Many of these pieces were originally published as individual articles for Odyssey online. They have been condensed and compiled together for a more complete overview of Shannon's case.
A Brief Introduction
My best friend and I have known each other since May of 2011. It's fair to say that he knows me better than anyone, except perhaps my husband. My friend lives in Indiana, so our relationship is maintained through letters, emails, and phone calls. When I shuffle through the day's mail and see his familiar script scrawled on the back of an envelope, I'm always excited. We have been through a lot together--the death of my first love, the prolonged illness and death of his brother, break-ups, make-ups, moves across states, and career changes. When my husband and I were robbed, my best friend sent money to help us recoup our losses. It wasn't much, but he sent all he had. When I found out I was pregnant, he taught himself to crochet, expressly for the purpose of making my son his first baby blanket. Typical best friend stuff, I'm sure you're thinking. But our friendship has one unique and important difference.
My best friend, Shannon Agofsky, is on death row in USP Terre Haute. He is a wrongfully convicted inmate, and for the last five years, I (along with many others) have been researching his case, conducting interviews, and pushing for a new trial. His case is a complex one, that spans three states and multiple investigative agencies. It has a cast of characters to rival most Hollywood blockbusters--with guest appearances from psychics, eccentric detectives, money-launderers, hardened criminals, conspiracy theorists, and a drug-ring allegedly associated with the Clintons (yes, those Clintons) in good old Mena, Arkansas. That barely even scratches the surface. There are hundreds of files I haven't touched yet; the floor of my study is largely obscured by boxes of witness statements, court testimony, and evidence reports. There is much of Shannon's story left to discover--and it's a story that I am excited to have a part in.
By writing about Shannon's case, I hope to disentangle facts from fiction, exposing the difference between the real story and the story that was told to the public. Legally, there is much I cannot share. Some evidence is still under seal, and revealing it could hurt my friend's case rather than help it. But every darkened corner I can shed light into, I will. Shannon's story is one that effects all of us whether we realize it or not, and it's one that needs to be told.
In the meantime, I would ask that you keep an open mind. Even a novice Google detective will be able to find questionable--and even negative--opinions on the internet about Shannon. From the years I have known him, he has always been a brutally honest man, sometimes to the point of callousness. He would be the first to tell you, he is not an angel--but does that make him guilty of the things he was accused of? I encourage everyone to do research, to look at all the facts available, to read and consider the story I have to tell and ask--was justice really served here?
When I first met Shannon, even I had my doubts about him. When we started corresponding I was only twenty-years-old, and I knew that I had to proceed with a certain amount of objectivity and caution. I had decided to write to an inmate after the urging of one of my college professors, who had worked extensively with inmates himself. He felt it would be beneficial to me--an antisocial academic more interested in studying people than befriending them--and beneficial to the inmate as well. I eventually agreed, on two conditions--whoever I wrote to had to be similar to myself in terms of interest and temperament, and they had to be in jail for life. I didn't relish the thought of my pen-pal being released and showing up at my doorstep. Shannon fit the bill. His original inmate profile quoted one of my favorite Keats' poems, and I decided it was fate.
For the first couple of months, we wrote each other nearly every day, but never discussed his case. I wanted to get to know him as a person first--and also to try and gauge whether or not he wanted anything from me. I'd been warned that many prisoners rarely want friendship but instead seek out prey. I can say with all honesty that Shannon never asked me for anything then, and still hasn't to this day. That isn't to say that he has never asked anyone for money or favors. He certainly has, by his own admission. But our relationship has always been one built on mutual respect and admiration. We spent our earliest letters writing about books, music, art, and bonding over our similar dark senses of humor. It wasn't until some time after my twenty-first birthday that I decided to ask about why he was in prison. I avoided researching it myself, instead waiting to absorb what he had to say. Asking about his case ended up being one of the most largely important questions of my life, and has led me on quite an adventure. An adventure that is ongoing, and one that I would like to invite you to take also, dear reader, should you accept. The story begins, as so many often do, on a dark and stormy night.
Murder in a Small Town
The evening of October 5th, 1989 was unremarkable by most respects in the sleepy little town of Noel, Missouri. It had been unseasonably hot that fall, but that night the clouds were fat, slung low in the sky and threatening rain. Despite the rumbling from the heavens, the storm held off--but a storm of a different kind was brewing. While most of the town drifted off to sleep, electricity crackled through the air, lighting the way for those who had more sinister intentions for the night.
On the morning of October 6th, Pauline Coonrod arrived at the State Bank of Noel to report for her normal shift as cashier. When she walked up to the entrance, however, it was clear that the doors were already unlocked. It didn't take her long to realize that the bank had been robbed in the night. The usually pristine floor was littered with overturned teller drawers. Empty bullet casings were strewn underneath the lone surveillance camera, which had been shot at and spray-painted black. It was still pointed toward the vault--wide open with the keys hanging from the lock. Coonrod called the police, and federal agents arrived on the scene alongside local law enforcement. It was discovered that over $70,000 was missing, along with the bank's president--a man by the name of Dan Short. Short quickly became the main suspect, especially after his truck was found about 3 miles outside of town--with several rolls of bank-packaged coins in the truck bed.
The town was abuzz with theories and speculation. From the beginning, Short's ex-wife was sure that he had met with foul play. She had worked with him at the bank for years and had never known him to do anything questionable or unethical. Her suspicions were validated on October 11th, when Short's badly decomposed remains were found floating in Grand Lake, near Cowskin Bridge in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Short had been bound to a chair, a chain hoist attached to his left ankle with a generous amount of gray duct tape. He had been weighted down with a concrete block and thrown into the lake, presumably while still alive.
The residents of Noel were horrified. Dan Short had been a respected and well-liked man. The town had never seen a crime this heinous, and it was more frightening still because investigators had no leads. Whoever had done this was still free, very likely living and working alongside them. The pressure on law enforcement was overwhelming, and the longer they went without finding a suspect, the more the town talked.
This is where things start to go awry. It is extremely important to note that during the most initial stages of the FBI's investigation, not one single person interviewed had seen anything helpful. There were no witnesses to Dan Short's supposed abduction or murder. One of Short's neighbors, a woman by the name of Carol Dryden Carnahan, told investigators that during the night of October 5th, she saw headlights going past her windows. About thirty minutes later she heard a vehicle start up and then drive away, near the general direction of Short's house. She said she saw no one and didn't recognize any vehicles--yet eight years later, she went on the witness stand to identify Shannon Agofsky as one of the men outside Short's home. Carnahan would not be the only witness to miraculously remember vivid details years after the crime, but she was among scores of interview subjects who knew nothing of substance in the days immediately following the tragedy.
In fact, none of the interviews initially conducted implicated Shannon or his brother Joseph in any way. The Agofsky brothers weren't on the list of possible suspects until the FBI reported they had received an anonymous phone call claiming that the boys had been seen with "an awful lot of change." A large amount of coins had disappeared from the vault during the robbery, and the police were quick to investigate.
Joseph, known as Joe to his family and friends, was questioned first. He had an alibi for the night of the crime, confirmed by his girlfriend who lived about forty miles away from Noel. Joe was cooperative with law enforcement from the beginning, and was noted as being cordial and accommodating. He told officers that he owned two .45 handguns, like the one that had been used to shoot at the bank's surveillance camera. The investigators asked if they could test the guns for a match, and Joe agreed. He gave them directions to his home in Noel and told them that his younger brother Shannon would be there to meet them.
Shannon was only eighteen-years-old at the time of the crime and resulting investigation. Like many teenage boys he was cocky, confident, and not without a certain disregard for authority. All that in mind, he was polite when the police showed up at his brother's door, and showed them where the guns were kept. When asked about his whereabouts the night of the kidnapping, he told them he had a martial arts class at the local dojo, and then spent the rest of the evening at his mother's house--which both his karate instructor and mother confirmed. After more thorough questioning, the police learned that Shannon and Joe had no financial reason to be involved in such a dangerous crime. Both brothers and their mother Sheila had received substantial settlements after their father had died tragically in a plane crash. Considering the cooperation of both brothers, their lack of motive, confirmed alibis, and the fact that Joe's guns were not a match for the bullets found at the crime scene, the investigators decided to focus on other leads.
There was no shortage of potential suspects. Investigators discovered that the State Bank of Noel was in serious trouble. They had been accused of mishandling money, and after three separate audits had been reduced to "weak bank" status. His ex-wife and daughter had both said that in the weeks before his death, Dan Short had commented that he was uneasy about the bank's affairs and his involvement in them. Joyce Short herself was considered a suspect, since she had been the beneficiary of two life insurance policies in Short's name. Frank Sanders, a local man who had already been convicted of bank robbery, was also on the radar. Anonymous calls kept coming in, implicating everyone from a former police informant to Bruce Moore--a dangerous criminal once on the FBI's Most Wanted list. After over a year of interviews, lead investigator Agent Ladell Farley wrote in a report that he suspected that a red-bearded man, a clean-shaven man with long, straight hair, and a woman were responsible for the robbery. Not one of those descriptions matched the Agofsky brothers.
Somewhere along the way, for reasons no one may ever be able to understand, Farley changed his mind. Maybe he was frustrated at the lack of evidence. Maybe he was buckling under the pressure and sideways glances from the distrusting residents of small-town Noel. Maybe he was just tired of being there and wanted to go home. I just don't know. What I do know is that Farley decided that the Agofsky brothers were the men he liked for the crime after speaking with Gant Sanders--the son of bank robber Frank Sanders. But Agent Farley didn't come to this conclusion after he spoke to Gant for the first time. In fact, Gant denied that he had any knowledge connecting the brothers to the crime. Gant Sanders denied it vehemently during two more subsequent interviews. It wasn't until the fourth interview that Sanders suddenly changed his story--and after this sudden bout of clarity, he received probation for a string of burglaries he had been involved in, along with money for a new apartment. Sanders would not be the only informant to receive money and favors in exchange for implicating the Agofskys--a fact Agent Farley would begrudgingly admit to in a later trial.
But Sander's statement wouldn't be enough. He could be compelled and coached into a convincing witness, but there had to be evidence to support his story. By now I'm sure it's becoming apparent--something as trivial as evidence wouldn't get in the way of the FBI's tenacity. Farley would prove to be the ringmaster, with an entire sideshow of bumbling investigators and ham-fisted informants following his lead. The circus was about to begin.
Under the Big Top
The investigation and eventual trial against Shannon Wayne Agofsky was a circus, with no shortage of clowns, magicians, and sideshow attractions. I will seek to prove this with a thorough analysis of the evidence given against Shannon at his Oklahoma trial. Though it proved to be quite a show, in the end I hope you will see that's indeed all it was--a manufactured production.
THE CLOWNS
First and foremost, I feel it's pertinent to establish that the State presented no eyewitnesses to Dan Short's abduction or murder, or the robbery of the bank. The prosecutors relied solely on circumstantial evidence, questionable witness statements, and the testimony of jailhouse snitches. The parade of fools began with several persons who said they saw or heard suspicious activity in Noel around the time of the crime.
Janice Houston lived on Highway 59 in Noel. Sometime after she retired to bed on the evening of October 5th, the sound of something hitting her chain link fence woke her. She said she looked out the window and saw two men engaged in some sort of scuffle. She described a shorter man, around five-foot-nine, wrestling with a much taller man who had his hands tied behind his back. Neither one of these men, according to her statement, resembled the Agofsky brothers. Houston did not report this sighting to the FBI until over two years after the incident, though she had spoken to police officers in the days immediately following the crime. Defense motions to strike Houston's testimony from the record for irrelevance were denied.
Shirley Butler testified at trial that at 3:45 am on October 6th, she saw a truck and a van parked on the Number 10 bridge, near the place where Mr. Short would have been thrown to his death. As she got closer, she saw activity to the right of the vehicles, but was unable to make anything out clearly. Butler did not report this sighting to the FBI for over six months after the crime, and even then she did not give a specific time or date. Those specifics emerged only after the grand magician Special Agent Ladell Farley joined the show--but you'll hear more about his act later.
A truck driver named David McNeely testified at trial that he saw a brown two-toned van and a small pickup truck driving down Main Street Noel in the wee hours of the morning of October 6th. He said that the two occupants, who he described as white males, turned left onto King's Highway. However, when McNeely first spoke with the FBI (five months after the bank robbery) he described the van as plain in color and was unable to describe the occupants at all.
Buddy Mills testified despite intense and vehement defense objection after the prosecutors introduced a hypnotist as their special guest. Mills had his memory "hypnotically refreshed" in preparation to take the stand. The doctor who administered the hypnosis said that he had "turned hypnotic control" over to an FBI agent who participated in the exercise and subsequent questioning. Mills said that he saw three vehicles at a traffic light heading out of Noel around 3:00 am on the morning of October 6th. The first vehicle resembled Dan Short's. Mills did not pay attention to the other vehicles, but said as he continued South, a small blue Chevrolet Luv pickup with Oklahoma plates passed him. The driver, Mills said, had sandy hair and a reddish-brown beard. Despite thorough hypnosis, he was unable to remember the license plate number.
Carol Dryden Carnahan surprised the defense mid-trial when she identified Shannon Agofksy as the driver of a blue pickup truck that turned around in her driveway a few days before Mr. Short was abducted and killed. However, in the eight years preceding Shannon's Oklahoma trial, Carnahan never made such an identification despite being interviewed multiple times. Upon cross-examination, her story continued to change. She admitted that when she initially spoke with FBI agents, she described the driver of the blue pickup as a man of about thirty wearing a baseball cap--Shannon was only eighteen at the time of the crime.
Wayne Boutain, the man who testified that the chain hoist recovered with the body had belonged to him, was next to pile out of the clown car. Boutain said he could tell the hoist was his because of a chip in the gear, and that he had called and reported the hoist stolen to "someone named Robert" several days before the bank robbery. He also said he suspected the Agofsky brothers of the theft, and indicated as much at the time. However, the only police report that could be found was taken by one Officer John Wilson, dated several weeks after the crime. Boutain, who had several prior convictions, had fled to Noel to avoid probation violation proceedings in his native Minnesota. After he gave his statements against Shannon, he returned to his home state. I'm sure you'll find it no coincidence that immediately after, Boutain was discharged from probation and began work as a drug informant for Minnesota authorities.
Gant Sanders (who was discussed in a previous article) was originally contacted by the FBI immediately after the murder. They were interested in learning more about his father Frank--who had been convicted for kidnapping and robbing a bank president several years before. During Sanders' third FBI interview, he was living with Shannon, and denied that Shannon or Joe had any ties to the crime--as he had done in two previous interviews. It wasn't until Agent Farley broke protocol and decided to interview Sanders on his own that the story changed. In exchange for implicating the Agofsky brothers for the crime, Sanders received probation for a string of burglaries, received money for a new apartment, an additional $500 to aid with relocation, and had his first month's rent covered.
Wayne Pennington, who was serving time for postal robbery, was the next clown slated to perform. He met Shannon's acquaintance in 1990 while they were incarcerated together. It didn't take long for him to learn exactly why Shannon was in jail, and that the trial was sure to be high profile. Pennington wrote a letter to the FBI, saying that he was interested and willing to provide information to them. It's important to note that Pennington had previously testified against other participants in a bank robbery in exchange for five years off his sentence. Pennington even acknowledged that his friend, also an inmate, had told him after Shannon arrived that if he testified against him, he would probably get a "first class ticket home." Pennington also acknowledged that he later wrote to Joyce Short, Dan Short's ex-wife, attempting to extort money from her and threatening to recant his testimony. He did the same with one of the prosecutors from the Oklahoma case.
It's important to mention again that no matter what was said at trial, Shannon did in fact have a strong alibi. Shannon's karate teacher, Gerald Edmondson, had records and a signed roll sheet indicating that Shannon had been in class on the evening of October 5th. Shannon stayed after the class was over to chat with Edmondson, and left for home around the same time Dan Short was supposedly being abducted. Later that same evening, Buddy Cousatte saw Shannon at home in bed, fast asleep, when he stopped by to visit Sheila Agofksy around 11:30 pm to see about some work she had had done to her bathroom.
THE MAGICIANS
Over the course of the investigation and subsequent trials, an overwhelming amount of evidence was mishandled, damaged, lost, and at times just plain falsified. Taking that into account, along with all of the witnesses who quite suddenly and miraculously recovered memories about the crime that hadn't previously existed, one would have to agree that the local police and federal agents had a certain knack for sleight of hand--among other things.
Before the FBI's evidence collection team decided to process Dan Short's house for evidence, countless people had been allowed to tramp through. There were muddy footprints throughout the home, and the authorities even allowed Short's ex-wife and daughter to spend the night there. Because the crime scene had been so obviously compromised, eventually the FBI decided that any evidence that may have existed there had most likely been obliterated. They did dust for fingerprints, but not until over a week after the bank robbery.
That would not be the first or last time that potential evidence was to be grievously mishandled by the FBI. The key piece of evidence used against Shannon at trial was subject to such gross and blatant mishandling that I can scarcely wrap my head around why it was even admissible. The prosecution held onto the "duct tape evidence" like a ravenous dog with a bone. This was despite the fact that the duct tape from the scene (pulled from Short's body, the chair itself, the chain hoist, and the cinder block) was thrown into the back of Special Agent Lawrence Nolan's car--without placing them into any sort of evidence bag or protective covering. Nolan wrote his initials directly on the sections of tape, on the reverse side where the patent fingerprints appeared.
Once back at the FBI field office, Nolan, Farley, and one Special Agent Edwards--none of whom was trained as an evidence analysis specialist--disassembled and reassembled the chair in several configurations--unable to figure out how to make the pieces fit. During this process, the agents put several sections of the duct tape on the carpet--sticky side down, effectively tainting important evidence.
An additional piece of duct tape would be used to tie Shannon to the crime--a piece of duct tape that was found nearly two weeks after the robbery. A man named Rowdy Foreman lived in a mobile home near Grand Lake, not far from where Short's body surfaced. He testified that on the afternoon of October 18th, he saw a piece of duct tape by the shore, but claimed he did not pick it up then because there were people around. He went back at dusk and picked the tape up with a pencil. He said a partial, greasy fingerprint was visible on the tape, which he put up on a shelf. During the trial, it was unclear when exactly the tape was found and when Foreman alerted the authorities, because both he and the federal agents had different recollections of the event. No clear records of the find had been kept, despite the apparent importance of the evidence. What is clear, is that Foreman received a cash reward for testifying at trial.
Enter Russell Davey--a self-proclaimed expert fingerprint analyst for the FBI. Davey destroyed every single patent print on the sections of duct tape by washing the tape with gentian violet--a dye that is sometimes used to raise prints where none are visible to the naked eye. The dye completely dissolved the adhesive and any print impressions that existed. Davey made his comparisons--and ultimately his "positive identification" of Shannon's prints--solely from photographs of the duct tape.
During his initial comparisons, in the spring of 1990, Davey used the photographs to check for similarities against the prints of multiple suspects, including Shannon Agofsky's. No match was made. At a later date, after the urging of Agent Farley, Davey examined the photographs again and said that he found seven points of comparison that were similar to Shannon's prints. Keith Fairchild, an independent print analysis expert, reviewed the fingerprint evidence and the FBI's methods on behalf of the Defense. Fairchild said he could think of no legitimate reason why an experienced and qualified analyst would use gentian violet to look for prints on a section of tape where visible patent prints already existed. Fairchild also said his analysis of the print evidence was hampered, because the FBI couldn't produce the original photos taken of the tape. Print comparisons were being made from photographs of photographs--comparisons which sent a man to jail for life.
When Fairchild compared Shannon's prints to the photographs, he only found four points of comparison--not the seven Davey reported. Four points is not enough to make a positive match. Fairchild also observed foreign marks on the print photographs, which were unidentifiable and skewed the ability to make a clear print comparison. Taking this into account, along with the obliteration of evidence due to the use of gentian violet, Fairchild said the print evidence was virtually unreliable.
Agent Ladell Farley proved to be a more capable magician than either Nolan or Davey. He was able to make fourteen sets of prints appear out of thin air. At the beginning of the trial, the Defense was told that there were no prints from the scene at Short's home. However, the night before Davey was supposed to testify, there suddenly were. After the trial, Davey is on record as saying,
"During an overnight recess in my testimony at the Oklahoma trial in 1997, I was asked by Special Agent Farley to compare the fingerprint card of Shannon Agofsky with a set of unknown prints that, I was told, had been lifted from the home of bank president Dan Short. I had never seen these prints prior to this time. Agent Farley explained that they had been misplaced and were now available. I made the comparisons and found no matches between Agofsky's prints and any of the unknowns."
This is significant because in contrast to what the Defense was originally told before trial, the print cards were "lost." The fact that Davey covered up Farley's mistakes on the witness stand during the trial should be seen as a deliberate move, meant to prevent anyone from comparing the house prints with the known prints of other potential suspects--which could have eliminated Shannon as a suspect. Had the Defense had access to these print cards before trial, they could have had their analysts make comparisons against alternative suspects. Furthermore, if the cards were in fact lost, just to be found in the nick of time for Davey to analyze them, then Farley's conduct casts doubt on the reliability of the FBI investigation in general.
Wayne Oakes and Robert Webb were the next performers at the circus, magicians of numerous yet questionable skills. They compared Shannon's hair samples with every single hair of relevance to the investigation but were unable to produce any matches. Similarly, a van belonging to Sheila Agofsky (that the State was so desperate to tie to the crime) was gone over with a fine-tooth comb, to no avail. Not a single fiber, hair, stain, or print was found. But, as you can imagine, that did nothing to quell the FBI's determination. Webb then turned to a forensic method called "end-matching," which is no longer used in modern court cases due to its unreliability. He testified that he had been able to positively "match the ends" of the sections of duct tape found at the scene with the piece of duct tape discovered randomly nearly two weeks after the robbery--proving in his mind that they were from the same roll of tape. Webb used the highly scientific method of heating the tape in question with a hair dryer, flattening out the ends with his hands, and then sticking them together to perform his match.
SIDESHOW ATTRACTIONS
Michael Dean, an acquaintance of the Agofsky brothers, came forward to reveal that Agent Farley harassed him for nearly a year due to his association with the Agofsky family. He said that Gant Sanders had told him that Farley had threatened to prosecute Sanders for the Noel bank case if he didn't change his story to cooperate with the prosecution.
A crook by the name of William Embrey, an admitted bank robber, contacted federal authorities soon after the robbery and murder of Dan Short. He said that Frank Sanders had spoken to him about a plan to rob the State Bank of Noel and asked if he would be interested in participating. This version of events certainly seems possible when given the fact that Frank Sanders was involved in the construction of the bank and had access to the floor plans, not to mention his previous criminal history. This also supports Gant Sanders' willingness to comply with Farley's coaching to give fabricated and incriminating testimony against the Agofsky brothers--in order to divert well founded suspicions away from his own family.
Drusilla Kothenbuetal came forward with an interesting addition to our little circus. Agent Farley had asked her to secure a bail bond for one Kenneth Fitzpatrick, a man who had testified in the Missouri federal trial against Shannon's brother Joe. She found the request highly unusual, as Fitzpatrick was already out of custody. Farley explained that Fitzpatrick was a material witness but also had a pending prosecution for drug charges. Farley was evasive with Kothenbuetal's questions, and it soon became obvious to her that Farley had employed unauthorized and even illegal means to free Fitzpatrick--and he was seeking a bail bond to cover his tracks. He asked her to exempt Fitzpatrick from the traditional reporting requirement, and then paid half of the man's bond fee. When Kothenbuetal met with Fitzpatrick to discuss the conditions of his "bail," she said that he seemed to be exceedingly nervous. She recounted the conversation as follows:
"Kenneth said he was testifying against these boys [the Agofskys] who were on trial for murder and bank robbery. I asked him if he was involved with them. He said no, he didn't know them. So, of course, I asked how he could testify if he didn't know them... ...He said that while in Greene County jail [at the same time as the Agofskys] on the drug charge, the FBI approached him and told him that he was going to testify for them in this case, and more or less told him what to say. They told him that if he did this, his drug charges would go away, and if he didn't, he would not live long enough to get out of prison. I asked him why he thought that and he said it was because that's what he was told by Agent Farley."
Please, welcome yet another colorful character to the sideshow--Cliff Everhart. Everhart was an investigator assigned to the case by the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. He was a former police officer who was secretly working as the sheriff of Binger, OK at the same time he was working for OIDS. Though he was supposed to be working to help the Agofskys' defense, he would prove to be entirely abysmal at his job. In fact, a few years after the brothers' trial, he was prosecuted for gambling while on duty. While working the Agofsky case, months would pass by without progress. He embellished facts, fabricated information, and ignored the attorneys' requests and directions. Instead of focusing on necessary tasks, Everhart would investigate low-priority matters simply because he found them more interesting. For example, he spent valuable time exploring the theory that the victim's body was really that of an unidentified black woman, although no valid information known to Shannon's attorneys corroborated such a theory.
There were rampant rumors that Everhart had drawn guns on people he was meant to be interviewing. A story traveled around OIDS that he was involved in a murder at a motel. Attorney James Rowan, who worked for the Capital Trails Division during the Agofksy trial, recalls that Everhart had lied to him about witness interviews he was supposed to have conducted for another case. When Rowan had a second investigator check in on the witnesses, he learned that they had never even heard of Cliff Everhart. It's entirely possible, and even probable, that Everhart and his parade of questionable "work" practices damaged the Defense's investigation, impeded their quest for pertinent evidence, and weakened Shannon's case.
The rest of the evidence is, unfortunately, under seal. It remains so in order to protect innocent witnesses involved in the case. What I can tell you is that in the years since the Oklahoma trial, several people have come forward with compelling information. Some have confessed to the crime in question, and deny that the Agofsky brothers had any part in it. Others are innocent bystanders and witnesses whose testimony corroborates these facts.
In summation, the State's case rested on evidence that was dubious at best, and conjured up by agents that consistently relied on unauthorized, unethical, and illegal methods of investigation. The fact that the Agofskys had supposedly confessed their involvement to fellow prisoners was also extremely important to the jury when considering their verdict. Had they known all of the relevant facts--including the bribery and favors extended to the snitches by the FBI, the FBI's suppression and mishandling of evidence, the witness coaching and heavy-handed tactics employed to secure cooperation--the jury would have rejected these highly damaging, and altogether false, testimonies. Based on these facts, I truly and most sincerely believe that Shannon Agofsky is entitled to a new trial. There is a reasonable probability that, if the State had been forced to disclose all of the information it purposefully withheld, the cumulative effect would have changed the outcome of the trial.
Joseph Agofsky was an innocent man. He died in prison, without ever finding justice--without ever being reunited with his family. There is still time for Shannon, but it is running out. All he can do is place his faith in people. In the lawyers who have been battling so tirelessly to secure a new trial. In a young writer from Oklahoma, who has stood by him for years and fought, often unsuccessfully, to share his story and make his voice heard. And now, he puts his faith in you, dear reader--to hear his story. To see the evidence for what it is. To recognize that justice has not been served, that it cannot be served until the whole truth is heard. The circus is far from over. But we can change the acts.
A Death in Gladiator School: The Spectacle Continues
Beaumont, for those unfamiliar, is a city in Southeastern Texas. It's known mostly for its quaint neighborhoods, its first-rate museums, and the affluent residents who frequent them. But Beaumont is also known for something a bit more distasteful. FCC Beaumont is a United States federal prison complex for male inmates. It consists of three prison facilities, one of which is USP Beaumont, a high-security prison. It is one of the most violent and corrupt prisons in the United States. Inmates there have dubbed the prison "Gladiator School." Others call it the "Thunderdome" or "Bloody Beaumont." Whatever they choose to call it, it's a bad place to be--and the government knows it. Up-to-date information on the crimes and violent incidents within USP Beaumont are difficult to find, and rarely give anything but the vaguest of details. Prison officials begrudgingly admit that there have been several brutal deaths at the prison but have only released details about two of them. Much of what we do know about the horrors within Beaumont we owe to the investigative reporting skills of one Leah Caldwell, a tenacious college student who wrote a horrifying and enlightening article for Prison Legal News.
Caldwell found that corruption and brutality among the prison staff was commonplace. The guards would pit inmates against each other, putting them in rec cages (recreational areas), and forcing them to fight--all while placing bets on the outcome. Beaumont also has the highest percentage of drug use and the highest drug misconduct rate in the entire Bureau of Prisons. In 2001, the year of one of the inmate deaths, there were thirty-one reported prisoner-on-prisoner assaults. There were twenty-five prisoner-on-staff incidents, while the numbers for staff-on-prisoner altercations weren't kept. That same year, a guard supervisor called Bryan Small was charged for allowing his staff members to violently assault prisoners. He was the only one to face any sort of discipline for the brutality. However, at least five guards have been indicted for possession of controlled substances within a prison, with intent to distribute.
You may be wondering how this relates to Shannon Agofsky.
Shannon was incarcerated at Beaumont not long after it first opened its doors. It was at Gladiator School where Shannon received his death sentence. In 2001, Shannon and a man named Luther Plant, an arsonist convicted of burning down a Texas nightclub, were placed in a rec cage together. Plant was a prison mule and a volatile drug addict, and it was well-known that he was rarely without a shiv. In fact, most inmates at Beaumont had makeshift knives and weapons, because they were so easy to find there. At the time of Plant's death, Beaumont was still a fairly new prison. Scraps of metal leftover from construction were easy to find, half-buried in dirt on the compound. Prisoners would pry pieces of metal off the bottoms of door frames or off their food trays. Knives and shivs were bought and sold as often as stamps and drugs.
On January 5th, 2001, Shannon and Plant were exercising separately in their rec cage. Witnesses said that they were both walking briskly back and forth across the 15-by-20 foot area. Every time they passed one another, Plant would mutter unintelligibly. All of a sudden, Plant lunged at Shannon and swung toward his face. Inmate Robert McKinn said that the way Plant was holding his hand made it look "like he had a fist pack or a knife." Shannon, a black belt in Hwa Rang Do, kicked Plant's feet out from underneath him and stomped on his throat and head. The retaliation lasted perhaps ten seconds. Shannon stopped before killing Plant, without any involvement from the guards. He walked away to the other side of the cage and waited for prison staff to arrive. Luther Plant was taken to Mid-Jefferson County Hospital and died two hours later from head trauma.
I'm not going to sugarcoat it for you, and I assume you would think it's insulting to your intelligence if I did. Luther Plant's death was brutal, bloody, and agonizing. It was a terrible way to die. He also brought it upon himself. Shannon acted out of instinct and self-preservation. Shannon said of the incident,
"People don't understand what it's like in here. I was young, barely a man, thrown into a maximum security prison, with absolutely no idea how to act. This lack of knowledge made things very hard for me, to say the least. I had to learn my way by trial and error, in an extremely unforgiving environment, with my only survival skill being my ability in martial arts. Were it not for those abilities, I would have certainly died.
"Over the years, as I tried to learn how to function in prison, I was punched, kicked, stomped, beaten with pipes, mop wringers, padlocks in socks, stabbed with shivs, cut with razor blades, doused in boiling water. Any and every form of violence that can be brought against a person has been brought against me. Yet I've never run away, never requested protective custody, never backed down, regardless of danger. You can't do that in prison, they'll eat you alive. I have refused to become the victim.
"At one point, after already having been involved in several violent situations, I was placed in a rec cage with a violent inmate, and I was attacked. After all was said and done, I was charged and convicted of 2 counts of murder, and given death sentences on both. Even so, you cannot call me a murderer. Not truthfully. I only acted in self-defense. I did what I had to do to survive in prison. Had I not done so, I could have been seriously injured or even killed myself, which is unacceptable. Because of those circumstances, I don't apologize for what happened. I do wish that it hadn't happened. I feel bitterly sad for the people who loved and cared about the man I killed. Yet I cannot and will not be sorry for doing whatever is necessary to ensure my own safety in prison."
Ten inmates saw the fight in the cages that day. Nine of them said that Plant attacked first, and that the incident was over in seconds. One of them, after being promised a reduced sentence and a transfer to a safer facility, testified for the State that Shannon attacked first. He later recanted his testimony. Of the nine that said Plant was the instigator, only three--for reasons I cannot fathom--were called upon by Shannon's Defense. A guard witnessed the last few seconds of the altercation from some distance away and immediately started filming. This video, along with the testimony of one inmate receiving favors from the State, somehow warranted not one, but two death sentences.
I wish I could place the blame squarely on the State. I wish I could say it was only because the prosecutors were underhanded and corrupt. But an equal blame lies with Shannon's poor counsel. The way they handled his case was nothing short of deplorable. They made no attempts to gather evidence of Luther Plant's criminal behaviors or past incidents while incarcerated. Though Shannon was indicted in August, no one came to speak to him or made any attempt to gather pertinent information until the end of November 2003. No witness interviews were conducted until 2004--and even then, only six of potential twenty-eight witnesses were contacted. Leads weren't followed up on, interviews weren't thorough, and witnesses who reached out were ignored.
Frank Early was one of the inmates ready and willing to testify. He even attempted to contact Shannon's counsel and was unsuccessful. When asked about his opinion of the incident, Early said:
"Because of the atmosphere at Beaumont, Shannon did what he had to do to stay alive. In the circumstances, Shannon had to assume Tootie [Plant's nickname] was armed. It doesn't matter who is bigger or taller. A knife is an equalizer."
Early also thought that Plant attacked Shannon in an attempt to "check-in"--an opinion most of the inmate witnesses shared. Checking-in is when an inmate instigates a situation that will get them sent to SHU or to another facility altogether. Inmates will do this to escape harm from a particular person or gang, or to escape their debts for drugs or favors. Charles Glave, another inmate who would have testified for Shannon, had been incarcerated with Plant previously at another facility. He described Plant as someone who "was doing everything you shouldn't do in prison." Plant made and sold knives on the prison yard; he was also a mule who facilitated the flow of marijuana and heroin throughout the prison. Glave knew that Plant owed a lot of money on the yard because he would buy drugs on credit. Plant would then commit some sort of infraction to get sent to the SHU, thus buying him more time to pay. Glave said he saw Plant do this multiple times at USP Lompoc. It was, he said, "a track record with Luther."
Another inmate, Scott Lawson, agreed with Glave. He even testified that Plant had been grumbling about Shannon in the days before the incident. Plant told Lawson that he was getting sick of Shannon and wanted to jump him. Lawson and inmate Robert Ecker had also heard Richard Ward, the inmate who testified for the State, laughing and saying that, "I cannot believe that Tootie swung on Shannon" after they were made to return to their cells.
Multiple doctors were willing to go on the record to say that Shannon's response was completely justifiable, given the circumstances--yet they were never called to testify. Dr. Lawson F. Berstein explained:
"Shannon Agofsky's conduct on January 5th, 2001 was due to an acute stress reaction...His reaction is properly characterized as a sheer survival response. Assuming Mr. Agofsky's response was triggered by the perceived aggression on the part of Mr. Plant, is it my opinion that Mr. Agofsky could not have formed the specific intent to kill and was not capable of premeditation in the short time frame described."
In fact, after hearing the evidence, the jury struggled with the question of intent and whether or not the killing was premeditated. What swayed them in the end was a quote from a letter, taken out of context and used unethically by the State.
Four months before the incident with Plant, Shannon was writing to his cousin about a common occurrence in USP Beaumont--the guards instigating altercations. Scott Lawson explained that the guards at Beaumont--and at most prisons--despise sex offenders as much as the other inmates do. Guards would identify sex offenders and snitches to other inmates and encourage them to "deal with them, by whatever means necessary." Sex offenders and snitches were frequently forced into the rec cages or locked into other inmates' cells in order to elicit a violent response from the regular prisoners. In the letter used against Shannon at trial, this was the scenario he was writing about. On several occasions, the guards had placed Shannon in close-quarter situations with child molesters. In his letter, Shannon recalled a child molester who had raped a disabled inmate several weeks before. He had beaten the man when he was given the opportunity, and wrote,
"All I do is work out, wait to leave, and hope the cops let me around some other scumbag so I can test out my hand."
The State presented only this line from the entire letter and used it as evidence of premeditation. It was enough to convince the jury that my friend deserved to die.
This was a difficult article for me to write. In fact, I had been dreading it. I put it off as long as I could because I worried that this part of Shannon's story would lose the support we have managed to rally so far. It is a grim and brutal story. It proves that Shannon is capable of quick, efficient, and indeed violent reaction. Shannon admits quite openly that he has beaten child killers and rapists in prison, even in the not-so-distant past. I have feared that this would destroy any sympathy that you may have felt for him, dear reader.
But I also said, from the beginning, that I would be honest. I would tell you everything that I am legally allowed to tell. Shannon is a criminal. Shannon has done vicious things. But I deeply and most sincerely believe that he has only acted as a man must act in prison. He has been courageous and completely calculated at protecting himself and those close to him in prison; he has operated according to the prison code-of-honor and placed himself in the highest--and safest--tier. Do I think Shannon is capable of great violence? Yes. But I also know--because I have experienced it countless times myself--that he is capable of great generosity and compassion. Just because a man has grown callous in prison, does that mean he is a cold-blooded killer? Just because a man was known to physically retaliate in the face of danger, does that mean he is a premeditated murderer? Or perhaps the most important question, the one that plagues me daily: How can we send a man to death row for a crime committed in prison, when he should never have been in prison at all?
Shannon's case affects me deeply. I have an intense empathy for the underdogs--the ones who haven't gotten their fair shot, the ones who can't seem to win for losing. Shannon has lost at every turn. Pegged for a crime he didn't commit, thrust into the violent world of high-security prisons as a naïve young man, and forced into dangerous situations almost daily. How can you expect a man in that situation to behave in any other way? The guards at Beaumont put him into a situation they knew was volatile, and potentially life-threatening. Shannon reacted in a way he felt necessary given the perceived level of danger. I am stunned that the death penalty was deemed the appropriate verdict--as stunned as I am at the absolute ineffectiveness of the defense counsel. The more I have researched Shannon's case, the more I have become convinced that he is some sort of warped human example of Murphy's Law. None of this should have happened. Somewhere, at some point, someone in the justice system should have stopped and said, "Wait a minute, none of this has been handled correctly." But no one did. That's the reason I write, to be the voice that should have been screaming for justice when this saga first began to unfold.
I know this is a lot of content to digest. Serious moral questions have been raised. When it comes to the subject of survival of the fittest, opinions are as various as they are numerous. But I ask you, dear reader, to consider two questions. To what lengths would you go in order to protect yourself from harm? Should Shannon Agofsky have even been in prison in the first place? I will leave you with a few words from Shannon:
"When I was initially convicted, I felt an intense and almost pathological need to explain to all and sundry that I was innocent, and to do so in great detail. I fought so hard to defend my name, but I have since found that to be pointless. The vast majority of people in the world simply do not care. It matters not one whit to them who is in prison, whether or not these individuals are actually guilty, and they are annoyed when forced to hear about such situations. Of those who do have an interest in my case, the ones who believe in my innocence tend to do so based on their knowledge of my code and character, not my lengthy explanations. Those who believe I am guilty will continue to do so regardless of evidence or the efficacy of any explanation. If you believe me, then I thank you. If not, I will not blame you. I am used to disbelief. But if the skeptics would just take the time to examine the facts and get to know me, I suspect that most of them would change their mind."
Inmate Statements Regarding the Beaumont Incident
William Schroeder
I was incarcerated with Shannon Agofsky at Lompoc USP in October of 1997. We were both in the Hole and we were neighbors. When I met Shannon, I was a drug addict. I was doing drugs every day. I spent most of my time by myself, high and doing my own thing. After I met Shannon, I listened to him talk to his friends about religion. Shannon helped start an Odinist group at Lompoc. They taught about generosity and honor and how they were really important. I'd never really thought about that. Shannon and his friends were good influences on me. He opened my eyes about drugs and taught me to become a part of the solution instead of the problem. Shannon was a big part of the reason I stopped doing drugs.
I also knew Tootie [Luther Plant] at USP Atlanta in 1995. I did not know him well until we were cellmates in Lompoc. I was Tootie's cellmate for two months and then we were on the same unit for nine months. Tootie told me once that he was involved in a murder. He was a dangerous guy. Not many inmates liked Tootie so he had to act like a fake tough guy. He made shanks and knives in prison and everyone knew it. He would sell them and whatever he could to get money for drugs. Tootie was always high. He used alcohol and drugs on a daily basis, and he was always high on whatever he was able to get his hands on. When he was high, he was an aggressive and abrasive personality and was always in your face.
Tootie always owed money to other people. He was always in debt for drugs. There was more access to drugs at USP Beaumont compared to Lompoc. After Tootie was transferred to Beaumont I heard from other inmates that he was burning everyone on drugs and that the other inmates all hated him.
Shannon, on the other hand, was always respectful, worked out hard, and did not use drugs or alcohol. Everyone knew Shannon was good with his hands and feet, but nobody was scared of him. There was no need to be since he got along with everyone, even people of other races. None of Shannon's attorneys came to talk to me about Tootie or any of this. I would have told them everything.
Brian Berry
I was an orderly on the Special Housing Unit in USP Beaumont on January 5, 2001. I had been there since 1999, and was transferred out a few weeks afterward.
I was inside the SHU when the incident between Luther Plant and Shannon began. All available COs went running out to the yard, telling me and the other orderlies to get into the larger room of the SHU. We remained there until Plant had been brought out on a "sled" and then Shannon was removed and placed in one of the four-point cells.
When I was permitted to leave the bigger room and some of the excitement had subsided, I went to the four-point room where Shannon was confined and asked him if he was alright. Shannon was not four-pointed [chained to a bed] but he was in his underwear, with a belly chain, handcuffs, a black box over the handcuffs, shackles on his feet, and a chain between the black box and the shackles. Shannon told me that he felt a little nauseated. He asked me, "Brian, please don't let them forget to feed me back here." Shannon was afraid he would be punished by being left back in an isolated corner with nothing to eat and no sanitation for an extended time.
Soon afterward, Shannon was moved to a cell on my range. Shannon was left there naked and still chained in the same manner I saw him chained in the four-point cell -- for two weeks. Chaining him that way meant that Shannon could shuffle around, but his hands were locked in front of him and he couldn't keep himself clean. I never saw Shannon's cell opened during that time. The food cart skipped Shannon's door at least once every couple of days. The food portions were modest and even missing one meal would count. I managed to bend up an aluminum flange at the bottom of Shannon's door to expose a small crack underneath, and I slipped a few candy bars through the crack to Shannon. Shannon was still at Beaumont when my transfer came through to USP Pollock.
Beaumont is an extremely dangerous prison. When I arrived there in 1999, there was an average of one stabbing incident a day, usually one death every month. You would always have to take someone with you when you showered. And you needed to keep your cell door open so you could hear if someone was being assaulted in the hall or in the next cell, so you wouldn't walk in the middle of it inadvertently. Sometimes as I walked from one part of the institution to the other, I would encounter someone simply lying there bleeding to death. It was often dangerous to attempt to assist the person because you never knew what you were getting in the middle of. You usually had to just step over the person and move on.
Knives were common in Beaumont. You had to have a knife. Unlike in other institutions, if the officers at Beaumont caught an inmate with a knife, he would get written up, but he wouldn't be sent to the SHU for detention while the charges were pending. There would have been no room in the SHU then, the whole compound would have to go.
No one from Shannon's defense ever talked to me, but I would have been willing to talk to them and would have testified for Shannon, had I been asked.
Gerald Miller
I spent a substantial period in the Hole after a racial incident at USP Lompoc and then was transferred directly to Beaumont. Shannon arrived there later than I did. I remember Shannon actively helped prevent interracial trouble at Beaumont. Shannon got a lot of respect because he can talk to different people and solve things without drama.
The BOP system is very segregated. Even in the mess hall whites and blacks sit separately. If they cell you with someone from another race, inmates often feel they have to do something about the situation because otherwise, how are you going to sleep? Also, inmates are territorial and it matters what region an inmate is from. That is one reason it would have made no sense for Shannon to swing first in the fight with Plant--Plant was an old boy from Texas and was on his home court.
I have often known authorities to place inmates together who shouldn't be together. For example, I'm from New York and was placed in a cell with an inmate I knew was under investigation for killing a dude from New York. We managed to work it out without attacking each other, but it was a dangerous situation. Atlanta had a particularly bad reputation for housing blacks and whites together in the Hole, and for fights erupting in consequence.
Shannon had a good reputation in the prison. I know that Shannon was not a race predator, and had respect for inmates of other races. Shannon has clout, he was known for protecting people, and for working out problems among inmates. For example, if an old dude owed money, Shannon might pay his debt, or get the person the dude owed to give him a pass. Plant, on the other hand, had a bad reputation. It was well known that he owed money to many people on the compound because he was a drug user.
No one from Shannon's counsel ever contacted me. Had they done so, I would have spoken with them and told them everything I've said here.
Gene Sides
I am an inmate at USP Terre Haute in Terre Haute, Indiana. Back in 1992, I was in the Hole with Shannon Agofsky at Springfield Medical Center. Shannon was just a kid when he came in--twenty years old. Shannon was a good kid. He is like the son that I never had.
I reached out to Shannon and we got really close. I schooled Shannon, taught him how to do time. I had done almost twenty years myself when I met him. And I had come into the system when I was young, just like he had. I learned firsthand how violent prison is and how important it is to know the rules. I have been stabbed over twenty times in two separate incidents. I told him first of all, not to talk about his case with other people. Snitches come out of the woodwork in this place. Any detail you accidentally mention about your case can be used against you by a snitch.
I taught Shannon the unwritten rules in prison -- the prisoner's code of conduct. The biggest unwritten rule is that you don't put up with child molesters. If something happened to your kids, you would want the worst for the person who did it. Well, we want the worst for them, too. We inmates have screwed up, but we're still human. We see women and children as the unprotected of the world. We can't be out there to protect them. So, when molesters and rapists come in here, we deal with them. That way we know they won't likely do it again.
Prison is also not a place for rats. When we were at Springfield, there was a prisoner who was testifying against his brother. I tried to instill in Shannon to never do that. You never testify against someone else, you never break that code of honor. You have to be able to look at yourself in the morning.
I taught Shannon the importance of standing up for yourself. In prison, you have to stand up for yourself because no one else will. Inmates who don't stand up for themselves will be preyed upon, especially someone who was Shannon's age.
I did my best to teach him survivor skills in prison. He was young and staring at a life sentence. He had to follow these rules if he was going to survive. Shannon knew this, he wanted to learn the rules and ethics of prison so that he could survive and try to lead some sort of life in here. He wanted to know the right way to do time. I don't take a lot of prisoners under my wing. Shannon is unlike any other prisoner that I have ever met. It hurts my heart to know that he is sitting on death row. He doesn't deserve to be there.
Thomas Farrugia
I was in USP Beaumont from 1997 until 2004, when I was transferred to Terre Haute. I was in the Hole on another tier at Beaumont at the same time Shannon was, but was no longer in the Hole when the Plant incident occurred. I got to know Shannon at Beaumont and we became good friends.
"Tootie" Plant was a junkie and a sleaze bag. Plant was paranoid and never wanted to be out in the yard without a knife. In prison a paranoid person can be the most dangerous type of person because they are likely to do anything and attack first with no warning out of pure fear. He was always ducking around the metal detectors because he always had a knife. Plant was a drug dealer, but he used a lot more than he sold. He was always chasing drugs.
I made efforts to contact Pat Black during the pretrial phase of Shannon's case because I thought I could help counteract the idea that Shannon was a white supremacist. I am Jewish and used to be a leader of the Jewish congregation at Beaumont. The rabbi there will verify this. I consider Shannon to be a close personal friend. I sent Black a letter and tried to explain that Shannon is not in a gang or a group, he is a loner -- and although he is well respected, he is nobody's boy. Shannon just wasn't part of the prison organizations.
Shannon was very protective of me. Unlike many inmates, I have a brokerage account and an income, which could have made me vulnerable to extortion. I could have had trouble. I also could have faced anti-Semitism. I can remember sitting in chow hall and hearing mutterings about "he's a Jew." But Shannon's presence always cooled that. People would watch Shannon work out and knew they had to respect him. I believe that Shannon stopped a lot of things before they happened and any little conspiracies that would come up, Shannon would nip them in the bud. For example, Shannon might be eating at a table where the neo-Nazis also ate, and would call me over to come talk to him--conveying the message that I was with Shannon, and they could not mess with me. At other times Shannon would eat with me or walk with me around the yard.
Shannon was well respected and well liked throughout the prison. I know of other inmates, like myself, who Shannon helped protect. Another inmate used to get his locker ripped off, but Shannon put the word out and it stopped. I told Shannon's investigator that I was willing to testify; I don't know why he didn't call me. I am still willing to testify on Shannon's behalf.
Bruce Spring
I was an inmate at USP Beaumont from 1997 to 2005. It was an extremely violent and dangerous prison. I would see on average, from my recollection, around three stabbings a week. People were killed all the time; the staff didn't care. The guards facilitated a lot of the fights. They would intentionally put gang members out on the yard who were not supposed to be out there together.
I knew Luther Plant, aka Tootie, from Beaumont. Tootie was a drug addict. He owed money all over the yard. At one time, Shannon and Tootie were friends. They were around each other daily. Shannon would walk the track with Tootie and Mike McCarthy for exercise. Shannon helped Tootie out many times. He paid off some of Tootie's drug debts so people wouldn't go after him. The only thing Shannon didn't like about Tootie was his drug abuse, but he still looked after him. This was how it was out on the yard. But then Shannon got caught with a knife and was placed in the SHU. While Shannon was in the SHU, there was no one to look out for Tootie on the yard. Tootie was incurring more and more debt and using more drugs. There was definitely hostility brewing towards him. A couple of weeks later, Plant was put in the SHU. Plant owed so much money on the yard at this point, everyone knew Plant couldn't come back to the yard. Tootie knew if he attacked Shannon, he would get transferred to another institution and avoid his debts. Shannon was serving a life sentence and everyone knew that Shannon wouldn't be transferred over a fight. Plant knew he could get out of the SHU immediately and the guards would move him across the street to one of the
Federal Correctional Institutions.
Shannon would not have started a fight with Plant. Shannon was well respected and liked by everyone. He was a stand up guy. He spoke to everyone and kept the peace among the gangs. He was honest and kept his word. Shannon was not a gang member but he was influential in preventing things from going down.
Richard Charles Ward
I was in USP Beaumont during the Luther Plant incident on January 5, 2001. I was in the rec cage where this incident occurred.
I understand that Shannon Agofsky received the death penalty and I am very uncomfortable with this. I feel compelled to tell the truth of my interaction with the prosecutor and the investigator.
I did not see the beginning of the fight and I don't know who started the fight. When I first looked, I saw a blur and though that Shannon had hit Tootie with the palm of his hand. The FBI coached me that he must have hit Tootie with his elbow because Shannon supposedly had an indentation from Tootie's tooth near his elbow area.
At the beginning of the fight, my view was obscured by Shannon's back. When I realized there was an incident I turned away from the fight and began to do calf lifts against the cage. A friend called me from another cage and I answered him. I knew I did not have much time left [on his sentence] and I didn't want anyone to think I could be involved in this incident.
I believe Shannon stomped Tootie three times when he was down, in order to incapacitate him. The FBI told me that Shannon stomped Tootie many times and coached me to say that.
The FBI told me that Shannon was dangerous and I didn't realize what he had done. They said that he had tied a bank president to a chair and threw him into a stream. It was unbelievably cruel, they said. He had been tortured and killed in a senseless manner. They told me Shannon was not my friend.
I was promised a new beginning through a witness protection program. I knew they were coaching me and I became very uncomfortable. They thought I might back off and refuse to help so they offered me this and other things. They said they would release me in Texas and that I wouldn't be subjected to supervised release. They told me they would not put it on paper and that I would have to trust them. They told me it couldn't be disclosed because it would ruin their case.
During meetings with the prosecutor and another investigator, I was told not to lie. I was told that I knew Tootie was viciously stomped on and that I saw the whole fight. The investigator frequently got mad while he was scripting me. They wanted me to minimize any contact that I had with Shannon. When I said I greeted him, they said, "you mean you just nodded." They would interrupt me with the information they wanted. They did not want the jury to think Shannon and I were friends.
Tootie had been in withdraw from heroin at the time of the incident. He had been very bitchy the day before and right before he went out that day [January 5th]. I don't know if Tootie said anything first or if he started the fight. I cannot recall if I had on headphones in the cage that day.
I am giving this statement of my own free will. No one has instructed me on what to say. I have been blocking this incident out for years and I was always uncomfortable with the way they used me to say what they wanted. As long as I've known Shannon, I have never seen him start a fight or anything else that is confrontational.
I spoke with the prosecution for the first time a couple of years after the Plant incident. They promised to give me a release seven days after court. After I testified, I was never able to get in contact with them again.
A Formal Declaration from Dr. Frederick Whitehurst
Former FBI agent and forensic expert Dr. Frederick Whitehurst left the Bureau after twelve years because of the rampant and heinous corruption he saw daily. Dr. Whitehurst eventually came forward to speak out on this corruption, and ended up becoming extremely instrumental in Shannon's case.
You may remember Agent Robert Webb as one of the magicians from Shannon's trial. His magic trick was "end-matching" tape with a hair dryer and his bare hands. His testimony played a large part in sending an innocent man to jail. Former Agent Whitehurst, in 2004, came forward to speak out against Webb and the FBI's questionable practices. Dr. Whitehurst went on record to say that Webb falsified evidence and presented false testimony in several cases.
In the case of Walter Leroy Moody, in Alabama, Webb had supposedly conclusively matched several materials in evidence to materials found in the defendant's home. Webb stated that the tape, sealant, and paint held in FBI evidence came from the same "batches," thus linking Moody to the crime. The FBI later admitted that Webb had in fact "overstated" his determinations. They decided to overlook this, however, since he had not testified at this particular trial.
In the case of Robert Plotner, in Oklahoma, Webb falsely testified that he had conclusively matched a smudge on a watch to a specific batch of paint. As Dr. Whitehurst later learned, Webb had indeed perjured himself and falsified evidence--and the Bureau was well aware of it. Again this, for reasons I can't comprehend, was overlooked.
Concerning Shannon's case, when the free-floating section of tape (found by Rowdy Foreman) was first brought to the lab, the prints did not match Shannon's. Ten months later, after Webb had handled the tape evidence extensively, the FBI suddenly announced that it was able to make a seven-point match to Shannon's print. Dr. Whitehurst says that these findings are extremely suspect, and should have been presented as such to the jury. For one, Webb's association with this evidence severely undermines its credibility. Additionally, though there is no specific number required for a positive print ID in the United States, the generally accepted rule is twelve points. (For comparison, Britain has long required sixteen points of comparison to constitute a positive match; France requires seventeen.)
The following are excerpts in support of Shannon Agofsky's case, from Dr. Whitehurst's formal declaration:
"I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry from East Carolina University, a Doctorate in Chemistry from Duke University, and a Juris Doctorate degree from Georgetown University. I was employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1982 until 1998, and I worked for the FBI Laboratory as a forensic chemist for approximately twelve years. I testified for the defense in Shannon Agofsky's 1997 Oklahoma state trial. Mr. Agofsky had previously been convicted of these crimes in 1992 in a Missouri federal court.
In part, Mr. Agofsky was charged and convicted on the basis of physical evidence linked to him by information analyzed and presented by former FBI forensic scientist Robert Webb. Specifically, Webb testified that he had conclusively matched a piece of duct tape floating in a river with duct tape found on the chair used to drown Dan Short. Webb told the federal jury that he had used both chemical analysis as well as 'end-matching' to prove that the pieces of duct tape came from the same source and had in fact been connected.
Mr. Webb's testimony in Mr. Agofsky's state trial is questionable in two respects. First, Mr. Webb testified that he had matched the chemical composition of the pieces of duct tape and their adhesive. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Webb could match the chemical composition of the tape utilizing the analytical instruments available to him at the time at the FBI lab. Second, Mr. Webb testified that he positively matched the ends of the duct tape, conclusively establishing that the pieces were once connected. End-matching cannot be completed reliably on duct tape, because it is such a pliable material. If a piece of duct tape is torn, the ends do not necessarily hold their original shape. Thus, it may be impossible to match them to one another. I do know from personal experience that end-matching duct tape is not reliable. As a part of my duties, I took a duct tape proficiency test, where I was able to 'match' two pieces of tape to one another, even though they had in fact never been connected. That is to say, by following FBI protocols, I concluded, incorrectly, that they came from the same source even though that was not possible from an end-match analysis.
Two cases have emerged which have caused me to seriously question Mr. Webb's methods and testimony. In the case of Walter Leroy Moody, a Department of Justice review of his work concluded that Mr. Webb had significantly overstated the conclusiveness of the presented forensic evidence. I also know that Mr. Webb presented, and also testified to, false evidence during the trial against Mr. Ralph Plotner, who was accused and eventually convicted of rape. Mr. Webb stated that he could conclusively connect Plotner to the scene of the crime by matching a smudge on Plotner's wrist watch to a specific batch of paint. However, Mr. Webb's conclusion was not supported by the limited number or types of tests that he performed. According to his testimony the analysis he performed would not have established that the material was paint, let alone that it matched the substance on Mr. Plotner's wrist watch.
I have been investigating Mr. Webb since 1995. Pursuant to that investigation, I have made several requests under the FBI's Freedom of Information Act about Mr. Webb's practices and performance. That research has led me to question his credibility and integrity. I have serious doubts about Mr. Webb's prior testimony [in the Agofsky case] as well as my doubts about Mr. Agofsky's guilty in the robbery of the Noel State Bank and the murder of Dan Short."
A Legacy of Lies: A Look at the Shortcomings of the FBI
Since I've started writing about Shannon's case, several people have approached me with the same question. They admit that the evidence I've presented is compelling. They agree that it's obvious that in one manner or another, Shannon's case was botched. What they can't understand is why the FBI would railroad a man they don't know. Why would they falsify evidence to put an innocent man behind bars? Why would they go to so much trouble to frame someone when they could just spend their time looking for the real killer? I don't have an answer for them. I don't know why. But I do know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they do it. They did it before Shannon's case, and they've done it after. The evidence is out there, and it's easy to find. One has to look no further than the case of Brandon Mayfield.
Jury selection for Shannon's Beaumont trial began in June of 2004. Barely a month before, Brandon Mayfield, an attorney from Oregon, was arrested and jailed in connection with a terrorist bombing in Madrid, Spain. In March of that year, ten explosions on four separate commuter trains killed 191 people. The evidence that purportedly tied Mr. Mayfield to the scene of the crime was a fingerprint found on a plastic bag used by the terrorists.
In media reports, US officials insisted that the fingerprint, which had been analyzed by the FBI, was an "absolutely incontrovertible match." The other evidence against Mayfield--cited in a report written by law-enforcement--was that he was a practicing Muslim, was currently engaged in a child custody battle, and his wife had contributed money to a Muslim charity that was under investigation for possibly providing funding to terrorist groups. I bring up this case because the "evidence" against Brandon Mayfield relied on--just as it did with Shannon's--a questionable fingerprint match and little else.
Fortunately for Mayfield, Spanish law enforcement immediately began to express serious concerns over the quality of the FBI's fingerprint match--despite the Bureau's confidence and repeated insistence that the match had been verified by multiple experts. Spanish authorities communicated that they had several more promising leads, including a group of Moroccan immigrants with no ties to the US. The FBI ignored the information and began to spy on Mayfield and his family. According to court documents, the Bureau wiretapped the Mayfields' phones, bugged their house, and searched the premises multiple times. Only when Spanish officials were able to conclusively identify another suspect--an Algerian man with demonstrable ties to terrorist organizations--did FBI examiners agree to travel to Spain. Once they arrived, they soon realized that the latent print on the plastic bag was a much closer match to the Algerian man's print than it was to Mayfield's.
After thorough examination, we can attribute this grave mistake to two factors. First, there admittedly had been a significant number of points of similarity between the latent print and Mayfield's print. While it's true that every individual fingerprint is unique, many are actually quite similar in pattern. That is why it's so important to do a thorough and varied print analysis before confirming a match. Second, the quality of the electronic copy of the print that the FBI was using for comparison lacked the clarity of the print in its original form.
This case is very similar to Shannon's in several key ways. Agent Davey testified at trial that he had found seven points of comparison between the photos of the duct tape prints and Shannon's print. The latent print from the Madrid crime scene and Mayfield's print had more points of similarity--and still proved to be a negative match. In Shannon's case, just as in Mayfield's case, the FBI said multiple Bureau "experts" had confirmed the match--which we know now doesn't confer infallibility one bit. Finally, in both cases we clearly see that a reproduction of a print is not a clear and precise copy of an original, and should not be used to declare a positive match.
Two weeks after Mayfield's arrest, he was released. The FBI issued a formal apology, explaining that because of this grave error they would review their "current practices and will give consideration to adopting new guidelines for all examiners receiving latent print images when the original evidence is not included." Whether the FBI has actually done this with any degree of success remains to be seen. In the eventual court case brought by the Mayfields against the government, Judge Ann Aiken found that the fingerprint match that had been "conclusively" verified had in fact been completely "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ."
Dr. Kenneth Eng is a certified print examiner with over 25 years of experience. Over the course of 22 years as Detective Investigator in the Latent Print Unit of the NYPD, he has conducted over 800,000 inked and latent print comparisons. Dr. Eng is of the opinion that the FBI treated the forensic investigation of Shannon's case similarly to the way they handled Mayfield's. You may recall from Part 3 that the FBI destroyed the original latent prints on the duct tape with gentian violet, while trying to find possible underlying prints. Thus, the FBI examiners were not using the originals during the conduction of their investigation. Worse, neither the FBI or the independent examiners will ever have access to the original prints--unlike in Mayfield's case.
After the public embarrassment of misidentifying an innocent man as a terrorist, the FBI and their reports were placed under review by the Office of the Inspector General. The OIG found that the Bureau had engaged in an unreliable technique referred to as "reasoning backwards." In other words, instead of first identifying points on the latent prints that could serve as usable comparison points, the examiners found such points on Mayfield's prints and then looked for corresponding points on the latent set. The OIG found that in multiple incidences, the characteristics "found" by the FBI examiners did not really exist but were merely suggested by unclear and indistinct markings on the photos of the latent print sets.
The same could be said, in Dr. Eng's opinion, of Shannon's case. Dr. Eng disagrees with Agent Davey's assessment that the latent prints from the duct tape can be individualized to Shannon. In Mr. Eng's judgement, none of the latent print photographs match the inked prints of Shannon Agofsky. Not only did Dr. Eng fail to find a sufficient number of points of similarity, but he was also unable to find some of the points of similarity identified and highlighted by Agent Davey at trial. Dr. Eng believes that Davey's analysis is seriously flawed.
In reaching this opinion, Dr. Eng notes two particularly important points. First, each of the photos of the latent prints used by the Bureau during their examination were of partial--not full--prints. At trial, Davey even acknowledged this, admitting that several of the prints were very small and yielded relatively few points of similarity. Additionally, large sections of the original prints were smudged and otherwise obscured--and the photos rendered the prints even more difficult to discern. It was therefore impossible to tell whether these smudged areas contained unexplainable points of dissimilarity which may have excluded Shannon as a suspect.
As previously stated, Dr. Eng was unable to distinguish print characteristics and details that Davey had identified. Dr. Eng explained that a problem that sometimes occurs during examination is when examiners will identify details in the known inked print and then "find" those same details in the latent print because they are already "mentally primed" to see them. Mr. Eng believes this may have occurred with Shannon's case as it did in Brandon Mayfield's, but that is only his personal opinion. He does say with certainty, however, that he himself is unable to find the points of similarity identified by Davey and does not agree with his conclusion that the latent prints match Shannon's.
These are critical points, rendered even more important by the Bureau's Mayfield debacle. In my opinion, Shannon's counsel should have drawn parallels between the FBI's handling of evidence in the Short case and its handling of the Mayfield case. They should have pointed out the fact that the FBI misidentified Mayfield's print and continued to investigate his family even after they were advised that they had the wrong man. Shannon's defense absolutely should have raised the point that because the FBI destroyed the original prints from the murder scene, Shannon might never be able to prove that mistakes were made in their comparisons due to the obvious flaws in the protocols employed. Shannon's defense should have made it glaringly obvious that the FBI picked a suspect they liked for the crime and concocted the evidence to match. It wasn't the first time they had done it. It certainly wasn't the last.
I can't tell you why they did it. It's something I've agonized over more times than I'll admit. I've asked Shannon what he thinks, and he is as clueless as I am. He was from a poor, blue-collar family. Some of his family had been in trouble with the law; some of them hadn't. He himself had never been in serious trouble, and had never dabbled in drugs or alcohol. He can't come up with a single reason why they FBI targeted him and his brother. But they did, just as they did Brandon Mayfield. But Brandon Mayfield walked away with a cleared name, a formal apology, and over two million dollars. Shannon, meanwhile, sits in a maximum security cell--just another victim of the FBI's legacy of lies.