Police abuses of the case

During the investigative phase, the recording of statements and evidence and the presentation of facts to the Court, the State police clearly failed to carry out a thorough and fair investigation. The main points are listed below and should also have been recognized and challenged by Anthony Nealy's defense team:

Why was Anthony Nealy not allowed a lawyer or his entitled phone call unless he 'co-operated' with the police. His first phone call (to his sister) was made at 21:30 pm hours, although he had been in police custody from 10:00 hours.

Why was Anthony Nealy told that the only evidence against him was 1) that provided by RD and 2) the money which was actually found on someone else.

However, Anthony was later informed that the witness to the incident and Memphis were now also witnesses for evidence.

Why did all other five individuals initially detained for involvement with the crime leave police custody only a few hours later, but Anthony Nealy was held in custody for a total of 12 ½ hours until a statement was made

Why was Anthony Nealy's interview with the police never taped?

When reading the statement - it is clear that there are grave inconsistencies, which indicate that the statements were in fact 'fabricated' by the police:

Anthony Nealy is conveniently made out to sound that he was drunk at the time that the crime occurred - i.e. he states that he did not know who else was in his car beside himself. However, the rest of the statement is disjointed and 'Anthony' makes several errors which he would never have made himself.

For example:

Anthony Nealy is said within the statement to refer to Claude Nealy as 'Claude', rather than 'Spudney' which is the name that everyone who was familiar with Claude referred to him as.

The statement says that Anthony Nealy purchased beer from Lamar Street. However, Mr Nealy never bought beer here, although he was a regular visit to the store at Bear street (where he purchased cigarettes early on the day of the crime - 20th August 1997, prior to collecting Claude from his home and before travelling to Oklahoma - the defense also failed to check this with the Bear Street store owner in order to validate Mr Nealy's movements on the day of the crime)

Why does Anthony Nealy suddenly refer to Claude Nealy as his 'cousin' during the 'statement' made to police? This is the kind of mistake Anthony Nealy would never make, given the fact that he was extremely close to his nephews and brought them up as a substitute father.

The statement allegedly dictated by Anthony Nealy, first of all declares that Mr Nealy entered the store and saw that one of the guys was sitting on a chair and 'was dead. On my way out I tripped over a guy on the floor. We left the store'.

How then, can this statement be seen as a 'confession' by Anthony Nealy when it actually contradicts the State's case that Mr Nealy committed the murder i.e the later part of the statement seeks to add substance to this declaration by admitting that Anthony Nealy stated; "I only fired it once. The gun accidentally went off because the guy pulled the gun towards him causing the gun to shoot"

EVEN IF ANTHONY NEALY HAD ADMITTED TO BEING INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING AS THE SECOND AND 'LATER' PART OF THE POLICE STATEMENT SUGGESTS - WHY DID MR NEALY'S DEFENSE NOT PRESS FOR THE JURY TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE OPTION OF A VERDICT OF 'INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER'? (refer to other 'Neglect by Court-appointed attorneys')

Throughout the statement allegedly made by Claude Nealy, the person relating the statement constantly refers throughout to 'I', 'We' or 'One of the Guys'. Such a statement should have been taken at face value by the police and court- yet why were none of the 'other guys' prosecuted with the vigour that Mr Nealy and his nephew were?

However, the court were never even allowed the opportunity of examining such a 'statement'.

During the statement, the person 'RD' is spelt as 'RDx' (different spelling). RD's nickname was not spelt in such a way by his friends and associates. This can be interpreted as a white person's simplistic assumption of the way that a black person's pronunciation would be spelt-out (literally). It is yet another inconsistency of the case that the police investigators should attempt to phonetically spell the name 'RD', yet neglect the clear verbal references that Anthony Nealy would have made to 'Spudney' (Claude Nealy) and 'Sx' (S) should he have been making a verbal statement of confession with anyone.

How could Anthony Nealy be so drunk as to be able to remember that RD was present in his living room immediately after the shooting, but was not present in his car?

The police statement alleges that when he realised he had 'fucked up', Mr Nealy 'gathered clothes' in order to 'be away'. However, if Mr Nealy had committed the crime, why would he then simply return the next day to his own home in order to be arrested?

Throughout the 10 hour 'interview' with Mr Nealy, Detective Harding constantly moved in and out of the room - most likely altering her approach in relation to what S (also being held in police custody) was telling her/ prepared to tell her

It is absolutely apparent that the initial statement was 'added to' by the police when they realised that they had not collected enough evidence in order to convict Mr Nealy. There are two obvious parts to the statement: " For example, the first six pages of the statement has no mention of firearms whatsoever. However, by page 7 (when the altered times indicate that the initial statement was added to) Mr Nealy is supposed to make the admission that the gun was pulled 'towards him and went off'.

Again, this 'confession' to an accident makes absolutely no sense when the first six pages of the statement are examined; the final statement only dictates that Mr Nealy saw a person sitting in a chair, after they had been shot. i.e. if the police investigators had been more clever and careful about fabricating Anthony Nealy's confession, they would have abandoned the previous statement and re-written the entire statement with the 'new story'.

However, their approach was sloppy throughout and instead of re-writing the statement, they simply 'added' an ad-hoc confession!

Anthony Nealy only signed the police statement because he mistakenly had faith in the US Constitution and felt that no court in the country would believe the shoddy evidence that had been collected. In particular, after 12 ½ hours in police custody (10 am to 9.30 pm) when faced with police coercion and interrogation techniques, Mr Nealy was sufficiently exhausted in order to be persuaded that he should sign the statement.

Furthermore, the copies of the statements clearly demonstrate that the times of the interview has been amended - in order to make the time period appear to be shorter than it was in reality.

In particular, note the 'X' symbol marked on page 6 which indicates that the statement had ended. However, this also suggests strongly that after re-reading the 'confession', the police officers felt that there was insufficient 'confession' in the statement, and therefore more information was added from page 7 onwards

The police failed to note that the video began with the only witness putting out boxes at the store and that he could not have seen the faces of the men that entered the store and committed the murders

The police actually admitted to the attorneys during the trial that they did not look for any other subject who may have committed the murder

Why did the police overlook the fact at the capital trial, that the only 'witness', Sam Vallabhbai. had no records of residence within the US (Immigration department)?

Why was the only witness told directly by the police that the man who had the shotgun was going to be the guy 'in the courtroom' (i.e. Anthony Nealy was the only black male in the courtroom) i.e. Why was Mr Nealy clearly directly identified as the 'murderer' to the witness Sam Vallabhbai, without him being asked to independently validate the accused as the 'murderer'.