John Edison Jr. was victim of sheer laziness, gross negligence

Friday, Jan. 9, 2009

Appallingly, Edison faced 51 years in a penitentiary for a crime he not only didn't commit, but one that police and prosecutors would have known he didn't commit if they were even minimally competent. The government's case was so weak, in fact, that it took a jury less than one hour to acquit Edison on Dec. 19.

This case originally involved allegations that two rapes occurred simultaneously on the day in question, as two females gave varying accounts of being raped by two boys. Edison was initially accused of raping the 12-year-old's 15-year-old friend, and at one point it was alleged that Edison's friend raped the 15-year-old.

It's OK if you're confused. To any rational adult these charges would seem outlandish, especially since there were no visible injuries to any of the four children.

However, instead of conducting an unbiased and thorough investigation, detectives and prosecutors merely assumed Edison was guilty. At best, John Edison was the victim of sheer laziness and gross negligence by police detectives William Raddatz and L.N. Nims and Assistant State's Attorney Joe Stanalonis (who, peculiarly, passed the case off to junior prosecutors just before Edison's trial).

Here are the facts per my research, attendance of the trial and interviews with Edison's family:

ï Detective Raddatz wrote in a charging statement that Edison had scratch marks on both arms. There was a mark on only one arm, which was the result of a frisking in the police station by Maryland State Police trooper K.T. Roby, who testified that he didn't remember seeing any scratches on Edison's body at the time of his arrest.

ï Raddatz photographed marks on Edison that he knew weren't scratches, something he later admitted. Edison's attorney learned that three police officers saw Edison without a shirt on the morning of his arrest, and all of them said they saw no wounds on his client.

ï Detective Nims swore in a search warrant that Edison had scratches on his chest when he did not (the 12-year-old admitted during trial that she never scratched Edison).

ï Nims stated during questioning that he disclosed during an earlier motions hearing a mistake he made in one of his reports, though transcripts obtained from that prior hearing do not indicate that Nims made such a disclosure.

ï Raddatz told fellow officers that Edison admitted to raping the 12-year-old. According to a report from St. Mary's County Cpl. Stephen Myers — another officer who admitted to observing no scratches on Edison — it was learned that the defendant confessed to sexual assault. But there is no such confession present on interrogation tapes; Edison merely admitted that any sexual activity was consensual.

Despite the government's moral depravity in this case, there were actually some good guys involved. Specifically, the officers who admitted to seeing no scratches on John Edison at the time of his arrest are to be commended.

However, at minimum, Detectives Raddatz and Nims should be fired; Assistant State's Attorney Stanalonis deserves to be disbarred. State's Attorney Richard Fritz hardly escapes scrutiny, as he used his influence to have Edison tried as an adult.

The notion that such behavior would be tolerated in a country ostensibly founded on principles of individual liberty is absurd on its face.

Trevor Bothwell, Dowell