A supercilious case was built around Mr. Clair for the murder of Linda Rodger’s, a young woman killed in Santa Ana, California in 1984. After our extensive investigation that occurred starting in mid 2004, we have come to a conclusion that there was a coordinated supercilious case built around Kenneth Clair resulting in his “Wrongful” Conviction in the murder of Linda Rodgers. My report is based on factual information obtained, from all the parities listed in this petition. 

We have compiled this investigative report into topic and areas of our investigation. Please read and study each area and we believe that it will give you an unambiguous reason to support and sign this petition.

Kenneth Clair’s “Due Process” and “Constitutional Rights” were violated at the very beginning of the process when the ONLY eyewitness to the crime’s existence was never entered into record and testimony was never heard by the jury. Nine out of the 12 jurors who were later interviewed by the Federal Public Defenders indicated that they would have never convicted Kenneth Clair if they would have known that there was an eye witness who saw the crime. The other 3 jurors could not be interviewed.

Police reports reveal that the son of Rodger’s landlord witnessed the crime and told three different officers that the man who killed his baby-sitter was a white man. Clair is an African American. The boy's stepfather told investigators of the Santa Ana PD that Clair committed the murder and that his son's assertion that Clair was an African American was based on the fact that his stepson could not differentiate between races. The boy was immediately taken to the Santa Ana Police Department by the lead investigator where he was given tests and correctly identified different races, rebutting the stepfather's allegation. The stepfather belonged to a racist motorcycle group that excluded African Americans, and he was also convicted of a murder-for-hire crime and previously served time in prison.

As to the murder, the boy told the Santa Ana PD lead investigator exactly what he witnessed. The lead investigator concluded that the boy must have seen the murder because he told him details that corresponded exactly with the coroner's report on stab wounds and the placement of the victim's panties and other crime scene evidence. The boy’s existence, testimony, was never made a part of the trial. 

In a Declaration taken during the Federal trial in 2005, this boy, now a man stated that he can not remember clearly all the events of what happened that day, but he believed that he told the truth about what he saw and said. He also included in his statement that his step father was prejudice against African Americans, referred to them as “Niggers” and tried to persuade him to change his story as to the killer being an African American. He further testified into the Federal trial that he believed that his stepfather had something to do with the murder. He came to this conclusion regarding his stepfather because of events that he remembered as a child at the time of the murder and conversations that he heard during his life after the murder. This was hard for him to do because these facts may also indict his mother as part of the conspiracy because she was the prosecutions key witness.

The District Attorney fabricated a motive to tie Clair into the crime. By concealing and manipulating evidence (jewelry) and reports with the Santa Ana Police Department they gave the appearance that a robbery that Clair committed a week before the murder, was done on the night of the murder. When this jewelry was reported missing by Linda Rodger’s live in female landlord at the time of the murder, the Santa Ana Police department already had every item that was reported in the evidence booking room because they had taken it from Clair a week before that. Later, during the process by the District Attorney to build their supercilious case, this evidence was discovered, so Santa Ana Police reports were altered and the “Booking Property Report” mysteriously disappeared from discovery- because it would show that Clair had no motive to even be at the crime scene to rob or kill Linda Rodger’s. The existence of the Property Booking Report would show that the District Attorney’s key witness falsely reported these items as taken on the night of the murder. It would also show that their key witness was a party to the conspiracy of the murder, not Clair. So the District Attorney, instead of investigating into the real reason that Linda Rodgers was murdered, (which involved Rodger’s live in landlords) decide to embrace the landlords false assertions. This arrangement kept the District Attorney’ssupercilious case intact, when it would have self destruct.

CLAIR’S FORMER GIRLFRIEND’S TESTIMONY

The District Attorney tried to place Clair at the crime scene by taking advantage of Clair’s former girlfriends willingness and vulnerability to testify against Clair. Clair and his former girlfriend had domestic and personal issues that left her bitter. Clair’s former girlfriend was duped into saying that Kenneth Clair was in the area of the victim’s home. She was wired twice by Santa Ana Police to try to get Clair to say that he was physically with her (former girlfriend) on the night of the murder and that he told her to wait across the street of the house that the murder took place. That he (Clair) robbed the house and murdered Linda Rodgers. This attempt failed miserably. However, this tape was used at the trial because the District Attorney who did not have any physical evidence, contended that even tough Clair did not confess on these tapes to the murder, he sounded guilty.

What was so ironic about Clair’s former girlfriend testimony that Clair was with her in the area of the crime scene on that particular date, was the fact that it just could not have happened and was exposed by our investigation as not being factual.

Here are the facts. Clair’s former girlfriend, days prior to the commission of the murder, was involved in a  bicycle accident. She suffered a concussion resulting in temporary memory loss. Her memory was so impaired that she did not recognize anyone and had to be introduced to her own family and caregivers. The medication that she was taking left her confused, tired, weak and unable to walk without assistance. Her family and caregivers had to monitor and assist her at all times. Clair’s former girlfriend by her own admission did not, and could not leave her home unassisted until a series of events that she described occurred. These events happened weeks after the murder and could be attested at that time by statements from her caregivers. However, the District Attorney never sought to seek those statements because these witnesses would not fit into their supercilious case against Clair.

We obtained Declarations in 2005 from the caregivers as to the impossibility of her (Clair’s ex-girlfriend) even being able to walk unassisted on her own or being able to leave the house. A Declarations from Clair’s former girlfriend recanting her own testimony as to those events happening on the night of the murder, was also obtained. She realized that the story that she told could have happened, however it was impossible for it to have happened on the night that Linda Rodgers was murdered. These Declarations were Officially entered and received in Clair’s federal case.

There was never any physical evidence collected at the crime scene that tied Kenneth Clair to the crime. Kenneth Clair had been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

1.     The former girlfriend’s testimony that he was in the area of the crime scene.

2.     The tape from Santa Ana Police Department wiring of the former girlfriend (that was argued that even if it wasn’t a confession, he sounded guilty.)

3.     The testimony from their key witness (mother of the boy that established a false motive that Clair robbed the house on the night of the murder.) 

Kenneth Clair had no witnesses in his behalf that supported his alibi. The only witness who really witnessed the crime, testimony was never heard.  The testimony was never entered by police reports or a personal appearance..

Crime scene evidence was sealed after the case concluded by Santa Ana Police officers in 1985. About five years or so later, Kenneth Clair’s defense attorneys, The Federal Public Defenders, requested to view the crime scene evidence. There were two attempts by investigators working with the Federal Public Defenders office to locate this evidence from the District Attorney’s office and the Santa Ana Police Department. On both attempts, to find the evidence, it was reported by the District Attorney and the Santa Ana Police department that the “Crime Scene” evidence had been destroyed shortly after the conclusion of Kenneth Clair’s conviction.

After about 15 years of this deception, we took this case and directly confronted the Santa Ana Police department. We were told the same thing as previous investigators were told. After we did not believe this and made an issue to expose Santa Ana Police Department for concealment of the evidence, the City Attorney located all the crime scene evidence intact. It had not been destroyed. A viewing to inspect and review the evidence was arranged by the City Attorney. Present at the viewing was the District Attorney and his investigator, the Santa Ana Police investigator, Clair’s defense attorney from the Federal Public Defenders office and his associate, and C. J. Ford.

All of the evidence regarding the crime scene that applied to the crime was accounted for and inspected. No evidence that they independently collected that applied to Kenneth Clair was opened because there would have been a risk of cross contamination. All of the evidence was accounted for, sealed, and dated for that day. We concluded that the evidence had most likely been inspected for the first time since it was sealed in 1985 because of the dates on the tag said “1985” and the condition of the packaging. I also concluded that this evidence could be tested for DNA.

In mid 2007 the Orange County District Attorney’s office agreed to let the defense team have another inspection of evidence and a full discovery on documentation involved in the case. Evidence was opened again and inspected. Documents were viewed from the Santa Ana Police Department, District Attorney’s office, and the Orange County Sheriff- Coroners. C. J. Ford Private Investigations did not participate in the actual inspections of the items, but we thought that it was VERY unusual for the lead investigator who originally sealed the items in 1985, and participated in the cover up of its existence until our investigation uncovered them in 2005, was actually in the evidence room handling and participating in the inspection.

This was the same lead investigator that the boy witness told that it was a white man that killed his baby-sitter. The same lead investigator who tested the boy to see if he could differentiate between races. The same lead investigator that admitted that the boy had to have seen the crime because his account matched the report of the coroners.

Our investigation took a different course after this observation. Our suspicion now was that there was a possibility that between the first inspection in 2005 and the inspections in 2007, there was a possibility that the evidence was opened and maybe tested. This suspicion paid off with an exhibit that was received just prior to the 2007 inspection. We received a list of the evidence which clearly showed that the evidence had been opened and came from different locations then it was stored in 2005. The identification control dates were in-between the 2005 and 2007 dates.

This evidence was being tested to try to build another supercilious case around Kenneth Clair alleging he committed a cold case murder that had similar circumstances that occurred in Huntington Beach, CA. This was a meritless attempt to tie Clair into another murder and it suggested to our investigation that they were trying to put another case on Kenneth Clair because the case that they convicted him on was unraveling. Our investigation, court documents, testimony, and police reports clearly had Clair in custody on the day of that murder. The District Attorney tried to fabricate a story saying that Clair had actually been released earlier, but the evidence was overwhelming that Clair was in fact in custody.

Our investigation then challenged the District Attorney’s office in a press release that was put out in December of 2007 where we boldly came out and suggested that the District Attorney had the results from the secret testing that they were doing and that the results did not match Clair. This was based on the new supercilious case that they attempted to develop, and the secret testing. Our investigation assessed that if the District Attorney was trying to create another case against Clair and they were doing secrete testing of evidence. Since we found out that the test were done a while back, we figured that the results did not match Clair’s or they would have gone out of their way to announce that.

Our press release was picked up by the Orange County Register and they printed a story on January 5, 2008. The District Attorney’s office, to avoid exposure from our investigation admitted that they were testing the evidence and the DNA results did not match Clair.

In 2005 a decision was handed down against Kenneth Clair by Judge Taylor of the Federal Court. All Clair’s 47 claims were denied. One of the issues that was a factor was the fact that the court denied hearing anything about the newly discovered evidence from our investigation. The Federal Public Defenders office did file the Declaration from the girlfriend and her caregivers, but they refused to file the information regarding the evidence that our investigation had uncovered. The Federal Public Defenders office refused to file the evidence because Judge Taylor told the defense that he refused to accept any new filings and that he was going to make a decision.

We attempts to convince the Federal Public Defenders to file the evidence anyway regardless of what Judge Taylor said as to his policy of receiving additional materials. The Federal Public Defenders decided that it would be best if they did not file the motion, because this evidence may end up hurting Clair’s case. Clair had been in contact with the court and Judge Taylor by letters and attempted to fire the Federal Public Defenders office because he felt that they were ineffective and that they were not cooperating with our investigation.

After having conversations with Kenneth Clair, we decided to file an investigative report with Judge Taylor regarding the results of our investigation and the crime scene evidence-regardless of what the Federal Public Defenders beliefs were and Judge Taylor warning. We filed the report based on the fact that Judge Taylor knew that we were Clair’s independent investigator and that the introduction of physical evidence into this case could be critical to exonerate Clair from this crime. Not doing this could possibly waive his rights to ever use this evidence. We also filed this with the court because we believed that if the court ruled against Clair, the court decision may be reversed one day because the court did not considered this evidence.

This report was personally taken down to the court and filed anyway against the case.Judge Taylor disregarded this investigative report, made a decision against Clair, and returned our report and information unopened. We were cited by the court for violating the rules of the court by trying to enter the evidence in this matter.

END OF REPORT