March 7, 2000, Mr. Hogan was arrested
for aggravated bank robbery charges-federal
case #OO-CR-135- WM-by Arapahoe County Sheriff s Investigator Kirsten
Ann Nelson. An offense he was guilty of and later plead guilty to, receiving a 190 month
sentence to which he served 14
years.
However, shortly after
his arrest while
being held in custody at the Arapahoe
County Jail on the above mentioned pending
federal charges, Investigator Nelson named Mr. Hogan as the suspect
in the present
case a robbery/kidnapping case out of Denver in which the victim was help up at gunpoint
in the Cherry Creek Mall parking lot and forced to drive to a nearby bank and withdraw
$1,000.00. A crime
Mr. Hogan did not commit. A crime in which he is actually innocent.
It is an admitted fact that no physical evidence
was sought for or exists in this case and in fact, no actual investigation was conducted. The robber was inside the victim's vehicle
for approximately 22-25 minutes, he wore no gloves and, aside from handling the victim's
driver's license, touched numerous places inside the vehicle. (CD 11/15/01,
pl61-162). Despite this, and the request of the victim, police admittedly made no attempt to collect
fingerprints from the license or the vehicle,
nor tried to obtain any other physical
evidence (CD 11/14/01, pp.225-230), all exonerating evidence
that would prove Mr. Hogan's
innocence. Furthermore, police made no attempt to obtain and secure any video surveillance from the mall.
In addition, and possibly the most obvious evidence proving his innocence
is that fact that he DOES NOT HAVE A TATTOO
ON HIS HAND. In her own written statement
given to the police, the victim wrote that "she
did not get a good look at his face" (CD 11114/01,
P.114, 128, 141) She stated that the robber
told her not to look at him and she
complied with his direction. She also stated that he held his left hand over his face so she could not see him. She was adamant that the robber had a tattoo on his hand. (CD 11114/01.
p.49). A characteristic she remembered most about the robber. In fact, she described the "real" perpetrator in detail as having a tattoo of a "sun" in black ink on the back of his left hand. Again, Mr. Hogan DOES NOT have, nor has he ever had any tattoos
on his hands.
(Id. P.49). Yet this "identifying mark" and even exonerating evidence was disregarded despite
the victim's testimony that she believed was professionally done and not a drawing. Who believed it to be an "identifying
mark" and even asked Detective
White during the lineup if any of the men had a tattoo on their hand, in which she was instructed
to disregard this meaningful identifying mark because "they can easily be taken off." (v7, p34).
Had the police
done their complete
job and taken fingerprints off of the items that were available to be fingerprinted, Mr. Hogan would
not have been
implicated. Had investigators reviewed surveillance cameras
at the mall and bank,
he would not have been implicated. Any forensic investigation at all would
have eliminated him as a suspect. And the fact that he does not have a tattoo on his hand,
alone proves that Mr. Hogan
did not fit the physical
description given by the victim.
Yet in spite of all the evidence that was readily available and accessible to pursue and secure a "true" suspect, these fundamental steps were not just neglected
but flat out ignored and instead, Investigator Kirsten Nelson relied solely on a Channel
2 News report (which vaguely described
the suspect as a tall white male, 17-20) to conclude her findings of probable cause. And since Mr. Hogan was already
in custody for bank robbery
charges, police focused
on him without an adequate investigation.
The state failed
to admit one shred of physical evidence
and furthermore, failed
to collect and preserve any evidence that possessed, exculpatory value which was readily apparent
at the time of police
action and would have undoubtedly exonerated him. Consequently, in spite of the complete
absence of evidence,
and the fact that the perpetrator has a tattoo on his hand and Mr. Hogan does not, somehow he
was found guilty of this offense in which he is Actually
Innocent!
