he advised against it, telling him that, "McGovern is a skilled prosecutor; he will trip you up on the stand." Reid said that the reason that he looked forward to testifying is because he knew that he was innocent, and as such, would ultimately be found not guilty. And it was for that same reason that he said he had earlier turned down the chance to plea bargain, unlike his co-defendant Dwayne Bennett. Days before the trial would commence, Dwayne opted to plead guilty to first-degree murder and other related charges. He received a sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole.
Reid told me that although he felt disappointed by Wallace's decision, that neither he nor his parents questioned it. His mother, Melvina Reid, told me that since Wallace was a former judge, that she did not try and second guess his strategy. Giovanni Reid went on to tell me that although Wallace made it a point at different intervals to tell the jury that he had character witnesses lined up to testify on his behalf, that he never called a single one of them to the stand. While it was Reid's recollection that the Commonwealth rested its case after key witness Lorraine Hill testified that she saw two males holding the victim while the third man robbed and shot him, it actually ended with the Medical Examiner's autopsy report. Nonetheless, Reid said that when the government rested its case, so too did the defense.
H. G. Bissinger (Buzz), a respected investigative reporter and author, mentions the Giovanni Reid case in chapter ten of his popular-selling book, "A Prayer for the City." A former investigative reporter with the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chicago Tribune, Buzz Bissinger wrote that he spent five and a half years shadowing different figures in then Mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell's administration for his book. The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist wrote on his observations of prosecutor Michael McGovern, whom he said he observed on several cases including the Reid case. In a section of his book titled, "Getting Paid," Bissinger paints a very disturbing picture of the prosecutor. He portrays McGovern as a ruthless and over-zealous egomaniac who seems to get a high on winning by any tactic necessary, including some questionable ones.
A case in point can be found in a passage of Getting Paid . Bissinger describes how McGovern intimidated government witness Tyrone Mackey before he took the witness stand. He said that the incident took place during a rehearsal on how Mackey was to testify when he took the stand. According to Bissinger, Tyrone Mackey slipped up during the rehearsal and said that Reid was at least fifteen feet away when Dwayne shot Mr. Janke, instead of he was within inches of the victim when he was shot. Tyrone's statement actually supported the diagram of each person's position that had been penned in on the police-drawn map by Richard King a year and a half earlier.
Judging from what the writer wrote next, it seems that Mackey's slip-up got McGovern's dander up because he wrote, "McGovern got in Mackey's face and stayed there with that scary and schizophrenic street look and warned him that he would be under oath and he had better tell the truth." McGovern's tactic worked because Mackey had a different recollection when he got on the stand. Buzz wrote that he testified on direct examination that Reid was standing in proximity ("within inches") to the victim when he was shot.
Tyrone Mackey was not the only witness to have placed Mr. Reid some distance away during the time of the shooting. Richard King, the other government witness who had earlier placed Reid on the police-drawn map several feet away from the confessed killer and his victim, seemed to have had an "epiphany" when he took the stand. Buzz Bissinger wrote that King testified under oath placing Reid within inches of the victim, but that he then contradicted himself under cross-examination and placed Reid several feet away from the victim at the time of the shooting. On page one hundred eighty-four in a "Prayer for the City", Buzz Bissinger also pointed out the problem with distance. He said that the witnesses had difficulty "pinpointing the exact location of Carlton Bennett and Giovanni Reid in relation to the victim." In a different sentence on the same subject, he said that they "lacked precision". Reid told me that it would be years later before former state witness Tyrone Mackey would tell him about how he had told Mr. McGovern that he was innocent just moments before the trial got underway.
B. Payments to the Government Witnesses
The Commonwealth failed to disclose to the defense and ultimately to the jury how they had placed Dajuan, Tyrone and his brother Richard in protective custody and lavished them with gifts of money and stays at several expensive hotels and luxury apartments to ensure their appearance at the preliminary hearing. They also had limousine service at their disposal. Hmm, all of this and the brothers still blundered on the witness stand. Were they trying to slip the truth to the jury when they placed Mr . Reid several feet away from the independent contemplator who robbed and shot Mr. Janke?
Several years after the shooting, in the same notarized statement to the private investigator which was mentioned earlier in the story , Tyrone Mackey recalled how the District Attorney had misled him, his brother Richard and friend Dajuan to believe that there was a "contract" out on their lives.** Mind you, Dajuan Bennett, who would have been one of the targeted victims, was living in the same household with two of his so-called, would-be executioners (his cousins - Carlton and Dwayne Bennett). Might this have been another reason for Dajuan dropping out of the witness protection program and refusing to testify? Maybe with the help of family members, he was able to deduce that the story was highly unlikely.
A couple of days after the shooting, police investigators happened upon Ms. Lorraine Hill in the same vicinity where the shooting had taken place. They used their encounter with her to conduct an on-site interview. Transcripts show that Ms. Hill pointed out for them where each person was supposedly standing when the shot rang out. Since she said that she never initiated contact with police and that she'd had no prior contact with any police officers before their chance encounter, just how did they know about her existence? And how did they know that they would be able to locate her a few days after the shooting in the immediate vicinity of where the shooting had taken place? And better yet, how did they know that she would be there at the very time they happened upon her? While on the witness stand, the presiding judge, Honorable David Savitt, questioned Ms. Hill on how the police knew about her and how they knew when and where they would be able to find her. Ms. Hill told the court that the police told her that someone had told them that they had seen a woman dressed in a nurse's uniform in the area around the time of the shooting. Funny how I never came across one police statement report where a witness (onlookers and responding police officers, etc.) mentioned seeing either a female nurse or a woman dressed in a nurse's uniform before, during, or after the shooting.
When Ms. Hill went to the police station on August twelfth for a formal interview, she told them about how she had witnessed three, dark-skinned Black males on a stoop with Mr. Janke. She went on to tell the detective that while one stood in front of him, that the other two sat one on each side. When she repeated her story to the court, the soft-spoken Lorraine Hill had to be asked several times to speak louder. In contrast to her scenario, a medical student related to the police how he had moments earlier driven by the intersection where Mr. Janke was said to have been sitting on some steps. However, he said that he witnessed him sitting alone.
Ms. Hill's unwavering testimony certainly begged for an explanation as to why Reid was seated at a defense table in the first place. Why? Because not even in one's wildest dreams could he be described as dark-skinned! Under cross-examination, Reid's court-appointed attorney, Michael E. Wallace, asked Hill if she would describe Reid as dark-skinned and she responded, "no". She was even unable to identify him in court as being one of the persons whom she said she saw locking one of their arms underneath the victim's while pulling him to a standing position where he was then walked, robbed and shot point blank in the head.
One mystery that begs for some clarification is why the prosecutor, Michael McGovern, made it a point in seemingly leading Ms. Lorraine Hill to identify herself to the court as a nurse that was on her way to work when the shooting occurred. Mr. McGovern asked, "Miss Hill, I see that you're in a white nurse's uniform, how long have you been a nurse?" and Ms. Hill replied, "three years." Conversely, one and a half years earlier and only two days after the shooting, Ms. Hill had provided her interviewer in the Homicide Division with a different occupation for herself, one that did not require the educational level or the skilled training of a nurse. In addition, her information proved that she did not even possess the educational qualifications for a skilled nursing position (Practical, Registered, or otherwise).
It seems that Reid's co-defendant's court-appointed attorney, Mr. Harrison, was interested in what Ms. Hill had been wearing on the morning of the shooting because he asked her, "And what were you wearing at that time?" and she responded, "White uniform." This was an essential question because in an earlier statement, Mr. McGovern intimated to the court that Ms. Hill had been wearing a white uniform on the morning that Mr. Janke was robbed and shot. Mr. Harrison continued his questioning with many more pointed questions concerning her nursing skills, in which she seemed to lack (Click on "Trial Excerpts").
Stranger yet, is how Ms. Hill testified to having witnessed a crime as it was unfolding, and all the while knowing that her presence was known to the so-called assailant(s). According to her police report and trial transcripts, Ms. Hill seemingly hung around the immediate vicinity before, during, and after the robbery and shooting. Further, she even told the police about what she did after the victim had been shot. The "nurse" said that she left to go to a nearby phone booth to call for help and then returned to be at the side of the gravely wounded man. Yet, witnesses (two male medical students, onlookers and police officers) only mention two men as being at the side of the gravely injured man. By the way, why didn't Ms. Hill seem to fear for her own safety? She was after all a potential eyewitness.
Reid told me that Ms. Hill was not present at his preliminary hearing. Would she have been able to identify him had she been there? Might it be that someone had already decided on guilt and innocence and thought it to be a waste of the government's time? To presume a defendant guilty is not in accordance with the constitution. If the very players of our judicial system use conjecture to decide guilt or innocence, then our very system of fairness is already corrupted.
D. The Government's Unexpected Witness
Transcripts show that before Ms. Hill testified that Mr. McGovern seemed to catch Judge Savitt off guard by calling an unexpected witness to the stand. From all indications, the judge wanted to know what happened to Ms. Hill and just what was going on. He asked McGovern "What happened to --?" and, McGovern replied, "-- Oh, she'll be testifying shortly, Your Honor."
It is my belief that McGovern might have wanted the unexpected witness to testify before Ms. Hill because the witness' professional background could help lend credibility to the jury, and also indirectly establish credibility as to Ms. Hill's professional identity. Whereas Mr. McGovern asked the unexpected witness about his professional credentials, he did not ask the same of Ms. Hill. The witness, who was dressed out of uniform, was asked questions such as, where he attended college, his professional status (professional level and/or classification) and where he was employed. In the case of Ms. Hill, he only suggested to the jury that by her wearing a white uniform to court that she was a nurse. He never came right out and asked her where she attended school, her classification as a nurse or even where she was employed.
McGovern made a pivotal move when he asked Judged Savitt if he could bring Ms. Hill into the courtroom while the unexpected witness was still on the stand. The judge wanted to know, "what for?" After McGovern explained why, he then granted him permission to bring her in. Well, it turns out that McGovern wanted the surprise witness to identify Ms. Hill to the court as the same woman that he saw a year and a half earlier dressed in a nurse's uniform at the crime scene. Though Mr. McGovern asked the witness where he was and what he was doing when the shot rang out, he never asked the same of Ms. Hill. Why not?
McGovern seemed very concerned about the distance between the street that the unexpected witness lived on, which was the seventeen hundred block of Kater Street and the intersection of Seventeenth and Bainbridge Streets, an intersection that is located a half a block south of the seventeen hundred block of Kater Street. But, why such an interest in that intersection when it is in the opposite direction of where the shooting took place? McGovern wanted to know because that was the direction in which the suspects allegedly ran. Anyway, the witness approximated the distance to be "forty feet." If his answer is correct, then I am left to guess that the distance between Bainbridge and South Streets - the area where the crime took place - would be roughly eighty feet. I will get back to the unexpected witness and why I think Seventeenth and Bainbridge Streets might hold the key to many unanswered questions; and I don't mean which direction the suspects ran, either.
A major sticking point in the Commonwealth's prosecution of Reid can be found in the police interview statement report of government witness, Richard King. When King was asked by a homicide detective at the end of his interview, "Is there anything else you can add that you think might help us with this investigation?" he answered, "just the crazy lady, she saw most of it too." King had mentioned this woman earlier in his interview when he said, "and there was a lady on the phone carrying a lot of bags, like a bag lady, and she looked at us, and I told her to 'just go ahead.'" (I wonder if that was an anticipatory response, as in "go away; don't come over here bothering us, leave us alone.")
Richard King's police interview took place on August sixteenth, four days after the police had stumbled upon Ms. Lorraine Hill in the same vicinity where the shooting had taken place. While the late King can not tell us what he meant when he told the bag lady to "just go ahead", Dajuan Bennett and Tyrone Mackey probably could tell us, since they were the two who had been walking with him when the incident took place.
Another puzzling question is why Lorraine Hill never once mentioned in her police interview report anything about a bag lady, since according to her testimony, she was an eyewitness from the beginning to the end. Could Richard King have mistaken a professionally dressed nurse (in a white uniform) for a bag lady? If he had, other than the bags, what else was it about her appearance that might have made him think that she was a bag lady? For that matter, what was it about her behavior that morning that made him think that she was "crazy"?
Incidentally, Ms. Hill had described an encounter to the police that certainly bared some similarity to Richard King's experience with the bag lady. She told them that, "I was walking on the south side of South Street towards Seventeenth Street coming from Eighteenth Street . As I got to the drug store door near the corner, I saw a Black male come across Seventeenth Street , walking towards me on the same side of the street. (This would corroborate King's encounter with a woman; that is, if Hill was indeed that same woman.) She went on to say, "I thought he was going to take my pocketbook, so I crossed the street to the north side of South Street ."
As absurd as it might seem, if King had mistaken Ms. Hill for a bag lady, then she may have crossed the street after he purportedly said to her, "just go ahead". In addition, Ms. Hill also told the police detectives that "The Black male then walked back to the southeast corner to where I saw a White guy sitting on the step and two Black guys sitting there too." She added, "I knew the White boy was in some kind of trouble by the expression on his face." Just where was Ms. Hill standing that she could see the expression on the victim's face, since she said that one of the assailants was standing in front of him? I could not help but to notice how her precise directional usage in her police report did not reflect the same type of language used throughout her court testimony (Click on "Trial Excerpts"). Aside from that, when the B lack male began walking in her opposite direction, why didn't she choose that opportunity to vacate the area, since she said that he had made her feel uneasy?
Now, back to why I feel that Seventeenth and Bainbridge Streets might hold the key to some unanswered questions in this case. The elusive bag lady seems to figure prominently here. Dajuan Bennett and Tyrone Mackey also mentioned this shadowy figure in their statements to the police. Mr. Mackey told the police, "We was walking on the left-hand side of the street and there was a lady at the phone booth at Seventeenth and Bainbridge. Rich said to her, 'don't worry, we're not going to do nothing to you.'" (I must admit that I was taken aback when I read that. Why? W-e-l-l, not that they don't exist, but I have yet to meet a young, Black man living in the hood who goes by the nickname of "Rich". Corporate America ? Yes. Hood ? No.)
If Mackey's recollection is correct, then King's announcement might have been to allay the fears of a woman who might have mistakenly thought that one of the three, dark-skinned men walking in her direction was going to try and snatch her pocketbook. Nevertheless, it still isn't clear why King thought the woman to be "crazy". Maybe he heard the "bag lady" muttering into a telephone, as he, Dajuan and Tyrone were about to pass her on their southbound walk on Seventeenth Street towards home. Or, maybe she was ranting and raving over the phone in an incoherent manner. Nevertheless, it was immediately after that encounter that Mackey told the interviewer, "that's when I heard a gunshot."
Another point of interest is where Ms. Hill related to a homicide detective that before police or paramedics arrived on the scene that two doctors had been tending to the gravely injured man. She said, "one of the doctors said he had seen them also when he pulled into the garage." In addition, when the detective asked her, "Did anyone tell you about this incident?" she answered, "just the doctor that was working on the white boy, he said he saw what happened." Conversely, while testifying on the witness stand nearly a year and a half later, she said that ".and I told the doctor that was there on the scene what had happened." followed by, "I told him that he could tell the police, and I left and went to work."
Ms. Hill also told the interviewing detective that although she had walked down the street to dial "emergency" for Mr. Janke, that she left before paramedics arrived. She further stated to them that when she walked back to where the gravely wounded Mr. Janke lay, that the two "doctors" were there administering aid to him. Puzzling is what she said happened next. Ms. Hill said that she did not mention to the responding police officers that she was an eyewitness to the crime. Her explanation was that, "The police made me move back and I told the doctor I had to work and I left."
Police Officer William Gibson stated in his report that other arriving officers "began to search for witnesses to the shooting" after paramedics arrived. Police Officer Lonize Anderson must have been one of those officers because she wrote in her statement, "I started asking people if they saw what happened or heard anything." ( Since it appears that the first arriving officers might not have asked the standard question of possible witnesses, I must assume that Ms. Hill left before "other arriving officers began to search for witnesses to the shooting.") Continuing, Officer Anderson said that, "Two doctors or male nurses, # [sic] Steve Baker, and #2 Rodney Finalle [sic] that they saw males standing around this guy & then heard a gunshot. They said that the males ran south on Seventeenth Streets after the shots."
Ms. Hill's story parallels that of a medical student. The intern told the police how while on his way to pick up a "fellow student" for a meeting at Presbyterian Hospital, that he noticed a man, later identified as Mr. Janke, "alone, sitting on the steps of a building on the southeast corner of Seventeenth and South Streets." Might Ms. Hill have mistaken this intern for a doctor?
One of the interns, identified as Rodney Finalle, told the police that "there were approximately four to five Black males milling around this corner, they did not have contact with the White male at this time." The intern who is now a doctor said that he drove past the intersection and parked close by in front of his "fellow intern's" apartment building. While his peer was standing in his doorway, locking his front door, is when Dr. Finalle said that the two of them heard the sound of a nearby, single gunshot.
According to Dr. Finalle, he and his passenger then drove around to where they thought the sound had come from. They quickly came across the body of Mr. Janke, (a medical student just like themselves) lying gravely wounded at Seventeenth and South Streets. While Dr. Finalle waited in his car, he said that his passenger ran a very short distance to his apartment to call the police. Dr. Finalle's passenger was the unexpected wit ness who testified a year and a half later that Ms. Hill had been dressed in a nurse's uniform on the day of the shooting. He too is now a physician. His name is Dr. Stephen Baker.
Dr. Finalle told the police during his interview that "There was a Black female, (forty-years-old, short, medium build, wearing a windbreaker-type jacket. She was on her way to work) who came up and stated she had seen what happened, she could not wait because she was on her way to work." Why didn't Dr. Finalle mention a "nurse" or a woman dressed as a nurse when describing this "mysterious" witness to the police? Why would he think a "windbreaker-type jacket" would be more identifiable than a white uniform of any kind?
Conversely, there is no mention of a woman approaching the interns, or a woman dressed in a white uniform, or a female nurse for that matter, anywhere in Dr. Baker's police interview report. He did, however indicate to the police that while he was standing in front of his doorway, that he saw three, young, "dark complected" males running south on Seventeenth Street. He even gave them a description for their approximate height and weight: "none of them looked large and none looked skinny." Did the police ask Dr. Finalle if the "lady in the windbreaker-type jacket" on that August morning left any identifying information with him (so that they could contact her later)?
Was it just coincidence that the "lady in the windbreaker-type" jacket's conversation with Dr. Finalle mirrored the same conversation that Dr. Baker testified in court that he had had at the crime scene with a "nurse," later identified as Ms. Lorraine Hill? Just to reiterate, Dr. Baker's police statement report did not mention him having a conversation at the crime scene with anyone. What was memorable about Ms. Hill that Dr. Baker would be able to identify her in court one and a half years later? By the way, why wasn't the "lady in the windbreaker-type jacket" called in to testify?
Why did the police and onlookers readily assume that the interns were members of the medical community and not the nurse? The interns were dressed in scrubs that morning, so why wasn't the same professional identity assumed of Ms. Hill who was said to have been dressed in a white uniform? Again, there was no mention of a nurse being present in any of the police interview statements that I have on hand.
So, just when and how did the police learn about a nurse being in "the vicinity" around the same time the crime took place? Remember, when asked a similar question by Judge Savitt, Ms. Hill testified in court that the police who conducted the on-site interview told her that they knew about her because someone had told them that they had seen a nurse walking in the vicinity. But who was the person that told them that?
Ms. Hill stated that the police made everyone move back and that was
when she left. But, why would they have asked a professionally dressed
nurse before medics arrived to move back, and yet not ask the same of
the interns? The police evidently thought highly enough of the two interns
that they not only included them inside of the roped off crime scene,
but they even asked one of them to go inside of the victim's
pockets and pull out his wallet.
Although the image of six depraved males roaming around Philadelphia looking for a victim probably left an indelible print on the minds of the public, in the final analysis, the Commonwealth had to go along with Ms. Hill's whittled down version of there having been only three assailants. And, it didn't seem to matter that the two on trial did not even match her description. It was established that Reid and the other five young men were present during the time of the shooting, so why didn't Ms. Hill see the other three? Despite the fact that they were separated by some distance, Reid contends that they were all still in eyeshot of one another. This is conceivable if all six young men were on Seventeenth Street . But, where would that have placed Ms. Hill?
Where was Ms. Hill standing that she did not notice a six-foot, sixteen-year-old, light-skinned Reid? Might she have been standing on a side street where he was not in her viewing range? Maybe the "bag lady" who King said was at a phone booth at Seventeenth and Bainbridge could help shed some light on this perplexing question since he said that "she saw most of what happened." The answer might clear up why Reid never saw Ms. Hill nor she him. If Ms. Hill was on Bainbridge Street at Seventeenth, it would have put her in eyeshot of the original three state witnesses - the late Richard King, his brother Tyrone Mackey and friend, Dajuan Bennett. Supposing this is true, it would then help to explain why she not only kept insisting that the assailants were three, dark-skinned Black men, but it would also shed some light on why she never mentioned seeing the other three men (Giovanni Reid, Carlton Bennett and Dwayne Bennett).
Just whom was Ms. Hill describing when she spoke of the Black male whose presence frightened her as he walked in her direction? She told the police that the same person who shot Mr. Janke was the same person who had earlier frightened her as he walked in her direction. Might Ms. Hill have been confused about what she saw since it had already been established that a light-skinned Reid (who would have stood out from the others) was positioned closer to the end of the block to where the confessed shooter stood? This would mean that her description of one of the three, dark-skinned men as the perpetrator of the crime is inaccurate.
I questioned Mr. Reid about the complexions of King, Mackey and Dajuan Bennett and he told me that all three, including the late Richard King would be considered dark-skinned men. I also asked his mother about the complexions of the five young men who were present on that fateful morning. She told me that she did not know Dwayne Bennett and had never heard his name before "Jerry's" (Giovanni) troubles. But, she told me that she knows Dajuan and Tyrone and that she can vouch that they are of a dark complexion. During my daughter Rosie's investigation, she observed for herself that Reid's co-defendant, Carlton Bennett, is brown-skinned. Apparently, Ms. Hill agrees with Rosie (See "Commentary").
When I questioned Reid about the bag lady, he seemed oblivious. He told me that although he had read mentions of a bag lady in some of his paperwork, he never thought twice about it. Furthermore, he said that he never saw a bag lady on the morning in question or a woman dressed as a nurse, for that matter. He went on to say that the only persons that he ever saw in the immediate vicinity were the five people with whom he had been with since the time Dwayne and Carlton Bennett joined them, and of course the victim. He seemed very surprised that I was showing an interest in her. Why didn't anyone question the bag lady? Why was she not at the preliminary hearing or trial, since Richard King said "she saw most of it."?
It appears that Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett were eyewitnesses whose moral sense moved them to make a conscientious decision to interrupt from a distance, a crime that was already in progress; sadly, they were a nanosecond too late . This is consistent with statements from the government's own witnesses who told police during their interviews that each time Dwayne targeted someone to rob, that they collectively talked him out of it. Why would Reid and Carlton Bennett have acted any less for Mr. Janke? This might also answer why neither Reid nor his co-defendant could be placed in proximity to Mr. Janke and the lone, confessed killer when he shot Mr. Janke.
Soon after his conviction, Reid had his case appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. At Reid's request, his trial lawyer, former Judge Wallace, filed the appeal on his behalf. Reid said that Wallace did not inform him in a timely manner that the Superior Court had denied his request, thus denying him his right to file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court within the specified timeframe. He said that he initiated contact with Wallace when he had not heard from him in four months. According to Reid, Wallace wrote to him saying, "I was unaware that you did not know that I did not have the best of staff; your case was placed in storage."
Over the years, Reid has continued to fight for justice through the appeals process. In 2003, a U.S. District Court judge convened an evidentiary hearing at which time Reid's trial attorney - Michael Wallace, and former government witness Tyrone Mackey testified. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Buzz Bissinger was also there and testified to the fact that the incidents cited in his book, "A Prayer for the City," were all true. Former prosecutor McGovern testified on the behalf of the government. At this evidentiary hearing, Reid introduced the payments made to government witnesses as well as the exculpatory statements made by Tyrone Mackey to McGovern (trial prosecutor). Reid also introduced the fact that McGovern had threatened Mackey.
Later that same year, U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell dismissed Reid's habeas corpus petition, sending it to a higher level court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit), despite the fact that he himself cited how Reid had made a "substantial showing of the denial of his constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland ." According to Reid, Judge Dalzell cited several reasons for dismissing his petition; chief among them was the fact that he felt that the former prosecutor's (Michael McGovern) testimony "lacked credibility".
In 2004, Mr. Reid then appealed to a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. They unanimously affirmed the District Court's decision in spite of the fact that newly discovered exculpatory evidence had been uncovered. Reid, who has never had an infraction during his many years of incarceration, has recently hired Mr. Kevin V. Mincey, Esq. to help him fight this injustice.
Giovanni Reid told me that on the day of his 2003 evidentiary hearing that he and former government witness, Tyrone Mackey, had the chance to talk for the first time since his arrest and conviction. He said that Tyrone used this encounter to explain why he lied during his testimony on the witness stand. Reid said that Mackey told him that someone in the prosecutor's office had lied to him, his brother Richard and their friend, Dajuan Bennett (the three government witnesses). He said that Mackey told him that they had been told that the defendants had threatened their lives, hence the need for protective custody.
In 1999, Tyrone Mackey (former government witness) was interviewed by a private investigator (PI), Wayne W. Schmidt, Sr. This was done at the behest of Reid's appellate attorney, Mr. Daniel A. Silverman, Esq. To paraphrase, Mr. Schmidt wrote that Mackey recalled how the police had used scare tactics and intimidation to elicit false statements from him. He provided him with several examples, one of which was how a detective commented about his then pregnant girlfriend, telling him that, "I had a pretty girlfriend," which was then followed by, "it was better if I gave a statement, otherwise, I may not see them for a long time." After one of the detectives left to take Mackey's girlfriend home, Mackey told Mr. Schmidt (P.I.) that the detectives interrogated him, his brother Richard King and Dajuan Bennett for several hours. (They were placed in separate rooms during interrogation.)***
* ** *** All prior references to Tyrone Mackey talking to a Private Investigator are a result of the same notarized document described above.
Mr. Mackey recounted for Mr. Schmidt the time when he told a police sergeant that he did not want to testify. He said that the officer took him for a walk and suggested to him that they were doing him a favor and that he could bust him on a drug charge if he did not cooperate. Feeling defeated, Mackey told the investigator, "If I didn't, they could lump me into the whole thing and charge me with murder or conspiracy, so I just go with the flow - and, I did." In addition, Reid said that Mackey told him how McGovern had bullied and threatened them. He said that Mackey also told him that McGovern threatened to charge him with murder if he did not cooperate by testifying against him. This type of accusation is consistent with the type of bullying tactics that author Buzz Bissinger wrote about.
Only sixteen-years old at the time, Reid told me how he became frightened after the shooting and took off running along with everyone else. He said that all of them eventually ended up, albeit minutes apart, back where they had started out from that morning, which was the home of Tyrone and Richard. Dwayne and Carlton , who had not been with them when they first set out that morning, also ran there. Reportedly, before returning to his home, Tyrone stopped by his uncle's house, woke him up and told him what Dwayne had done (Again, about what Dwayne had done.).
In a passage from Buzz Bissinger's book, he wrote about how McGovern had taken a stab at what made Dwayne Bennett tick. In a reference to Dwayne, Buzz wrote that McGovern referred to him as, "cold-blooded". I would venture to say that most would agree with that label, including the innocent eyewitnesses who became unfairly swept up in the judicial process (Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett). The fact that McGovern stuck to the boogeyman story in his opening statement might be reflective of how he views people from certain socio-economic backgrounds. A possible example of this can be found in Bissinger's book. Quoting from selected sentences from a passage that Buzz attributed to McGovern's take on what made confessed killer, Dwayne Bennett tick, he wrote, "His attitude seemed unfathomable, unless perhaps you were part of the same environment of vacant houses and public high rises and dishwasher jobs that had yielded him."
Public records show that McGovern was not the only one to ponder over what could have possessed Dwayne to commit such a vicious act. Reid said that they were all shocked and saddened by it. He said that all five of them confronted Dwayne and began to fuss at him. Further, Reid told me that when they asked Dwayne why he did it, that he nonchalantly replied, "So, I've killed four other people before." After that response, he said that they ceased questioning him.
In his police interview statement, Richard King corroborated the fact that the group had confronted Dwayne when he said, ". And we were all telling Wayne that it wasn't cool what he did, and he said, 'I don't give a f-k what you all think!' " In addition, Tyrone Mackey gave a similar statement during his police interview. He told the police that when he asked "Wayne" (Dwayne) why he did it, that he answered, "Well, that's just me, that's just me, that's my fourth body, that don't worry me no more." [sic] Mackey said that Dwayne continued, asking him, "What do you want to do, shoot me? I'll give you the gun."
Tyrone Mackey told the detective during his interview, "Everybody was saying it's on their conscious and Wayne (Dwayne) said, 'I don't see what you worried about, if the cops come, I'll tell them that I did it, it ain't no big deal. I did it before, I got four bodies.'" It is conceivable that all of the recollections are accurate and that Reid's must have been the last response by a now seemingly agitated Dwayne. (Dwayne's comment about handing over his gun might connote that he is the only one in possession of a gun.)
Three lives have been permanently altered as a result of Dwayne Bennett's vicious and mean-spirited act. Both Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett were convicted of conspiracy to robbery and murder. Both were found not guilty of possession of a gun. Just to think that they were found guilty despite the fact that they did not fit Ms. Hill's description of the assailants is a scary thought. Hill had described the assailants as being five feet tall. Reid contends that he was six feet tall then as he is now.
It is my strong belief that Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett were not in proximity to Dwayne to have even contemplated a conspiracy to commit robbery and murder. I base my opinion on the following facts: (1.) All three of the government's involved witnesses (Dwayne's cousin included) told the police that Dwayne did it, (2.) All three gave graphic examples of Dwayne's predatory behavior on that morning, (3.) All three expressed how throughout that morning that they, Giovanni Reid and Carlton Bennett were non-compliant when Dwayne solicited them to help him rob someone, and lastly, (4.) All angrily lashed out at Dwayne afterwards. The information that I gathered after poring over official documents (witness statements, trial transcripts, affidavit, etc.) all helped to bring me to my conclusion.
Dwayne's reported responses illustrated that McGovern was right about him being cold-blooded. It is conceivable that Dwayne chose not to announce his plan this time because he knew that Reid and Carlton would try and talk him out of it. Remember, before Reid and Carlton realized that Dwayne was no longer walking with them, they had already passed Mr. Janke by when he was at the phone booth. This would be consistent with Mackey's statement that Dwayne always lagged behind everyone else.
Reid and the others certainly proved him wrong on his misconception about where moral consciousness resides. It appears that each of the young men who witnessed the dastardly crime had a moral conscious. So, I guess moral values are not rooted in which side of the track one is from after all. I think most will agree that what Dwayne did was morally unconscionable. Buzz Bissinger wrote that McGovern called it "unfathomable".
Well, do you want to know what else could be considered unconscionable and "unfathomable" outside of Dwayne's vicious and dastardly act? Robbing an innocent sixteen-year-old adolescent of his youth and innocence because he happened to have been in the wrong company. Anyone that might have played a role in wedging the unshapen puzzle piece with Reid and Carlton Bennett's picture on it into the puzzle's frame board, is by no means in any position to claim the moral high ground.
Mr. Reid has never denied being closer to the end of the block to where Dwayne stood with Mr. Janke (at least fifteen feet away). And, he has always contended that he and Carlton were taking their time strolling down the street while engrossed in conversation. Being closer to the end of the block to where a crime is occurring does not place one on the very site of where it is happening while it is happening. How many times have we seen television news footage of people scrambling for cover after they've found themselves caught in the immediate area of an unsuspected burst of gunfire?
It was proven that Dwayne Bennett had a gun that morning and used it. The question is whether or not he had co-conspirators. But, why would Dwayne need accomplices for a man that was not armed? And why would Dwayne think that two people who had been dismissing his offer to rob someone would suddenly change their minds and help him out?
What were the crime statistics in Philadelphia on random street violence like, in particular, murder against strangers, during the time of Reid's arrest? Could the climate at the time have contributed to his fate? The answer to these questions might help to shed some light on why the jury convicted a visibly, six-foot, light-skinned youth when Ms. Hill, the independent eyewitness described the assailants as five feet and dark-skinned. Giving some consideration to the jury, they had not been told about the bag lady nor the Black lady who Dr. Finalle said told him that she witnessed what happened but like Ms. Hill, had to leave for work. He said that the woman who told him that was wearing a "windbreaker-type jacket." Reid himself had never given any consideration to the bag lady. Nevertheless, if the jury had known about these two shadowy figures, who knows, they just might have returned a different verdict.
Sadly, Mr. Janke's life has been permanently altered, but it is not too late to right the wrong that was done to the two eyewitnesses who tried to intervene on his behalf. When the canvas was flipped over, it showed that a different picture had already been drawn. The softened picture showed Reid and Bennett as good Samaritans, and not co-conspirators to robbery and murder as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proved, albeit with questionable and suspect testimony. Unfortunately, Reid and Bennett just happened to have been the two that ended up walking with a miscreant who was hell-bent on destruction.
Rosie's (my daughter) investigation has uncovered evidence that appears to show that the same Lorraine Hill who testified at Reid's trial, does have a background that includes homelessness. Mere coincidence? You be the judge. Rosie and I will continue to believe in Giovanni Reid's innocence. The sticking points outlined in this story are too significant to just be ignored. For a better insight into how Ms. Hill seemingly lingered in the immediate area as the crime was unfolding, and how both Reid's attorney and his co-defendant's attorney hammered away at her to make some sense of her behavior, please click on, "Trial Excerpts".
On the "Trial Excerpts" link, you will also read how the presiding judge interrupted the co-defendant's counsel during his cross-examination of Ms. Hill. It seems that he was trying to ascertain from her just how the police knew about her and how they knew that they would be able to find her when they did, no doubt, in the same neighborhood where the crime had taken place. You will also get to read the dialogue between Reid's co-defendant's attorney and Ms. Hill about her nursing skills. In addition, you will read how both attorneys were very methodical in questioning her about her whereabouts while the crime was occurring. Read how they asked her, her position point by point. Whereas most would have taken flight at their earliest opportunity, it seems that Ms. Hill felt quite comfortable being there.
Rosie's newly acquired skills as a gumshoe have led her to the doorsteps of a major figure in this case. She has also pinpointed the locations of two other key figures. Visit this site for future updates.
cwms©2005