But, now they had a confession....a young man, Chuck Erickson, had confessed to the murder! And not only that, he was implicating Ryan Ferguson. According to Chuck Erickson, Ryan was the one who strangled Mr. Heitholt in cold blood. Certainly, this confession was exactly what was needed to bring closure to a hauntingly, unsolved murder.

People shook their heads as the headlines blazed. And, of course, the question - "Would the prosecutor seek the death penalty?" Ryan, unfortunately, despite his protests, was a condemned man......... Guilty, guilty, guilty.....

But, let's step back. Let's look at that confession of Chuck Erickson's; the confession that brought young Ryan Ferguson to his jail cell. Let's look at that confession which deemed Ryan Ferguson such a danger to society that he warranted the highest bond ever set for anyone in the history of Boone County at $20 million. Let's look at that confession very carefully. And as you do, take notice of the many blatant inconsistencies.

How can Chuck Erickson know so few details about the crime that he is absolutely convinced he and Ryan Ferguson committed? Think about this....he states in his original confession that he may have had a dream about committing the murder. Later, in his sworn deposition, Chuck Erickson claimed to have NO recollection of committing the murder on the following morning, the following week or the next two years. In fact, Erickson says he had a dream about the murder which evolved into his arrest. The police took a very confused young man, who was clearly uncertain that he had anything to do with the crime and fed him all the crucial details which led to his "confession".

Maybe it was a dream?

What about Chuck not having any recollection of the crime for 2 years?

But there is more!! Chuck Erickson claimed to have run into Dallas Mallory, a friend, after committing the murder. Yet, this same Dallas Mallory, provided a sworn affidavit on 12-1-04 stating that he NEVER saw Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson downtown on the night of the murder. Did anyone ever wonder why the prosecutor never called this key witness...the one witness who could place these boys at the scene? The only one who could bring credibility to Chuck Erickson's testimony?

Moving on....Doesn't it seem strange that in Chuck's original confession to the crime, he tells of the escape route that Ryan and he took after the murder; a route that just happened to run in the opposite direction of that followed by trained K-9 tracking dogs in their pursuit of the perpetrators? It is even more ludicrous that Chuck Erickson's story and route were revised 6 months later, (see October 1, 2004 Proffer). This was only after Chuck was made aware of this information through various sources; specifically the discovery. Discovery is any information, documentation, facts or record associated with a particular case.

Chuck claims that after murdering Mr. Heitholt they then went back to By George Nightclub which is located on Broadway, the main street in downtown Columbia, Missouri. This would have put the boys there between 2:45 and 3:00 AM wearing their bloody clothes. Now, think about this.... The club closed at 1:30 AM. This is a city ordinance and state statute. Yet, even so, Chuck claimed that they were there for another 1 1/2 hours. Supposedly, they didn't leave because there was a policeman in the bar parking lot. Now, does this seem reasonable?!! A bar is open 2 hours after the law requires it to shut down, and a policeman is in the parking lot - NOT SHUTTING IT DOWN !!! And what about the testimony during the trial from the bartender, stating that the bar always closed at 1:30? What about the obvious lack of ANY witnesses whatsoever claiming that the bar stayed open illegally after 1:30 AM on October 31, 2001.

These incredible inconsistencies must be noted. We are talking about a young man's life!!!

Let's move beyond the obvious, blatant contradictions in Chuck Erickson's testimony. What about other evidence? Surely there is something --right? There has to be something-- some kind of evidence to convict....

Here is what is comes down to...

NO MOTIVE; the bars are CLOSED at this time; they didn't need any more money.

The DNA evidence at the crime scene DOES NOT match Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson

The Fingerprints at the crime scene DO NOT match Ryan Ferguson or Chuck Erickson

No Blood was found in Ferguson's car --as per luminol test. Remember the one they were riding in after the murder? -- a hideous, bloody murder!!! NO BLOOD?

No Blood in Chuck Erickson's Home as per luminol test; and Chuck has no memory the next morning of anything being amiss; such as bloody clothes, bloody sheets, bloody carpet, bruises, scratches, etc.

No Witnesses

No Weapon - Ryan's Tire Tool had no physical evidence and therefore ruled out as the murder weapon

So, what did the prosecutor base his case on?...

A confession.!! A confession full of huge, gaping holes! A confession by a young man that did not even remember committing the crime for 2 years!!!! Adding to this confession, the prosecutor relied on emotional unfounded insinuations before the jury. Insinuations such as Ryan being a child of "privilege" and that By George was open into the wee hours of the morning. The defense had two witnesses who testified under oath that the bar closed at 1:30. The prosecution had no witnesses to verify their "claim".

Ultimately, the jury's decision was based on emotion devoid of any physical evidence or credible witnesses.

It certainly does give one something to think about......
.