From Tears To Hope - New Beginnings - Kenny Richey ~ Injustice in Ohio

The Wrongful Conviction of

Kenny Richey

by John Albert

In the early morning hours of June 30, 1986, a fire engulfed the second floor apartment of Hope Collins. Her three-year-old daughter, Cynthia Kay, died of asphyxiation. Hope was away, partying with friends. She had left about 40 minutes earlier. The fire department investigator in Columbus Grove, Ohio, and the Assistant State Fire Marshall, both concluded that the fire was an accident. The evidence points to little Cynthia starting the fire herself, accidentally. Cynthia was alone and she had started three other fires recently by playing with matches and lighters. She was fascinated by fire.

Hope often left her daughter home alone. She had a busy social life, she was a heavy pot smoker, a drug user and party goer. She often gave her daughter sleeping pills or tranquilizers when leaving her and sometimes, but not always, asked friends or neighbors to watch the child. Later, when police investigators suggested that she was responsible for leaving the child unattended, she said that she had asked her friend, Kenny Richey, to watch her child. Kenny does not recall that, but he was too drunk at that time to know what was happening. The two witnesses who were with Hope that night did not hear her ask Kenny to watch the girl.

In January, 1987, at the trial of Kenny Richey, the prosecution presented a unique theory of the incident. There was no credible evidence to support any aspect of this theory. It was wholly preposterous, but the panel of three judges accepted it and convicted Richey of first degree murder.

There was a crime committed alright, but Kenny Richey was the victim not the perpetrator. It appeared as though the Putnam County Prosecutor, Randall Basinger, conspired with the Assistant State Fire Marshall, Robert Cryer, and other witnesses to present false testimony in order to convict Richey. They also appear to have had significant help from the defense attorney, Bill Kluge, and the judge, Michael Corrigan in succeeding with this false conviction.

The prosecution's case was based upon the claim that it was arson and that Richey started the fire. The prosecutor introduced the testimony of Robert Cryer that the carpet contained the flammable accelerants, gasoline and paint thinner; however, since Cryer had originally determined, on the morning of the fire, that it was accidental, the carpet had been removed and hauled to the city dump. It remained there at the dump until the police recovered it 36 hours later. The police then brought it back, unrolled the carpet on a stained pavement area in front of a gasoline pump where they took samples which were sent to be tested. The carpet had been contaminated, there was no chain of custody and it never should have been allowed into evidence. The tainted carpet was the only evidence offered to support the charge of arson so the entire prosecution case fails for lack of proper evidence.

After the trial the carpet and the carpet tests were re-examined by Professor Richard Custer and Andrew T. Armstrong, both nationally recognized experts in fire and arson investigations. They determined that there was no evidence of arson, no evidence of flammable accelerants and that the previous tests presented in evidence at the trial were flawed. The previous test results that Robert Cryer testified to at the trial were false and all of the testimony offered to prove arson was false testimony.

According to the statement of Judge Corrigan, the sole factor that persuaded him to invoke the death sentence was that Richey had disconnected the smoke detector alarm in Hope Collins' apartment. He felt that showed a callous disregard for the lives of the tenants. No evidence had been presented to show that Richey did that. The prosecutor never accused him of that. It was never mentioned. In fact, the prosecutor and the defense attorney both had information from Hope Collins' friends and neighbors that Hope herself usually kept the smoke alarm disconnected, as did many other residents of that apartment complex. One friend said she saw Hope disconnect it 12 hours before the fire. Hope was a heavy cigarette and pot smoker and frequently cooked food on the stove which caused smoke. The alarm would have been ringing constantly. None of that information was put on the record, however. Those potential witnesses were not asked to testify. That single factor that the judge relied upon to justify the death penalty was unsupported speculation on the part of the judge.

A neighbor testified at the trial that she was standing next to Richey as the fire department was cleaning up the mess that morning when she heard Richey say, "I really did a hell of a job of it, didn't I?". It was un-refuted, damaging testimony. The neighbor, Juanita Altimus, could not have heard that because at the time she said she heard him say that, Richey was at his father's home being questioned by police. Juanita's daughter says that her mother, who was then 70 years old, had a failing memory and her mind was very confused. She was an extremely unreliable witness but that did not disturb the prosecutor.

The prosecution theory was that Kenny Richey stole cans of gasoline and paint thinner from the nursery greenhouse nearby, carried them up on top of the shed roof, then reached across to the balcony railing of Hope Collins' apartment, climbed in, emptied the cans on the carpet, lit the fire and left the way he came. No trace of those liquids was found on Richey's clothing, the cans were never found and the nursery owner said nothing was stolen from his greenhouse. There was no evidence of anyone climbing onto the shed roof. The roof is steeply sloped and difficult to traverse. Richey was drunk, had a broken wrist in a cast and could not likely have carried the two cans on to the shed and across that roof that night. The front door of the apartment was unlocked so there was no need to get in from the balcony. Kenny and all the neighbors knew about that. It was an implausible, convoluted theory with no basis in fact.

According to the prosecutor Richey's motive in starting the fire was to harm the tenants in the apartment below. That is similarly implausible since the second story apartment floor is solid concrete.

The defense counsel should have found it an easy task to disprove such a flimsy, unsupported case as the prosecution presented. But Bill Kluge did not make a sincere effort to defend his client. It appeared that he believed his client to be guilty.

There is something else troubling and inexplicable about prosecutor Basinger's values. Two weeks before the trial, he had offered a plea bargain of a maximum sentence of eleven years and four months, with a parole within six years if Richey would plead guilty to lesser charges. Richey was only 21 years old at the time, naive about the criminal justice system and believed that since he was innocent he could not be convicted. He elected to plead not guilty and go to trial, so he was sentenced instead to death.

He is now 35 years old, he has been in prison 14 years and has had every appeal to date denied. The appellate courts have not been willing to allow him to present exculpatory evidence. They insist upon protecting the integrity of the original conviction and preserving the injustice. That is what appellate courts usually do.

There is no proof that the prosecutors entered into a conspiracy to convict Richey. Or that they suborned perjury. Or that the defense attorney was complicit in the deceit. Or that the judges were biased in favor of the prosecution. Those are all reasonable inferences based upon the facts but they cannot be proven.

It is highly likely that these authorities considered that the town was greatly distressed over the tragic death of the three-year-old girl. They probably felt a need to exercise their power to find someone responsible for this painful death. The truth that it was an accident would not assuage the community sorrow. The truth would not have advanced their careers as much as a conviction. So they did what they felt they had to do in order to convict Richey. Perhaps, at some point, they convinced themselves that Richey was responsible. It is more likely, however, that Richey was simply their only suspect. And they were willing to sacrifice this young man's life to satisfy the exigencies of their positions.

Kenny Richey has many pleasant and redeeming qualities but he is not a sympathetic character. He was a drug user, a heavy drinker, at times, a temperamental loud mouth and he had previous minor brushes with the law. He has made some poor choices about his lifestyle. He was a troubled young man but he is not an arsonist or a murderer and he does not deserve to be put to death. He is entirely innocent of this tragedy. The evidence of actual innocence is overwhelming. The wrongful conviction of Kenny Richey is a crime against society.

For more information click here