Pleas Lucian Kavanaugh has been found not guilty in the assault case that took place on October 24, 2009. The alleged assault took place at 112 W. High St after 1AM. Many suspicious facts caught my attention after Mr. Kavanaugh contacted me and asked that I investigate and write about his case.
I wrote my first article about this case on August 13, 2010. Since then I have written several other articles detailing the shady tactics used by prosecutor Bobby Gullette and Officer Elizabeth Adams. Some of their actions took place prior to Kavanaugh’s arrest and some have taken place in the courtrooms. Those articles are linked at the bottom if you’d like to follow the entire story.
Pleas’ trial began on Wednesday and ended yesterday with a not guilty verdict by 1 PM.
The victim was Morgan Louise Persely and is the daughter of the partner of Officer Elizabeth Adams. During the trial Ms. Persely’s story changed and made little sense. Her story differed from details she gave to the grand jury and changed again from statements given during evidentiary hearing 1 and evidentiary hearing 2.
Ms. Persely claimed in court that she talked to her girlfriend from the time she fought with her boyfriend and left the bar until she got several blocks away to a well lit spot. Her friend was coming to give her a ride home. Her phone records show many calls from her boyfriend that she hung up on yet only one call from her friend that lasted 4 minutes.
Ms. Persely claimed that she and her boyfriend got into a fight because he thought she was flirting. After leaving the bar one other person called other than her girlfriend and her boyfriend. She was informed this person’s name was Jeremy. She claims to have no idea why this number is on her phone records and doesn’t know him. Yet, later in court when asked about her records by the prosecution, she recalls his name immediately.
Oddly enough, she claims to have never met Pleas before. However, she worked at Applebee’s with his sister and a good friend of his who was killed. Pleas visited his sister and his friend several times a week where she was the hostess at the front door.
More inconsistencies follow:
- Claiming that her boyfriend drove that evening when she told the grand jury that they took a taxi.
- In an earlier statement she says that her keys and cellphone had been taken and purse emptied but someone found her keys. At trial she said they were never found. When reminded of her earlier statement she says they may have been found she doesn’t remember.
- All along she’s claimed that her cell phone was taken. However, when she tells the story she says that she called her father afterwards and then others. When she was asked what phone she used she claims it must have been someone else’s. She’s told that her phone records show it was made from her phone and she tries to explain it away.
- Her friend, she claims, was the last person she talked to right before she was attacked. Her friend was supposed to be just around the corner. If this is true, her friend should have arrived as the attack was taking place. Ms. Persely explains her friend never showing up by claiming she drove around, couldn’t find her and finally left. Yet, by Ms. Persely’s own admission this was a well lit spot with a wide open parking lot and her friend had been told exactly where she was.
- At least five drinks and 3-4 bars in 2 hours and she’s not intoxicated when the incident happened, she claims.
During the entire trial Ms. Persely claims that she can’t remember this and can’t remember that. Faces and names are especially hard for her to remember. Yet, she claims, Kavanaugh passed her twice on the street and then she was grabbed from behind and assaulted. She admits to never having seen the person who assaulted her. However, when asked if she saw the person in the courtroom her memory is now excellent and she confidently points to Pleas.
I think, after hearing the inconsistencies in the testimonies, the final statement by Adams finished off the prosecution’s case. When asked by defense attorney Chris Tracy if there was anything other than Ms. Persely’s identification tying Kavanaugh to the case, Adams replied no, nothing.
It is evident by following the case from the begining that Ms. Persely’s decision to point the finger at Pleas Kavanaugh was influenced by a suggestive identification process. Mr. Kavanaugh posted the findings of the court not to allow the photo line-up done by Officer Adams as it was found in fact to be unduly suggestive. This is not the first time Officer Adams has had problems with this. Issues like this are part of the reason she is now Officer Adams instead of Detective Adams as she was when this case began.
Officer Adams has a history with Pleas Kavanaugh and has been involved in cases in the past that Kavanaugh won. Kavanaugh filed a civil case against the city including then Detective Adams in the suit. It is possible that Adams, who admits deciding herself in this case and another similar pending case on Kavanaugh, has used these cases to seek retribution on Kavanaugh. If that is so, and these two ladies involved in these two cases are actually victims of a crime, it’s a shame that the real assailant is free to strike again.
Adams allowed her hatred of Kavanaugh, which is obvious in the evidentiary hearings, to influence her job. From her statements in the hearings it seems that anytime she hears of a light skinned black man committing a crime she immediately thinks of Kavanaugh. The evidentiary hearings show how the descriptions of the perpetrator didn’t fit Kavanaugh and yet Adams produced a line-up with Kavanaugh as the only possible suspect remotely fitting the description.
Pleas Kavanaugh has another case pending involving Officer Adams and similar, if not worse, examples of undue influence on the witness by the police. Once again, Officer Adams used suggestive identification processes and decided herself about Kavanaugh. Videos and evidence have disappeared from both cases that would have been helpful to the defense.
Judge Ernesto Scorsone was fair and impressed me during the trial for his control of the courtroom. There were times during the evidentiary hearings and even during the trial that Scorsone seemed a bit uneasy with the tactics and the evidence the prosecution brought forth. You’ll notice in the videos that he rubs his eyes and his forehead many times when questionable issues are raised. I would hope that Judge Scorsone will see the parallels in Kavanaugh’s two cases and dismiss the second case before more time and money is wasted. Besides, another loss for the city and Officer Adams could make Kavanaugh’s civil case a hot item among high profile attorneys looking for some easy money.
Kavanaugh was jailed and threatened with jail several times for blogging about his innocence during this ordeal. Pleas, feel free to write all you want now and we’ll be following along as we await the next trial.
I’d like to finish by congratulating Pleas Kavanaugh for winning his freedom back. Of course the top notch work of defense attorneys Chris Tracy and Chad Butcher along with their staff and other attorneys at the public defenders office has to be credited for a job well done.
Copyright ©Christopher Hignite 2011 All Rights Reserved. This article cannot be copied for email or other websites.
The author grants permission to republish the title and first paragraph of this article provided they are linked to the original article here on Examiner. He welcomes emails: Christopher@wearechangeky.com