Final--2nd Amended Complaint - Kevin Adams Lawsuit.pdf · 2015-08-29 · 1 in the united states district court for the eastern district of oklahoma william n. peterson, gary rogers

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM N. PETERSON, GARY ROGERS )And MELVIN R. HETT. )

)Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. CIV-07-317-RAWVs. )

)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.

Case 6:07-cv-00317-RAW Document 90 Filed in USDC ED/OK on 02/25/2008 Page 1 of 116

2

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


3

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


4

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


5

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.


6

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.


7

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,


8

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


9

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


10

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 stillensconced as district attorney. Gary Rogers, formerly of the Oklahoma StateBureau of Investigation, was now the investigator for Peterson’s office. Both


11

were secure in their jobs—but they had reason to be apprehensive about theirimages. For more than a year, one of the best selling novelists in the worldand an experienced trial lawyer, John Grisham, had been visiting Adaintermittently, researching his first nonfiction book. What he was writingwas no secret: a book about two Ada men who had been convicted of thebrutal murder of an attractive young woman and who had been sentencedrespectively to life in prison and to death—two men who were later proveninnocent. Grisham’s book—certain to be a bestseller, like his novels—waslikely to give the police and the prosecutors of Ada, and perhaps the wholetown, 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


12

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.


13

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 ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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


14

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, buthalfway through the song she suddenly stopped and angrily walkedaway from Glen Gore. Later, in the ladies’ restroom, she said shewould feel safer if one of her girlfriends would spend the night ather 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 toomuch time flirting with Johnnie. When he became a bit tooaggressive she stiffed armed him and Duke took charge. Gore wasbanished from the place. Whoever killed Debbie Carter triedawkwardly 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


15

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.


16

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 toDebbie, then he and the police could move with urgency against Fritz andWilliamson. Glenda was confused. How did Peterson know the outcomeof the reprinting if the body had yet to be exhumed? How could he be sosure 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:

1The 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 andline numbers on different copies of The Innocent Man are different from others. The copy of the bookcounsel makes reference to in this Complaint has 360 pages including the afterword.


17

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 brazenenough to allow a criminal like Glen Gore anywhere near his case.Gore had been brought to the preliminary hearing in cuffs andchains. He was serving a forty-year prison sentence for breakingand 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.


18

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 GaryRogers and D.W. Barnett, an Ada policeman. He told them that hehad known Debbie Carter since high school and he had seen her atthe Coachlight the night before. The entire police report of Gore’sinterview reads as follows: Glen Gore works at Harold’s Clubabout 7:30 PM, 12-8-82. Glen went to school with Debbie. Glensaw her Monday Dec 6th at Harold’s Club. Glen saw her 12-7-82 atthe Coachlight. They talked about painting Debbie’s car. Neversaid anything to Glen about having problems with anyone. Glenwent to Coachlight about 10:30 PM with Ron West. Left with Ronabout 1:15 AM. Glen has never been to Debbie’s apt. The reportwas prepared by D.W. Barrett, witnessed by Gary Rogers, andfiled away with dozens of others.

Then on page 148 line 18 Grisham wrote:

Under cross-examination, Gore said he told the police about thison December 8, but their report of his interview does not mentionRon Williamson. Nor was their report submitted to the defense, asrequired 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


19

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.


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 tothe stand. It wasn’t long before he was in trouble. Barney smelled a ratand grilled Peters on his conflicting opinions about the palm print onthe Sheetrock. A firm opinion in 1983, then, surprise, an about-face inMay 1987. What prompted Peters to rethink his original opinion thatthe palm print did not belong to Debbie Carter, Ron Williamson orDennis Fritz? Could it have been that this opinion didn’t really help


20

the prosecution? Peters did admit that nothing happened for 4 years,then a phone call early in 1987 from Bill Peterson prompted him toponder his earlier judgment. After the exhumation and reprinting, hesuddenly changed his mind and issued a report that was exactly whatthe prosecution wanted. Greg Saunders joined the assault on behalf ofDennis 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.



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.



false.

62. Defendant Grisham wrote Pages 152 Defendant Grisham wrote;

The Prosecution’s star witness was the amazing Terri Holland….Aftershe testified, she was given a light sentence on the check charges, in


21

spite of having two prior felonies. Ward and Fontenot went to deathrow; 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.




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


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 andcharged with the duty to seek the truth, could elicit such garbage. Acrucial part of snitching is getting paid. Terri Holland was allowed toplea-bargain herself out of trouble and out of jail. She agreed to amonthly payment plan for restitution, but soon abandoned herobligations.

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


22

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









false.


23

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 BillPeterson that he had been cell mates with Fritz, and while at firstthings had been friendly, on Halloween night a conversation hadturned ugly. Harjo was quizzing Dennis about the details of themurder. Dennis was having trouble with the details, and Harjodeftly managed to poke holes in his story. He became convincedthat Dennis was guilty, so he confronted him. This made Dennisvery nervous. He began pacing around the bullpen, obviouslystruggling with his guilt, and when he returned to their cell, helooked at Harjo, with tears in his eyes, and said, ‘We didn’t meanto hurt her’. In court, Dennis couldn’t sit through this crap. Heyelled at the witness, ‘You are lying! You are lying!’ Judge Millersettled things down. Harjo and Peterson plowed ahead with theirtales.

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


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.


24






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 JerryPeters on December 9, 1982, during the autopsy. At that time, thehands had been perfect, and Peters had no doubt that he had takena full and thorough set of prints. When he issued his report threemonths later, he’d been certain in his findings that the bloody printfrom the Sheetrock was not left by Fritz, Williamson, or the victim.Now, through, four and a half years later, with the murderunsolved and the authorities looking for a break, he suddenly haddoubts about his earlier work. Three days after exhumation, heissued a revised report in which he concluded that the bloody printmatched Debbie Carter’s palm. For the first ad only time in histwenty-four year career, Jerry Peters changed his mind. The reportwas exactly what Bill Peterson needed. Armed with the proof thatthe bloody print did not belong to some unknown killer but hadbeen left by Debbie as she struggled for her life, he was free to goafter his prime suspects. And it was important to alert thetownsfolk—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 theprevious May when her body was exhumed. He gave the newprints to Jerry Peters, who suddenly saw things he hadn’t seen fourand a half years earlier. The prosecution’s theory the same one tobe used against Ron Williamson, was that during the prolonged


25

and violent assault Debbie was wounded, her blood somehowended up on her left palm, and this palm touched a tiny portion ofSheetrock just above the floor of her bedroom. Since the palm printdid not belong to Ron or Dennis, and it certainly could not belongto 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.




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.


26

79. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck and/or Defendant Fritz intentionally

made the defamatory statement in paragraph 76 to Defendant Grisham while knowing


80. On page 195 on line 29 Defendant Grisham wrote:

How could the police and prosecutor sit on the tape for four and ahalf 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 puttogether its roster of shady witnesses, and long before Ron hadsuch a lengthy criminal record to answer to, he had sat before acamera 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 thewitness chair and Peterson studying his shoes, with a clear Bradyviolation. 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 ahearing the following day to ponder the state’s Brady violation.Though Barney was exhausted and fed up with the case, he wasstill indignant that the cops and Peterson had deliberately withheldthe 1983 videotape of Ron’s polygraph interrogation. But whybother at this point? The trial was over. The video was of nobenefit 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


27

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.



reckless disregard for its falsity, in paragraph 80 because of the pleadings, reports and


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.


28

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 theCoachlight that night harassing Debbie Carter. Minor points; thecops 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.









88. On page 111 and 112 Defendant Grisham wrote beginning on line 25:


29

The truth, though, was that the body was not stabbed and it was notburned, regardless of what Ward and Fontenot said in their bogusconfessions and regardless of what Bill Peterson and Chris Rosstold the jury. Denice Haraway was killed by a single gunshotwound to the head. Her remains were found the following Januaryby a hunter deep in the woods near the settlement of Gerty, inHughes County, twenty-seven miles from Ada and far from anyplace that had been searched. The true cause of death should haveconvinced everyone involved that Ward and Fontenot had indeeddreamed up their ridiculous tales and had been coerced intoconfessing. It did not. The true cause of death should haveprompted the authorities to admit they were wrong and beginsearching 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.


30

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.




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.



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 havea book written about one of his cases, and a very unflattering oneat that - Peterson roared into action in the Debbie Carter matter. Hehad something to prove. The investigation was stale-the poor girlhad been dead for more than 4 years-but it was time to nailsomeone. …………. They had no evidence, just gut feelings.


31

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.”









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;


32

What, exactly, was found? Peterson wouldn’t confirm the details,but a “source” was willing to tell all. The source said, “The bodywas exhumed so the woman’s palm print could be made andcompared with a bloody palm print found on her apartment wall.The source went on: ‘Elimination of the possibility that the bloodypalm print was someone other than the victim was crucial to theinvestigation. ‘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 comingtogether nicely for the cops and prosecutors. They had learned withWard and Fontenot that a lack of physical evidence should not getin the way of an urgent prosecution. The fact that Debbie Carterwas not stabbed was of little consequence. Juries will convict ifthey 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 confessionfrom Ron, the authorities did release the affidavit used for thearrest warrants. The story quoted the affidavit as saying “that bothpubic and scalp hair were recovered from Miss Carter’s body andbedding that were consistent microscopically with that of RonaldKeith 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


33

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


34

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.



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.





103. On page 133 beginning on line 7 Defendant Grisham wrote:

With a hot new crime on the docket, the gossip festered in jail. Thesnitching games. Always a part of jail life because the police wereso willing to play along, began in earnest. The quickest way tofreedom, or at least a reduced sentence, was to hear or claim tohear a prized suspect confess in whole or in part to his crime, andthen trade this off in an attractive plea bargain with the prosecutor.In most jails, snitching was rare because informants fearedretribution from other inmates. In Ada, snitching was a widelypracticed because it worked so well.


35

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.



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:


36

Working independently, but also quietly working together, theyfiled a truckload of motions and soon had the district attorney’soffice 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 toshow just enough evidence to convince the judge that there werereasonable grounds that the defendant was guilty while not yetrevealing everything to the defense. It was gamesmanship, with abit of a risk. Normally, though, a prosecutor had little to worryabout. Local judges find it hard to get reelected if they dismisscriminal charges. But with flimsy evidence against both Fritz andWilliamson, Bill Peterson had to push hard at the preliminary. Hehad so little to offer that he could certainly hold nothing back. Andthe local newspaper would be there, anxious to report every word.Three months after its publication, The Dreams of Ada was stillbeing hotly debated around town. The preliminary hearing wouldbe Peterson’s first performance in a major trial since the bookcame 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


37

prosecutor that has to engage in corrupt and dishonest practices in order to obtain

convictions.










112. On page 145 Defendant Grisham wrote:

How could the state of Oklahoma put him on trial when he was soobviously sick?

On page 147 through page 148Defendant Grisham wrote

The silence of Judge Miller should have been shattered by BarneyWard. As defense counsel, he could have requested a competentpsychological evaluation of his client. The next step would havebeen to seek a competency hearing, the same routine procedureDavid Morris had pursued two years earlier. A final step wouldhave been an insanity defense.

On page 147 beginning on line Defendant Grisham writes:

After Ron Williamson had spent two months in jail, no oneinvolved in his prosecution or defense had questioned his mentalcompetency. The evidence was blatantly obvious. His medicalhistory was extensive and readily available to the court. Hisrantings in jail, though somewhat regulated by the arbitrarydispensing of medications by his lawyer and jailers, were clearwarnings. His reputation in Ada was well known especially to the


38

police. And his behavior in court had been seen before. Two yearsearlier, when the state attempted to revoke Ron’s suspendedsentence on the escape charge, he so completely disrupted thehearing that he was sent to a mental hospital for evaluation.Presiding then was John David Miller, the same Judge Miller whowas now holding the preliminary hearing. It was Judge Miller whohad 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.


39

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.












40

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.


At the time, few people knew that Terri Holland had a history withRon Williamson. Years earlier, when he was peddling Rawleighproducts around Ada, he stumbled upon a little unexpected sex. Heknocked on a door, and a female voice asked him to step inside.When he did, a woman named Marlene Keutel presented herselfcompletely in the nude. There appeared to be no one else at home,and one thing quickly lead to another. Marlene Keutel wasmentally unstable, and a week after the episode she committedsuicide. Ron returned several times to sell her more products, butnever found her at home. He did not know she was dead. Her sisterwas Terri Holland. Shortly after the sexual encounter, Marlene toldTeri about it and claimed Ron had raped her. No charges werebrought; none were contemplated. Though Terri knew her sisterwas crazy, she still believed that Ron was responsible forMarlene’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 twotalk, then notified the police that she had the goods. According to


41

McIntosh, Fritz and Williamson discussed some photographssubmitted during the first preliminary hearing. Ron wasn’t there, ofcourse, and he was curious about what Dennis had seen. Thephotos were of the crime scene, and Ron asked Dennis, ‘Was she[Debbie Carter] on the bed or on the floor?’ The floor, Dennisreplied.

On page 176 Defendant Grisham wrote:

The next morning Bill Peterson called to the stand CindyMcIntosh, who admitted being in jail on bad-check charges whenshe met both Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson. She testified thatshe overheard the two talking, with Ron asking Dennis about thecrime scene photos of Debbie Carter. ‘Was she on the bed or onthe floor?’ Ron asked Dennis. On the floor, Dennis said. McIntoshadmitted that she was not convicted on the check charges. ‘I paidoff 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


42

corrupt person. This also statement suggest that Plaintiff Peterson engaged in

felonious criminal conduct by suborning perjury.











When the handcuffs were removed Denice glanced at the crowdand wondered which of the hundred or so potential jurors wouldeventually make it to the final twelve Which of those registeredvoters 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


43

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.


Kim Marks and Leslie Delk drove to interview Dennis inconnection with their investigation. They brought the Ricky JoeSimmons video and played the confession. Dennis, like Ron, wasangry that someone else had confessed to the murder they wereconvicted of committing, yet this information had not beenavailable at his trial. He developed a correspondence with KimMarks, and she kept him posted on the developments of Ron’scase.

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.




cast the Plaintiff in a false light as someone who is dishonest, corrupt, conspired to

suborn perjury, suborned perjury and obstructed justice.


44



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 ABOUTPLAINTIFF ROGERS IN THE INNOCENT MAN

132. On page 152 line 12 Defendant Grisham wrote:


45

….she testified in the first Ward/Fontenot trial in Sept 1985 andgave the jury all the lurid details that Detectives Smith and Rogershad 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 theygenerated a dream confession-their favorite investigatory tool-butnow 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


46

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.



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.


47


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 GaryRogers and D.W. Barnett, an Ada policeman. He told them that hehad known Debbie Carter since high school and he had seen her atthe Coachlight the night before. The entire police report of Gore’sinterview reads as follows: Glen Gore works at Harold’s Clubabout 7:30 PM, 12-8-82. Glen went to school with Debbie. Glensaw her Monday Dec 6th at Harold’s Club. Glen saw her 12-7-82 atthe Coachlight. They talked about painting Debbie’s car. Neversaid anything to Glen about having problems with anyone. Glenwent to Coachlight about 10:30 PM with Ron West. Left with Ronabout 1:15 AM. Glen has never been to Debbie’s apt. The reportwas prepared by D.W. Barrett, witnessed by Gary Rogers, andfiled away with dozens of others.

Then on page 148 line 18 Grisham wrote:

Under cross-examination, Gore said he told the police about thison December 8, but their report of his interview does not mentionRon Williamson. Nor was their report submitted to the defense, asrequired 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


48

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.



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, astate medical examiner and forensic pathologist, performed anautopsy. Present were Agent Gary Rogers and Jerry Peters, alsowith 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


49

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.




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 atthe Coachlight on December 7, and interviewed most of them. Noone 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


50

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.




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 badcop, began cursing and threatening and saying, ‘You’re hidingsomething, Fritz,” over and over, Smith tried to play the role ofFrit’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


51

to strut around the room, fuming, cursing, threatening, talkingabout death row and lethal injections, then suddenly he wouldlunge at Fritz, jab him in the chest, and tell him he was going toconfess. The routine was frightening enough, but not veryeffective. Fritz said over and over, “Get out of my face.” Rogersfinally accused him of the rape and murder. He got angry, and hislanguage became even more abusive as he described how Fritz andhis sidekick, Williamson, broke in on the girl, raped her and killedher, and now he, Rogers, was demanding a confession. With noevidence, only a confession could’ve solved the case, and the copswere desperate to squeeze one out of Fritz. But he didn’t budge. Hehad nothing to confess, but after two hours of verbal abuse hewanted 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 inKansas City. Smith and Rogers went through the Mirandawarnings, then announced that they intended to get a confession.Dennis kept thinking of Ward and Fontenot and was determined togive them nothing. Smith became the nice guy, his pal who reallywanted to help. Rogers was instantly abusive—cursing,threatening, poking Dennis in the chest repeatedly. Four years hadpassed since their last session. In June 1983, after Fritz had‘severely flunked’ the second polygraph, Smith Rogers, andFeatherstone had kept him in the basement of the Ada PoliceDepartment for three hours and badgered him. They got nothingthen, and they were getting nothing now. Rogers was furious. Thecops had known for years that Fritz and Williamson raped andmurdered Debbie Carter, and now the crime had been solved. Allthey needed was a confession. ‘I have nothing to confess,’ Fritzsaid over and over. What evidence do you have? Show me theevidence. One of Roger’s favorite lines was, ‘You’re insulting myintelligence.’ And each time Fritz was tempted to say, ‘Whatintelligence?’ But he did not want to get slapped. After two hoursof abuse, Fritz finally said, ‘All right, I’ll confess.’ The cops wererelived; since they had no proof, they were about to crack the casewith 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 recorderand said, ‘Here’s the truth. I did not kill Debbie Carter and knownothing 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 finallycalled off the interrogation. He refused extradition to Oklahoma.


52

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.








53




CIV-00-194-B).

150. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fritz intentionally made the defamatory


false.

151. On page 70, line 19 – 20 Defendant Grisham wrote:

Dennis Smith and Gary Rogers were routinely updating Petersonon 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.






54






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 withthe two murders. For Rogers, the pressure was even worse. Oneyear before the disappearance of Denice Haraway, a similar crimehad been committed in Seminole, thirty miles north of Ada. Aneighteen-year-old girl named Patty Hamilton was working at anall-night convince store when she vanished. A customer walked inand found the store empty, the cash register cleaned out, two opensoft drink cans on the counter, no sign of a struggle. Her car wasfound outside the store. She was gone without a clue, and for ayear the police had assumed she’d been abducted and murdered.The OSBI agent in charge of the Patty Hamilton case was GaryRogers. Debbie Carter, Denice Haraway, Patty Hamilton—agentRogers had the unsolved murders of three young women on hisdesk.





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


55

these statements wrongfully accuse Plaintiff Rogers of criminal conduct (libel per se)

these statements damaged his reputation and cast him in a false light.










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 inthe works. Tommy was stunned and confused and very frightened.When he refused to confess to Featherstone, the nice cop turnedhim over to Smith and Rogers, who were already angry andseemed 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 herout to the power plant, raped her and killed her, didn’t you?’ NoTommy said, trying to think clearly and not panic. Talk to us, youlittle lying sonofabitch, Smith growled. You just flunked apolygraph, we know you’re lying, and we know you killed thatgirl! Tommy was trying to place Odell Titsworth, a name he hadheard but a man he’d never met. Odell lived somewhere aroundAda, he thought, and he had a bad reputation, but Tommy couldnot remember meeting him. Maybe he’d seen him once or twice,but at the moment he couldn’t remember, because Smith was


56

yelling and pointing and ready to punch him. Smith repeated histheory about the three men snatching the girl, and Tommy said no.No, I had nothing to do with it. ‘I don’t even know OdellTitsworth.’ Yes, you do, Smith corrected him. Stop lying. KarlFontenot’s involvement in their theory was easier to understandbecause he and Tommy had been friends off and on for a couple ofyears. But Tommy was bewildered by the accusations and terrifiedof the smug certainty of Smith and Rogers. Back and forth theywent with their threats and verbal abuse. The language deterioratedand soon included every profanity and obscenity on the list.Tommy was sweating and dizzy and trying desperately to thinkrationally. He kept his responses short. No. I didn’t do it. No Iwasn’t involved. A few times he wanted to lash out with sarcasticcomments, but he was scared. Smith and Rogers were erupting,and armed, and Tommy was locked in a room with them andFeatherstone. His interrogation showed no signs of ending anytimesoon. After sweating through three hours with Featherstone andsuffering an hour of torment from Smith and Rogers, Tommyreally needed a break. He needed to find a restroom and smoke acigarette and clear his head. He needed help, to talk to someonewho could tell him what was going on. Can I take a break? Heasked. Just a few more minutes, they said. Tommy noticed a videocamera on a nearby table, unplugged and neglecting the verbalbattering underway. Surely, he thought, this cannot be standardpolice procedure. Smith and Rogers repeatedly reminded Tommythat Oklahoma uses lethal injection to kill its killers. He was facingdeath, certain death, but there might be a way to avoid it. Comeclean, tell what happened, lead them to the body, and they woulduse their influence to get him a deal. ‘I didn’t do it,” Tommy keptsaying. 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 whichTommy replied again, ‘Most dreams don’t’. But the dream gavethe cops something to work with, and they began adding to it. Theother two men in the truck were Odell Titsworth and KarlFontenot, right? No, Tommy insisted. The men in his dream werenot identified. No names. Bullshit. The girl was Denice Haraway,right? No, the girl was not identified in his dream. Bullshit. Foranother hour, the cops added the necessary details to Tommy’sdream, 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, saidthe cops. After two hours of non-stop hammering, Tommy finallycracked. The pressure came from fear—Smith and Rogers wereangry and seemed perfectly able and willing to slap him around ifnot outright shoot him—but also from the horror of wasting away


57

on death row before finally getting executed. And it was obvious toTommy the he would not be allowed to leave until he gave thecops something. After five hours in the room, he was exhausted,confused, and almost paralyzed with fear. He made a mistake thatwould send him to death row and eventually cost him his freedomfor life. Tommy decided to play along. Since he was completelyinnocent, and he assumed Karl Fontenot and Odell Titsworth weretoo, then give the cops what they wanted. Play along with theirfiction. The truth would quickly be discovered. Tomorrow or thenext day, the cops would realize that the story did not check out.They would talk to Karl, and he would tell the truth. They wouldfind Odell Titsworth, and he would laugh at them. Play along.Good police work will find the truth. If his dream confession wassufficiently ridiculous, how could anyone believe it? Didn’t Odellgo in the store first? Sure, why not, Tommy said. It was only adream. Now the cops were getting somewhere. The boy wasfinally breaking under their clever tactics. Robbery was themotive, right? Sure, whatever, it was only a dream, and Tommyplayed along. It was only a dream.

On page 94 lines 18 – 23 Defendant Grisham wrote:

With each call back from Baskin, Smith and Rogers mademodifications to Tommy’s dream. The hours dragged on, thesuspect was beyond fatigue. They tag-teamed, back and forth,good cop, bad cop, voices low and almost sympathetic, then burstof yelling, cursing, threatening. ‘You lyin’ little sonofabitch!’ wastheir 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 torecite their tale but kept getting the facts mixed up. Smith andRogers would stop him, repeat their fiction, and make him startover. Finally, after four rehearsals with little improvement andtheir star fading fast, the cops decided to turn on the camera. Do itnow, they said to Tommy. Do it right, and none of that dreambullshit. ‘But the story ain’t true,’ Tommy said. Just tell itanyway, 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 Wardlooked at the camera and stated his name. He had beeninterrogated for eight and a half hours, and he was physically andemotionally wasted. He was smoking a cigarette, his first of theafternoon, and sitting before him was a soft drink can, as if he andthe cops were just finishing up a friendly little chat, nice and


58

civilized. He told his tale. He, Karl Fontenot, and Odell Titsworthkidnapped Denice Haraway from the store, drove out to the powerplant on the west side of town, raped her, killed her, and thentossed her body somewhere near a concrete bunker out by SandyCreek. The murder weapon was Titsworth’s lock-blade knife. Itwas all a dream, he said. Or meant to say. Or thought he said.Several times he used the name ‘Titsdale.’ The detectives stoppedhim and helpfully suggested the name ‘Titsworth.’ Tommycorrected himself and plodded on. He kept thinking, Any blindcop could see I'm lying.

On page 100 lines 20 – 24 Defendant Grisham wrote:

Rogers, Smith, and Featherstone knew [the importance of Mirandawarnings] because they made sure Tommy’s Miranda procedurewas properly recorded. What was not seen on the video was thefive and a half hours of nonstop threats and verbal abuse. Theconfessions of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot wereconstitutional 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


59

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.




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).


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


60

announced they had solved the Haraway case. Tommy Ward, agetwenty-four, of Ada, had confessed and implicated two other menwho were not yet in custody. The cops asked the press to sit on thestory for a couple of days, until they could round up the othersuspects. The newspaper complied, but a television station did not.The news was soon broadcast over southeastern Oklahoma.





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.




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


61

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, andby the legal proceedings against Ward and Fontenot. There was noevidence 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


62

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.












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 hesaw a small army of combat-ready troops, dressed in black andheavily armed, moving across the lawn. What the hell? Hethought. For a split second he considered calling the police. Thedoorbell rang, and when he opened the door, two plainclothes copsgrabbed him, pulled him outside, and demanded to know, ‘Are youDennis Fritz?’ ‘Yes, I am.’ ‘Then you’re under arrest for first-degree murder,’ one growled while the other slapped on thehandcuffs. ‘What murder are you talking about?’ Dennis asked,then had a quick thought: How many Dennis Fritzes are there inKansas City? Surely they’ve got the wrong one. His auntappeared at the door, saw the SWAT team advancing on Dennis,


63

submachine guns aimed at the ready, and became hysterical. Hismother ran from her bedroom as the police entered the house to‘secure’ it, though, when questioned, they were unclear as towhom and what they wished to secure. Dennis did not own afirearm. There were no other known or suspected murderers on thepremises, but the SWAT boys had their procedures. Just as Denniswas convinced he was about to be gunned down at the front door,he glanced up and saw a white Stetson hat moving his way. Twonightmares 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, Dennisthought. In their finest hour, the two small-town cowboys hadconned the Kansas City Fugitive Apprehension Unit intoconducting the dramatic but senseless raid. ‘Can I get my shoes?’Dennis asked, and the cops reluctantly agreed. Fritz was placed inthe backseat of a police car, where he was joined by an ecstaticDennis Smith. One of the K.C. detectives did the driving. As theyleft, Fritz looked at the heavily armed SWAT boys and thought,How stupid. Any part-time deputy could’ve made the arrest at thelocal grocery store. As stunned as he was by the arrest, he had tochuckle 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


64

theme is defamatory and cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light.










171. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Fritz intentionally made the defamatory


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 policestation for another interview. Smith and Rogers, back from theirthrilling arrest of Fritz, were waiting. Their goal was to make himtalk. The interrogation had been planned since the day before thearrest. The Dreams of Ada had just been published, and there wascriticism of the methods of Smith and Rogers. They decided thatSmith, who lived in Ada, should be replaced by RustyFeatherstone, who lived in Oklahoma City. They also decided notto use video. Dennis Smith was in the building but stayed awayfrom the interview room. After leading the investigation for overfour years, and believing for much of that time that Williamsonwas guilty, he nonetheless avoided the crucial interrogation. TheAda Police Department was well stocked with audio and videoequipment, and it was frequently used. Interrogations, andespecially confessions, were almost always recorded on tape. Thepolice were quite aware of the powerful impact of showing aconfession to a jury. Ask Ward and Fontenot. Ron’s second


65

polygraph four years earlier had been taped by Featherstone at theAda Police Department. When confessions were not recorded onvideo, they were often taken by audio. The police had plenty oftape recorders. And when neither audio nor video was used, thesuspect was usually asked to write, if he could in fact read andwrite, his own version of what happened. If they suspect happenedto be illiterate, then a detective would write the statement, read itback to the defendant, and ask him to sign it. None of thesemethods were used on May 9. Williamson, who was quite literateand had a much wider vocabulary than either of his twointerrogators, watched as Featherstone took notes. He said heunderstood his Miranda rights and agreed to talk. The policeversion reads as follows: Williamson said, ‘Okay December 8th,1982, I was hanging out at the Coachlight frequently and I wasthere one night looking at a girl, a pretty girl, and I thought Ishould follow here home.’ Williamson paused, then acted as if hewished to say something that started with the letter F, but thenpaused again. Then he continued, ‘Thought what if something badwould happen that night, and followed her home.’ Williamsonthen paused and talked about when he stole a stereo. Williamsonthen said, ‘I was with Dennis, and we went to the Holiday Inn, andtold a girl that we had a bar in our car, and got her and shejumped.’ Williamson talked in sporadic phrases and Agent Rogersasked Williamson to concentrate and get back to talking about theDebbie Carter case. Williamson said, ‘Okay, I had a dream aboutkilling Debbie, was on her, had a cord around her neck, stabbedher, frequently, pulled the rope around her neck.’ Williamson said,‘I am worried about what this will do to my family,’ and then hesaid, ‘My mother is dead now.’ Agent Rogers asked Williamson ifhe and Dennis were there that night and Williamson answered‘yes.’ Agent Featherstone asked Williamson, ‘Did you go therewith the intention to kill her?’ Williamson responded, ‘Probably.’Agent Featherstone asked, ‘Why?’ Williamson responded, ‘Shemade 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 expectme 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 sinceshe is dead. It’s been on my mind since it happened.’ At about1938 hours, Williamson said, ‘If you’re going to try me on this, Iwant Tanner in Tulsa. No, I want David Morris.’ The mention ofa lawyer spooked the detectives, and they stopped the confession.They called David Morris, who instructed them to stopinterrogating Ron Immediately. The statement was not signed byRon. It was never shown to him. Armed with another dream


66

confession, the case was coming together nicely for the cops andprosecutors.

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


67

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


68

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.










175. On page 129 line 11 through 18 Defendant Grisham wrote:

Christian thought little of the conversation, but did repeat it to afellow officer. It was repeated again and again, and finally made itto Gary Rogers. The detective saw an opportunity for additional


69

evidence against their killer. Two months later, he asked Christianto repeat what Ron had told him. Rogers typed up a report, addedquotation marks where he thought appropriate, and the police andprosecutor then had their second dream confession. Not a singleword was included to reflect Ron’s many denials of involvement inthe crime.

176. The statement described above in paragraph 175 is false and factually inaccurate.



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.










178. On page175 line 1 through 29 Defendant Grisham wrote:

The next informant was Mike Tenney, the jailer-trainee who’dbeen used by the police to gather some dirt on Dennis. With littleexperience or training in law enforcement, Tenney began his careerat the jail, and his first assignment had been Dennis Fritz. Eager toimpress those who might hire him permanently, he spent a lot oftime outside Dennis’s cell, chatting about everything but especially


70

about the Carter murder. He had plenty of advice. In his learnedopinion, Dennis’s situation looked grave, so the best thing to dowould 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 anythingmight be repeated in court. Being a rookie, Tenney had nottestified much and had not rehearsed his lines. He began by tryingto recall a story about Dennis and Ron hopping bars in OklahomaCity, a story not even remotely connected to the Carter murder.Saunders objected. Judge Jones sustained. Then Tenney steppedinto hot water when he testified that he and Dennis discussed theissue of a plea bargain. Twice he mentioned a plea bargain, ahighly prejudicial issue because it strongly implied that Dennis hadcontemplated pleading guilty. Greg Saunders objected loudly andmoved for a mistrial. Judge Jones overruled. Tenney finallymanaged to testify without the lawyers jumping to their feet. Heexplained to the jury that he had spoken often with Dennis, andafter every conversation he had hustled back to the front desk atthe jail and written down everything that was said. According tohis handler, Gary Rogers, this was the way things were done.Good police work.






who is corrupt and dishonest.







71





181. On page 192 line 15 through 21 Defendant wrote:

The truth was that Gary Allen couldn’t identify anyone and had noidea when the incident occurred. He was a drug addict, wellknown to the police. He knew Dennis Smith because they hadattended classes at the local college. Smith approached himshortly after the murder and asked if he’d seen or heard anythingsuspicious in the early hours of December 8. Allen said he hadseen two men squirting themselves with a water hose at the housenext door, but could not remember the date. Dennis Smith andGary Rogers jumped to the conclusion that it was Fritz andWilliamson washing off the blood of Debbie Carter. They pressedAllen for details, even showed him a photo of the murder scene.They suggested that the two men were Fritz and Williamson, butAllen could not, and would not, identify the two. Shortly beforethe trial, Gary Rogers stopped by Allen’s apartment and againsuggested details. Wasn’t it really Fritz and Williamson, anddidn’t he see them outside, early in the morning, sometime aroundDecember 8? No, Allen could not be certain. Rogers brushed hiscoat away from his hip so Allen could see his service revolver. Hesaid that Allen might get lead poisoning if his memory didn’timprove. It did, but just barely enough to testify.






who is corrupt and dishonest. The statements described in paragraph 181 accuse

Plaintiff Rogers of committing felonious criminal conduct and are liable per se.


72










184. On page 194 line 20 through page 195 line 11 Defendant Grisham wrote:

Rogers made a huge mistake. He mentioned Ron’s 1983interrogation, on video, in which Ron had steadfastly denied anyinvolvement. Barney was incredulous. Why had he not been toldof this tape? Pretrial discovery required the prosecution to handover all exculpatory evidence. Barney had timely filed the propermotions, months earlier. The prior September the court hadordered the prosecution to provide defense counsel with allstatements made by Ron relative to the murder investigation. Howcould the police and prosecutor sit on the tape for four and a halfyears and hide it from the defense? Barney had very few witnessesat his disposal, since the case against Ron was basically an‘admission’ case, one in which the state was using a variety ofwitnesses, albeit a rather sketchy collection, to testify that Ron, atvarious times and in various ways, admitted to the murder. Theonly real way to fight such testimony was to deny it, and the onlyperson who could deny making the admissions was Ron himself.Barney planned to put Ron on the stand in his own defense, but hewas terrified of the prospect. The 1983 tape would have been apowerful tool to show the jury. Four and a half years, earlier, longbefore the prosecution had put together its roster of shadywitnesses, and long before Rod had such a lengthy criminal recordto answer to, he had sat before a camera and repeatedly denied anyinvolvement.


73

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.




cast Plaintiff Rogers in a false light as an unethical and corrupt person.



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-


74

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 ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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 theforensics involved in the case-fingerprints, hair analysis, and thecomponents of blood and saliva.”

Grisham continued by writing on page 158:

The only proof that remotely tied Fritz to the murder was the hairanalysis testimony of Melvin Hett ……….Barney and GregSaunders 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.


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


75

pleadings, reports and testimony of the following cases; State V. Williamson & Fritz,






With the snitches out of the way, Peterson returned to morecredible proof. Slightly more credible. He called to the stand fourconsecutive 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. Petersonsaved his knockout punch for the last round, and when Melvin Hettfinished testifying the jury was convinced. Hett was the OSBI hairman, a veteran testifier who’d helped send many people to prison.




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


76

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.







77





Since the police knew who killed Debbie Carter, they helpfullyinformed Melvin Hett. When he received the samples from SusanLand the word “suspect” was written by the names of Fritz andWilliamson

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



capital murder trial. These statements damage Plaintiff Hett’s credibility and

reputation.


78










It was tedious work, and not without it’s uncertainties. Hett flipflopped several times as he labored with his microscope. Once hewas certain a hair belonged to Debbie Carter, but later changed hismind and decided it came from Fritz. Such is the nature of hairanalysis. Hett flatly contradicted some of Susan Land’s findings,and even managed to impugn his own work. He initially found thata total of thirteen pubic hairs came from Fritz and only two fromWilliamson. Later, though, he changed his numbers-twelve forFritz and two for Williamson. Then eleven for Fritz, plus two scalphairs.

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.


79

201. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Grisham simply made up the facts in paragraph

199 to support the conclusion that he was trying to cast.










On April 7, 1988, after the Fritz trial was under way, Melvin Hettfinally issued his third and final report. The Gore hairs were notconsistent with the questioned hairs. It took Hett almost two yearsto reach this conclusion, and his timing was beyond suspicious.




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


80

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.










In spite of its perils and uncertainties, Melvin Hett was a staunchbeliever in hair analysis. He and Peterson became friendly, andbefore the Fritz trial, Hett passed along scientific articles toutingthe reliability of evidence that was famously unreliable. He did not,however provide the prosecutor with any of the numerous articlescondemning hair analysis and testimony. Two months before theFritz trial, Hett drove to Chicago and delivered his findings to aprivate lab called McCrone. There, one Richard Bisbing, andacquaintance of Hett’s reviewed his work.”


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


81

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.











false.

210. On page 181-182 Defendant Grisham wrote:


82

In less than six hours, Bisbing refuted almost all of Hett’s findings.Looking at only the eleven pubic hairs that Hett was certain weremicroscopically consistent with Fritz, Bisbing found that onlythree were accurate. Only three “could” have come from Fritz. Hettwas wrong about the other eight. Undaunted by such a lowestimation of his work by another expert, Hett drove back toOklahoma, ready to testify without changing his opinion.



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.





83







Hett was the star expert, with an aura of reliability that wasbolstered by his experience, vocabulary, confidence, and strongconclusions that some of the known hairs of Dennis Fritz wereconsistent with some of those found at the crime scene. Six timesduring his direct testimony he said that Dennis’s hair and thesuspicious hairs were microscopically consistent and could havecome from the same source. Not once did he share with the jurythe truth that the hairs could have just as easily not come from thesame source.

On page 200 Defendant Grisham wrote :

The four hairs could just as easily not have come from Ron, butHett didn’t mention this.



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


84

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.









216. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Scheck intentionally made the

defamatory statement in paragraph 213 to Defendant Grisham while knowing



Hett wrapped up his testimony by summarizing for the jury hisfindings. Eleven pubic hairs and two scalp hairs could have comefrom Dennis. It was the same eleven pubic hairs he’d driven to theMcCrone laboratories in Chicago and shown to Richard Bisbingfor a second opinion.


85



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







86








false.

221. On page 201 middle Defendant Grisham wrote:

Hett’s most egregious act, though, was the manner in which hetestified. Instead of educating the jurors, Hett chose instead tosimply bless them with his opinions. To help a jury evaluate theevidence, most hair analysts bring into court enlarged photos of thehair in dispute. A photo of a known hair is mounted next to aquestioned hair, and the expert goes into great detail explainingsimilarities and dissimilarities. As Hett said, there are abouttwenty-five different characteristics in hair, and a good examinerwill show the jury exactly what he or she is talking about. Hett didnothing of the sort. After working on the Carter murder for nearlyfive years, hundreds of hours, three different reports, he did notshow the jury one single enlarged photograph of his work. Not asingle hair taken from Ron Williamson was compared with a singlehair taken from Debbie’s apartment. Hett was, in effect, telling thejury to simply trust him. Don’t ask for proof, just believe hisopinions.

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


87

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












88



false.

STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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 againstme. I suspected that Peterson, Rogers or Smith had gotten to bothof 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.


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.


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.


89

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 despiseanother whose disregard for the truth and the value of life was soblatant and evil.


paragraph 231.


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.”


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 hairsamples with those from the crime scene evidence wouldn’t giveme a moments peace.


paragraph 235.





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


90

commit perjury and/or is so dishonest that he would influence witnesses to commit

perjury, and tamper with and/or plant evidence.






240. On page 455, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:

I had the opportunity to tell how the district attorney had sowrongfully railroaded both me and Ronnie through his vindictiveprosecution.


paragraph 240.






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.


91






245. On page 138, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:

Barney started telling Gregg of his personal feelings for Petersonand how those crooked bastards would go to any extent to railroadsomeone just for a conviction, even without any evidence.


paragraph 245.






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.





92



250. On page 239, last sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:

Who the hell was he to put our families through this nightmarewithout having any real evidence to support his purportedallegations?


paragraph 250.






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








93

255. On page 349, paragraph number 4, line 2 Defendant Fritz wrote:

The main reason that I was found guilty was that the DistrictAttorney totally camouflaged his lack of evidence with so-calledevidence of my alleged association with the co-defendant, RonnieWilliamson.


paragraph 255.






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






referenced state constitutes libel per se.

260. On page 363, 1st sentence Defendant Fritz wrote:

Those dirty bastards have done it to me again.


94


paragraph 260.






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.






STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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:


95

I was unable to make out a handful of men in uniformscrouching on the lawn. I froze as I counted. There were maybetwenty officers altogether, all pointing what appeared to beautomatic weapons at me. (pg. 8 lines 5-8)……..I hadn’t doneanything that warranted a SWAT team. (pg. 8 lines 23-24)…..The man slapped handcuffs on my wrists….(pg. 9line10)…..Beyond the line of armed officers….(pg. 10 line10)…..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 menemerged. Their identities were unmistakable, and I felt sick atthe sight of them. The man in western garb and a large whiteStetson hat was Gary Rogers, an investigator with theOklahoma 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 Istood handcuffed and surrounded. Fear swept through me in atorrent. At last, I understood what this was about. (pg. 11 line11-14)

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.


96


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.


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”


conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Rogers of felonious



97

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 walkedback across the room. He removed his Stetson hat and set it on topof his closed brief case. Rolling up his shirt sleeves, as if to tell meit was tie to get into the ring, he bluntly said, “We have filed thedeath penalty on you in a bill of particulars, and we are going tomake it stick.” Waling closer to me in a cat-like fashion, hepersisted by saying, “Did you hear me, Dennis? We have filed thedeath penalty on you, and we definitely have enough goodevidence on you to send you to lethal injection.” (Page 37 lines 12-18)

….Finally, leaning even closer, he repeatedly jabbed his forefingerinto my breast bone, over-emphasizing each and every word as hislips spat, “We are going to kill you for what you did, and there’snothing that you can do about it. We have a solid case of murder inthe first degree against you, so get it off your chest, Fritz, and bethe 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.


98


description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 124 line 25

through page 125 line 23.


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.





and dishonest.





99

threatening, physically assaulting an incustodial defendant, and attempting to coerce a

statement from an incustodial defendant.


conjunction with other statements, is false and accuses Plaintiff Rogers of felonious


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 Rogershurriedly exit. Looking back over my shoulder, I saw my motherand aunt rush to reach me before I was led away. Mom squeezedher way through the crowd and lunged against me, hugging mewith all the love she had to give. With her face against myshoulder, she sobbed as she told me she loved me and would bethere for me all the way through. I was able to kiss her quickly onher forehead before the guards intervened and separated us.Outside the courtroom, I was immediately flanked by Smith andRogers. As we walked briskly down the corridor, I sensed theirfrustration and anger. “Fritz, you might be able to hide from us fora while, but we will get you back. I guarantee you it will be soonerthan you think,” Rogers insisted. “You have only put off theinevitable. Very soon you are going to have to pay for what youdid. You can count on that.” “Dennis, would you still like to haveour little talk we agreed upon?” Smith said as he tightened up hisgrip on my arm. I looked at him with contempt. “I don’t haveanything 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,


100

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.


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.





and dishonest.






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


101

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 throughthe Kansas City and Oklahoma City airports in leg shackles andhand cuffs,…(pg. 61 line 8-10)….Since leaving Oklahoma City,none of us had uttered a word. Featherstone drove steadily, staringstraight ahead. Rogers, in the back seat, glanced in my directionoccasionally and smirked, presumably to let me know that he hadaccomplished his mission in bringing his man back to Ada. (pg. 61line 15-19)

……”Another damned train,” Featherstone remarked. He quicklyglanced into the rear-view mirror at Rogers. “Yeah, they back uphere several times a day, but I’m sure ol’ Fritz here won’t mind thewait since this will be his last taste of civilization for a goodwhile,” answered Rogers. A look of scorn flowed from his eyes tomine. I glared back. “If I go down on this, Rogers, then you,Smith, and Rusty up there are gonna have to pay for illegallyconvicting me. I’m ready for what you got, and I don’t think it’smuch.” “You know, Fritz, you had a little vacation up there inKansas City, but it’s like I told you before we left: You can hidefor a little bit but now it’s time for you to pay the price. We gaveyou more than a chance to help yourself out but you’re gonna be ahard-ass and dig your own grave, so, have it your way and we’llsee where it gets you. “It’s a wonder to me how any of you cansleep at night knowing that you don’t have any real evidence toconvict me on. And besides that,” I said, nodding towardFeatherstone, “when you left the room at the airport in KansasCity, your buddy up there more or less told me that I didn’t flunkthose polygraph tests.” Featherstone stiffened his shoulders andturned to look at me. He spoke sharply, “Mr. fritz, you can say


102

anything you want to say but the fact remains that your polygraphsconsistently showed you were lying about not being in her house.And the majority of the other questions, you clearly fell in thedeceptive range on your responses.” Featherstone’s tone wasdefensive. His cheeks turned a livid red. (pg. 63 10th line from thebottom—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.


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.


103





and dishonest.






STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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 toLurch, and that to remain uninvolved in the case, he would denybeing 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.


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


104

influenced and/or attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses in a criminal

prosecution. The statement in paragraph 294 is libel per se.


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 believethere was evidence that Denice Haraway had been stabbed as wellas 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.


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.


105

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.




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.


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


106

belief that Plaintiff Peterson concealed this report from the defense. This would be a

violation of a defendant’s due process rights.

STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ABOUTPLAINTIFF 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 flunkedthe lie-detector test, Gary Rogers and Dennis Smith came in andtook over the questioning. The mood in the room had changed. Itwas no longer an interview. It was an interrogation. The manner ofthe interrogators was no longer gentle. For five hours this newquestioning continued, interrupted only by visits to the bathroomor 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.





description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 111 and 112.



Plaintiff Rogers in a negative light.




107


and/or falsely implies that Plaintiff Rogers is corrupt, unethical, and overzealous.



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 theHaraway case. They said that Tommy Ward, twenty-four, of Ada,had confessed to the robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder ofDenice Haraway, and had been arrested. They said he hadimplicated two other men, who were being sought. The names ofthe 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.





description in Defendant Grisham’s book The Innocent Man on page 96 line 4-10.


108







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.


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. GaryRogers stopped by to chat, in obvious good sprits. He asked if theD.A.’s office would still trade a life sentence in return for DeniceHaraway’s body. Ross said that would be up to the Harawayfamily; that if such an offer were made by the defendants, hethought the family would agree.

322. The statement described above in paragraph 321 is a factually incorrect. This

conversation never occurred.


109








whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction.





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 theguilt of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot; it called into question thejudgment, techniques, and veracity of certain Ada law-enforcementofficials. Some citizens who had been recognized the absurdity ofthe confessions of Ward and Fontenot still had trouble believingthat those confessions had been choreographed by the police, andthat the district attorney had put innocent men in prison. But theCarter case showed that they had marshaled a false case againsttwo innocent men. Who could say that they had not done the samething to Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot?


110

327. The statement described above in paragraph 326 is a factually incorrect. This

conversation never occurred.








whatever means necessary in order to obtain a conviction.





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.


111

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.


112

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)



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.


113

Count III(Publicity Placing Person in False Light)



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)


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


114

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#7547Richardson Law Firm6450 S Lewis, Suite 300Tulsa, OK 74136Office 918 492-7674Facsimile 918 493-1925


115

Charles L. Richardson, OBA# 13388Richardson Law Firm6450 S Lewis, Suite 300Tulsa, OK 74136Office 918 492-7674Facsimile 918 493-1925

Kevin D. Adams, OBA#18914Richardson Law Firm6450 S Lewis, Suite 300Tulsa, OK 74136Office 918 492-7674Facsimile 918 493-1925

By: /s/ Kevin D AdamsKevin D Adams

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFSJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Certificate of ServiceI 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 forfiling and transmittal of Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECFregistrants:

Cheryl A, PilateMorgan & Pilate500 Santa Fe Drive, Suite AOlathe, Kansas 66061

Ron WrightWright, Stout, Fite & WilburnPO Box 707Muskogee, OK 7442-0707


116

Robert D. NelonJon EpsteinChase Tower, Suite 2900100 North BroadwayOklahoma City, OK 73102-8865

/s/ Kevin D Adams_________________________


Final--2nd Amended Complaint - Kevin Adams Lawsuit.pdf · 2015-08-29 · 1 in the united states district court for the eastern district of oklahoma william n. peterson, gary rogers

Documents