Saturday, November 17, 2012

The Girl in the Blue Mustang

MSNBC hides crime-scene photo in plain sight.
Just watched a repeat of The Girl in the Blue Mustang, on MSNBC's Dateline.

I am addicted to those shows: Dateline ID, 48 Hours, On the Case With Paula Zahn. It is amazing how popular this genre has become; you can find a murder docudrama on 24/7 these days thanks to all the channels available on cable. I am old enough to remember when 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 were it – and 13 rarely.

The episode I watched on the girl in the blue mustang was a repeat of an April airing. It had to do with Michelle O’Keefe, an attractive freshman who played as an extra in music videos and I believe other things, her last being a shoot for a Kid Rock video.



O'Keefe was returning from Los Angeles from that shoot when she was murdered on Feb. 22, 2000. The shooting occurred in a car park, early evening. O’Keefe’s friend had dropped her off and left, believing her friend was right behind her, following her out of the lot. Turns out Michelle was only re-parking her car in a darker spot so she could change out of her provocative clothing used in the video; she had to go to class.

Someone came up and shot her four times. The car, slipped into neutral or drive, had rolled out of the spot and seemingly into another one. This created some confusion – the car moved twice after Michelle’s friend saw her get into it. If you ask me, her friend should have waited for her. Didn’t she know Michelle was going to be changing her clothes there alone in a dark park-and-ride? The friend is whisked out of the show, probably to spare her feelings, but I think it was odd that she wouldn’t hang around. She must have realized her friend hadn’t followed her out of the lot once she was on the highway and the car wasn’t behind her. I wouldn't have left a woman alone in that situation.

The guilty, Jennings, and the dead.
Anyway, it turns out that a security guard ultimately was found guilty of the crime 10 years later, though he denied his guilt even after the verdict, going as far as spurning the family’s offer of forgiveness right there in the court room. (His guilt was prophesied on the Montel Williams show when a psychic told the inquiring, desperate family that a "Lee" or "Leon" wearing a blue uniform had killed their daughter. The killer's middle name was "Lee" and he was wearing a blue uniform.The murder was only famous in the small Northern California town where the family (and killer) lived and the murder took place; the story didn't go national until years later.)

The prosecution’s story, which I believe completely, is that Raymond Lee Jennings, the guard in the car park at the time, shot her four times in the chest and face after realizing she wasn’t a prostitute. Remember how she was dressed – and that she was in the process of undressing to change her clothes. Maybe he propositioned her, she reacted violently, he got scared and shot her. (He said something to the police about her looking like a hooker during questioning.) He was in the army and no stranger to shooting a weapon. (He also lived near her, which I believe creates grounds for speculation for another theory: He knew who she was and tried to rape her ... Michelle's mother, on the show, admitted to seeing this guy at the local supermarket, and Michelle was quite attractive. Any red-blooded male would had to have noticed her, especially if she lived nearby). In any event, he was a married man with four kids; I guess he'd rather kill someone than let them perhaps publicly accuse him of being a pervert. I mean, who knows?

What drew attention to Jennings was that he simply knew too much about the details of the crime, things that only the killer would know. He said he was doing a Sherlock Holmes to help the police, and had no idea his "speculation" would slingshot back and hit him in the ass.

Two previous trials ended with deadlocked juries (in both cases, the majority was convinced of his guilt). Jennings, an Army National Guardsman and Iraq war veteran, was sentenced to 40 years to life in prison at the third and final trial after he was finally found guilty.

Detectives grew suspicious of Jennings for a lot of reasons, but I think what was key was that he told them the young woman was still alive when he found her – he said he even saw a pulse beating in her neck! He did not make a single effort to try to revive her because he feared contaminating the crime scene. Who but the murderer would've even thought like that?

There was no physical evidence linking Jennings to the crime. No murder weapon was ever found.

I did find, almost hidden in a quick montage during the part of the show when the murder took place, the above posted crime scene photo of Michelle. I feel compelled to run it, even though you really can’t see much, to show the horror that was done to the girl. I don’t know why Dateline didn’t show it better – they spent two hours discussing the story of her death, but hide a crime scene photo in plain sight. Well, they aired it, so I am going to show it.

POSTSCRIPT: I have been mulling some other things since I wrote this. I mentioned the psychic on Montel; that is not the only possible example of the supernatural imposing itself on this case. Michelle herself held a strong view that she didn't have long to live, and told her parents of her fear. When the license plates arrived in the mail for her brand spanking new blue Mustang, the tag ended with the numbers 187 -- which freaked her out because she knew that was police code for homicide. She also spoke of the car park, and that she felt safe there because the place had a "security guard." Her words remained stuck in the parents' mind for some reason during the investigation.

Also, chances are the killer would have escaped justice if not for Michelle's family's constant vigilance: checking up on the police, hiring a lawyer and PIs, and keeping the media focused on the case. The prosecutor only went ahead with the trial after a discussion with Michelle's father, who convinced him of Jennings guilt based on a PowerPoint presentation based on videos of Jennings discussing the case, knowing things only the killer could have known.

136 comments:

  1. THIS IS THE MOST B S I HAVE EVER HEARD OR READ ! ARE YOU TELLING ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE HE SHOT HER AT CLOSE RANGE VERY CLOSE AND HIS SUPERVISOR SAW NO BLOOD SPATTER ON HIM !!! AND THE COP SENT HIM HOME NO TEST ?????????????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree. Any one who has been in the situation of seeing a shooting victim knows that cpr barely saves people . It probably would have done more damage anyways. He know this because the army taught me about gunshot treatment. Cpr is not the answer. This is a case of lazy cops who cannot find anyone else who were probably promised a advancement in their career if they could pin it on somebody. And I think juries are obsolete too. With the level of idiocy in the world, plus anyone who is smart gets out of jury duty.

      Delete
    2. Three juries found him guilty -- the first two were mistrials but in both cases Jennings was pretty close to getting convicted; in the first trial they were a single jurors vote away from conviction. And the third jury took over a month - to say they rushed is idiocy. Jennings couldn't shut his fucking mouth and wipe that dumb ass grin off his face. As for Kellogg u all will recall one problem with this case was all the PHONY CONFESSIONS. Shoddy police work is what gives all the Jennings advocates on this page something to work with; otherwise it would've been a slam dunk. I WROTE THE ABOVE BLOG POST IN JAN 2011 AND STILL STAND BY IT... WHAT'S MORE I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PHONY COMMENTS BY ANOTHER WEBSITE TRYING TO GET TRAFFIC WITH THE "KELLOGG" THEORY...

      Delete
    3. Aahaha@ "the first two were mistrials but were PRETTY CLOSE to getting convicted".

      I stopped reading this post when I rummaged and skimmed through and noticed the mention of a psychic on Montell and in which manner this was used.

      Delete
  2. Not only is Raymond Jennings innocent, we believe we know who really killed Michelle O'Keefe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me guess Julie. You think Victoria Richardson did it, right?

      Delete
    2. Yes I think Victoria Richardson did it too!!!!

      Delete
  3. what i seen on tv...hes guilty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't anyone look for gunshot residue Under his fingernails, come on 4 shots??that's baffling I saw this replay on dateline and I am shock at the bad police work there had to be blood splatter if he did it, that close up? Very disturbing story that a jury can find this guy guilty which I think he is but with no real evidence

      Delete
    2. Let me guess: you watch CSI... Life ain't a tidy script...

      Delete
  4. And who killed her Julie? So TWELVE people got it wrong?! How did Jennings know she was shot at close range in the chest first?? I live in Palmdale and remember this like it was yesterday, I am only a year older than her and remember how sad and horrible this was for her family. Some people have a whole lot of nerve to continue this family's pain, and need to just shut up and let them finally not have to worry about that slob ever getting out, and try to move on with their lives and the postitive memories that they left of their little girl!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everybody says there was not evidence he killed her. I mean there need not be any evidence if the guy is going to admit he killed her. Her knew the order of the shots. he said he watched her die. For someone that is suppose to be innocent he did as much as he could to tell the police he did it.

      Delete
    2. On the nose, Robert!! All you Jennings advocates: HOW THE HELL COULD HE POSSIBLY KNOW THE ORDER OF SHOTS???????

      Delete
    3. He speculated on the order. He also believed blunt force trauma was a gun shot. That was false. I'm sorry, but I worked with police and they are human and can make mistakes.

      Delete
  5. Julie -- I am still waiting -- tell us who the "real killer" is. Or maybe you and anonymous up top are related to that asshole Jennings... C'mon, put up or shut up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Julie doesn't have to prove who did it to believe Jennings was wrongly convicted. Standard police work would have checked Jennings for gunshot residue. The police dropped the ball. We also know many innocent people are in prison with more evidence (circumstantial or forensic) available than there was in this case. I don't know if he is guilty or innocent because I wasn't at the trial. However, in two hours of coverage by Dateline, they failed to address many questions I have; too many to list here. It's a TV show designed to sell advertising and capture as many viewers as possible. A trial is a completely different event. Try to remember that when you watch these shows.

      Delete
  6. I watched this episode of dateline....I can't believe how the police railroaded this guy. There was no physical evidence, NONE, the whole prosecutions case was speculation. They had to try him three times to get a guilty verdict. It is shocking that this man was found guilty. What happen to "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? The burden of proof was on the prosecution, and it was not met. Vicki

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's often no "physical evidence" of a crime. Ever hear of the "CSI effect?" It's the belief that a person cannot be found guilty unless there's physical evidence. You're apparently under its spell. In the U.S., circumstantial evidence can be just as persuasive and valuable as direct evidence. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence in this case.

      Delete
  7. I watched it, Vicki, and have to say I agree with the jury. Most cases are circumstantial and most murderers don't confess, although some do like to brag, usually in anonymous notes. This guy couldn't help himself -- he did it in front of the police during an interrogation...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Raymond Jennings is guilty. I keep coming back to Raymond saying he did not see anything. From a mans perspective, I would have noticed Michelle getting out of her friends car the way she was dressed that night. Men are very visual and I am telling you he saw her. That is a lie. I also keep coming back to Raymond said he heard a car alarm going off. Why would a car alarm be going off if she was in the car. The bottom line is Raymond new to much about a crime only the murderer would know. Also not remembering seeing that girl who talked to him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. None of what Raymond Jennings says adds up. To many lies. If I was Michelle and I was in the car and changing my clothes, I would not have rolled down any window for anybody unless it was someone of authority. How could Raymond not notice a car driving in the parking lot and see Michelle getting dropped off and not notice a car at all and see nothing. What I don't know is how close is this parking lot to her class. This is a case where you do not need any physical evidence. The red truck is a diversion. Why did he not right down the licence plate or remember what the plate number was. Did he tell his supervisor this when it happened. The bottom line is none of what Raymond Jennings says adds up. What a perfect cover being the security guard. Nobody would suspect him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think is is odd they never found the cell phone Michelle had. I think she started to call 911 and that is why the killer shot her and then took the phone. If I was on the jury, I would have voted Raymond Jennings guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It never ceases to amaze me how as botched up the investigation prosecutors are still able to sway people into believing what they want them to believe , Juror selection made easy , must have the same mine set , be able to be brainwashed willingly hmmmm , It's a no wonder how Antelope Valley has become to be know for their harsh convictions rates in the state , It only take lamebrains since they lack common sense. You need to be able to see beyond the scope of what's really going on , They wouldn't want me as a Juror in their court room
    playing the game with people life's. and for all those , I am as firm as they get , R.Jennings is innocent of this crime , now we just need the real shooter to step up to the plate and man up to his own words he had confessed to many , many who unfortuately chose to remain silent until recently.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is so more details I found out about the case. You be the judge. Forensics determined that part of the crime occurred with the door open. Blood splatter was found where the door had been closed. Michelle O'Keefe was heading to Palmdale High School that evening, which is East from the Park N' Ride. As Jennifer departed the lot she didn't see anyone in the lot when she entered or exited. Jennifer didn't notice Raymond Jennings as she entered or Victoria Richardson and her acquaintances sitting in the car listening to music. Victoria with 3 other individuals, her cousin, a friend, and a 4 year old child. They were supposedly parked 125 ft from the crime scene. They did not see anyone while the crime occurred even though they were parked a grand total of 13 parking spaces away. Never seen anyone leave the crime scene but claim to have seen Raymond Jennings moments before shots were fired. Michelle's class was over at 10 PM, and another 15 minutes from the lot. If Michelle wanted to change her pants, she would either climb over the passenger side or backseat. There's no way she could change around the steering wheel. Investigators located Michelle's cell phone case containing over $100 between the driver seat and center console. Jennifer was unable to tell authorities who Michelle called twice before entering the lot. Supposedly Michelle called KIIS FM per phone records and they determined in an attempt to win a contest. Another interesting fact, Michelle grabbed some sort of fruit bar from her glove box and gave it to Jennifer before she drove off. When they discovered Michelle her glove box was still open. Most would have closed the glove box before putting their car in motion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've changed numerous times in my car in the drivers' seat. To say she could not change around the steering wheel is flat out wrong. Just saying.

      Delete
    2. I agree that might also explain why the door was open..when she was changing in the front seat she opened her door so she had more room to change her pants

      Delete
    3. The door was open because that's how he shot her. Notice in the crime scene pics the window was not blown out. He probably opened the door to grab her, she fought back and/or put the car in reverse, and he freaked out and shot her. (At that point, he had to because she could ID him as the security guard.)

      Delete
  13. I keep coming back to why the phone is missing. I believe Michelle had just tried to call the radio station about the radio contest and still had the phone in her hand. Michelle made the calls after Jennifer was starting to drive away. So I believe Michelle and her friend arrived a couple minutes before 9:23P.M. This gave Raymond a few more minutes to kill Michelle. That is why her friend did not recall anything about the phone calls. Michelle still had the phone in her hand when Raymond Jennings came to the window. Raymond thought Michelle was a prostitute. Raymond then made advances and a confrontation then occurred. Raymond touched the phone during the confrontation leaving possible fingerprints on the phone. We don't know if he had his gloves on. Raymond would be forced to take the phone if this is the case. Michelle did not get a chance to change her clothes. It all happened so fast. Michelle set off the car alarm then Raymond felt he had to kill her with a gun he carried. Raymonds clothes were not checked until days later. Raymond also had dirt on his pants from the knee down. This would give him a chance to bury the gun and phone until the supervisor arrived. I also keep coming back to Raymond seeing nothing. No way. Not mentioning Victoria was key to this case. Raymond kept saying he saw nothing, yet when mentioned to him months later he then recalled seeing Victoria. Raymond also knew to much without being there when it happened.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One thing I think is odd is how Raymond Lee Jennings seems to know a lot about vehicles. Raymond noticed Michelle's Blue Mustang. Raymond could describe Victoria Richardson's car months later, but all he could describe about the red pickup is that it was a red pickup. Raymond would have a remarkable memory about several things in this case and no memory about other things. How could Raymond not notice Michelle getting dropped off at the Blue Mustang that he adored. How could Raymond not notice the blue Mustang driving off. How could he not notice Jennifer's car driving into the lot since he knows so much about cars. How could he forget about seeing Victoria Richardson. The best way not to be caught telling a lie later on is to say you saw nothing, but there is no way you could see nothing. The bottom line here is Raymond knew way too much that only the killer would know. I have no explanation why there is no physical evidence but there is no explanation about Raymond and what he knew about Michelle being shot in the chest first and seeing Michelle twitching, and a pulse in her neck. There is no way to know this unless you are the killer. Again, how could Raymond not see anything. His story does not add up period. There is just no way you could not see anything. Even if you could not identify the person shooting Michelle you would have had to have seen someone or something running away, or driving away. I believe Raymond new Michelle since he lived down the street. He would have known her car and what her licence plate was before she showed up in the park-and-ride lot that night. If Raymond noticed her car that much in the parking lot he would have noticed her car parked way down the street from where Jennings lived. He was waiting for her to show up. Explain to me how someone could show up in seconds after Michelle parked the car, again Raymond saw no one. Raymond said the car was parked at the spot where it was found when Raymond started his shift. Jennifer said otherwise. I believe Raymond adored Michelle and her car for weeks or longer. He noticed Michelle's car right away and new it was Michelle's when he went on duty that night. When he saw the way she was dressed, Raymond could not resist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As Far as Im concern anyone who goes along and believes what the prosecutors misconduct of webbed lies they weaved to win a no-case to appease a family on finding their daughter's killer , Think about it , if Raymond was their man , what the hell were they doing those 10 years , certainly Longshore would and did make it his last case so he can retire blessfully , with the help of no other R.Parris , oh one other thing those that believe R.Jennings is the man , you were either a juror on the case and or paid very well. Rex's henchman aside from the body guards he requires and for good reason , Ray will be exonerated , mark my words.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some more key points about this case. On Iris Malone's Declaration, Jennings former Security Supervisor, paragraph #5 of the interview, second to last sentence, Iris stated, "Jennings also advised me that the vehicle's engine was running. Malone goes on to declare that even with her windows down, I could not hear O"Keefe's vehicle from Jennings position and could not see exhaust fumes." Jennings made harassing telephone calls to Iris Malone, Jennings former security supervisor, after she thought he was acting very suspicious right after Michelle's murder. As a result, Iris ended up moving out of the state of California. Jennings talked in detail during the April deposition about seeing Michelle's breasts. However, her jacket appeared to be covering her breasts when her body was discovered. A crime scene photo was inspected as proof analysis that did not display her breasts. CONCLUSION: The only way Jennings saw Michelle's breasts was during the attack on her.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let's get this straight to begin with , First and foremost what I hear time and time again
    Presecutors's only defense they could come up with and also those with no common sense , believe the man is guity because he knew too much , he told what he knew , and besides why if being the only one suppose present would he not know a thing , he was the first responder and only speculated what he thought happened , and as far as Iris Malone leaving the state , she caught on early and wanted no part in what was and did happened to R.Jennings.
    He knew too nuch , he said he could not see the shooter , in the dark some 40 something car spaces from his car and If you take a closer look you'll see the extended white commuter van he claimed obsured his view , look for that cummuter van , it appears in every shot angle taken by the media. Michelle was there to help a friend out who owned this bad ass dope dealer some money , the dealer so intimidating to many as well as the Sheriff's
    and detectives , unfortuately by then it was too late , the debt became meaningless , Michelle was an innocent person who was made out to be , an example in the crazed mind of the killer of what happens when debts go un paid.

    ReplyDelete
  18. After watching this program, in my opinion there is only two suspects. Raymond Jennings and Jennifer, Michelle's best friend. That is right, Jennifer. If you believe Raymond is innocent then Jennifer has to be lying. Raymond has to see Jennifer pull into the lot and drop off Michelle if Raymond is where he says he was. There is no way Raymond does not see them pull into the lot, and drop off Michelle. If Jennifer is lying, then she lied about the car being parked under the light, Jennifer lied about going in that entrance, and the car was parked all along where Raymond says it was. Jennifer was then in some argument with Michelle. That would explain where Michelle's cell phone went. Jennifer might have hit Michelle in the face with Michelle's cell phone, or it was left in Jennifer's car during the argument. Jennifer shot Michelle and drove off and Raymond just did not see her car drive off. Then you would believe Raymond's Sherlock Holmes story as well. That would explain why Jennifer did not wait for Michelle to change as well because Jennifer killed her, or the phone calls to the radio station. Jennifer would have lied as well about seeing anybody when she drove into the lot and seeing nobody when she drove out of the lot. Jennifer had two days to come up with her side of the story, get rid of her gun, and blood evidence on her clothes. The bottom line here is this, either Jennifer is lying or Raymond is lying. One of them is lying. I believe Raymond is lying. His story just does not add up. Raymond knew too much, only what the Killer would know.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Most of the entries above are pretty way out there , All the prosecutors needed was to convince some lopheads such as yourselfs into believe something that is not believable , example do you really believe Michelle was making calls to a radio station to enter a contest as she was arriving at the park and ride , it's more like what they want people to believe , we will never know , and are not expected to show , alot of vital information was withheld to keep from revealing the identity of the real shooter that night , I hope Longshore is enjoying a blissful retirement , frustrated of 10 years of not being able to break the case , then comes Rex Parris on his high horse to save the day , with no one else to blame it on , but to let you all know R.Jennings was the wrong man to pin it on , the profile don't match up . Just like many have said his stories don't add up , The real question here is how the D.A. and all others involved got away with murder in the 1st degree , sending an innocent man up the river without any evidence , it must be that their above the law and powerful and think they are going to get away with it. We are going to fight , until it's done right. Amen

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would say after the Casey Anthony verdict, adjucating guilt or innocense is a coin toss. Our criminal justice system is not based on justice or the truth but who has the better story and the best evidence, physical evidence or the lack thereof in the post-CSI world trumping circumstantial. Only mobsters are almost always found guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  21. When does he get to appeal? If he doesn't have to appeal this back in the town where it happened I think he'll walk. I can't say I'm 100% sure he's innocent, but I also can't say "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" he's guilty...and it's innocent until PROVEN guilty. I think the Casey Anthony verdict gave this nation an example of what this truly means a prosecution must prove.

    ReplyDelete
  22. A Modern Day Railroad job , If I must say so myself , As far as Dateline's episode of 'The Girl with the Blue Mustang'. Not only did it not prove he was quilty , It put more doubt in the minds of people. Thre's more media about the 40 yr. conviction then the unsolved murder itself. Doesn't that tell you something ?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Iris Malone, Raymond Jennings 52 year old supervisor, was the first to arrive at the blue mustang. Iris examined Michelle's body. Iris Malone said Michelle was not moving and that she exhibited no signs of life. That is a strong statement in itself. That is not what Raymond Jennings said he saw. The big difference in the third trial in my opinion was the jurors were able to go to the crime scene. The jurors could see for themselves there was no way Raymond Jennings could see absolutely nothing. When Jennifer dropped off Michelle, Jennifer's tail lights would have had to light up the parking lot when she was dropping off Michelle. No way Raymond could not see that or Jennifer drive into the lot and drop off Michelle. This is what I believe happened. After Jennifer left which would have been within a minute or two, I believe Michelle rolled down her window when Raymond came to the window. Michelle got out of the car based on where her thongs were found and where her blood was found outside her car. Raymond made advances based on what she was wearing. Raymond hit her in her face with his flashlight. Michelle was getting ready to use her phone then out of thin air Raymond pulled out a gun. Raymond shot a warning shot into the parking lot, Michelle ignored the warning shot into the concrete and she was then shot in the chest. Then Michelle tried to get away and get back in her car and then was shot 3 more times. I believe Raymond wanted to make sure Michelle could not call 911 or call anybody and identify him as the shooter. That is why he took the phone. Raymond's story is not consistent with his supervisors story and Jennifer's story. There is no way he could not see Jennifer pull in the lot. Raymond knew to much only the killer would know. Forgetting about Victoria Richardson as well, it just does not add up. I can't explain no murder weapon the gun shot residue, or DNA evidence in Michelle's fingernail, but since he was able to leave that night, that would explain it. But all Raymond's other actions have no explanation. Raymond's story just does not add up period. How do you explain that? The lie detector test as well. You just can't ignore all that evidence. There is evidence in this case. It is in the video tape. That is why 32 of 36 jurors found him guilty in all three trials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahaha@ a young woman who is already aware of her surroundings and possible danger to the point where she prefers to park under light, but according to your, ignores a warning shot?

      Ahahaha. How absurd.

      Delete
    2. No absurd! probably you are a man...or somebody from his family! If somebody wanted to rape me, I would prefer die trying to escape!!!

      Delete
  24. The only evidence I see is people trying to make sense of non-sense , A man is sentenced to
    40 years , what don't you understand , no dna ,
    no weapon , no powder residue , no witnesses ,
    Convicted on his lies don't add up , he knew too much , he should of seen the killer , so since he did not , he must be the killer. why wait 10 years if he is the man ?? Was it ever devulged to the public what they found to get a conviction ? No because there was nothing , now convince me , without any hard evidence and just what has been speculated. This is a prime exsample of modern day miscarrige of injustice in the 1st Degree.

    ReplyDelete
  25. After watching this show, a couple things stand out. I don't understand why Michelle and Jennifer did not change back into the clothes they had on before they left the Kid Rock video. Or were they in such a hurry when they left they did not think about that. What did they talk about on the way back to the park-and-ride lot? Jennifer would have had to have known Michelle had to go to class and they were running late. Michelle would have been lucky to get to her class with 15 minutes left. I don't understand how Jennifer could not recall Michelle making a call to the radio station about a contest. Does not make any sense. Was the radio even on? It would also not make any sense for Michelle to call the radio station once she was in her blue mustang. Michelle would be in a hurry to get to class and get dressed. No time for that. The call would have had to have been made in Jennifer's car before they arrived. I think Jennifer was hungry. Jennifer was thinking more about eating her fruit bar Michelle gave her when leaving then watching Michelle follow her out of the lot. The way I understand it, Jennifer and Michelle would have turned in two different directions once out of the lot. Michelle's class was one direction and Jennifer's home was in the other direction. The other thing that stands out to me is Raymond Jennings said he recognized the car alarm being a mustang alarm. How would you know what a mustang alarm sounds like? According to Jennifer, Michelle wanted her car parked under a brightly lit light. Raymond had to have seen Michelle get into her car. I do not know how you could not see that. They showed Raymond a couple days later in the lot. The lot looks lit up to me. So much in fact you could see Raymond's shadow. I noticed Raymond also had glasses on. Was he near sighted or did he have contacts on the night of the murder.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Speculate , theories , motives , I am so sick and tired of hearing what I feel is so irrevelant in this case , Everyone has them , and so did Jennings that night , If I was innocent , I certainly would have done no different then what Jennings did cooperate , possibly speculate what might have happened , and what because he may have been alittle too forthcoming , does it really matter if he did or did not see a pulse , would you render cpr on someone riddled with bullets when obviously it would not have helped , she was mortally wounded , so now with that said get with it the facts are there is not one bit of evidence , no dna , no weapon , no motive , Raymond simply was convicted for no other reason then the O'keefes obtaining a attorney who simply saw dollar signs and to obtain the maximum amount for their lost , it didn't matter if he was the shooter , they see him as quilty for not have preventing Michelle's murder. As Raymond said 'We will all answer to this question My children will know who their father is , and they will know he's not a murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Raymond Jennings had to have seen Michelle and Jennifer pull into this lot. When Michelle was dropped off, Michelle's car was parked at a brightly lit spot. More the reason Raymond should have seen Michelle. The story about two guys asking Raymond if he was the guard on duty or if he was not, where did he live. That story does not make any sense. It is obvious he was a guard with the uniform he has to wear. Who else would he be. Why would Raymond quit his job? He had a wife and children to take care of. If I was married and had children, I would not quit. Where the mustang backed up, there is a light there as well. Lit up very well so I don't understand how Raymond could not see anybody or anything. I think Raymond is guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's evident to those that comment about how his story don't add up , he knew too much , with comments like those , you all don't know the case , you only know what the prosecutors
    tell you and your oblivious and naive to the truth , There is not a shred of evidence on Jennings , The question that should be looked at , How did they get away with convicting an innocent man to spend 40 years of his life , and not even come up with a more sensible motive , a motive they speculated (she refused his advances) and the weapon , no weapon to convict. And if you see nothing wrong with this picture , then perhaps maybe you should walk in Raymonds shoes , then maybe you might tone down a bit. This man is innocent , case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have to say this about this case.. I personally know Raymond Lee Jennings and proudly served beside him in the Army National Guard. There is no evidence in this case that points to him. I have read every comment and nothing has been said about how it took moving the case to the county in which the murder took place to get a 100% guilty verdict. Also something I didnt read is that they did get DNA evidence from under Michelle's fingernails but it wasnt Raymond's.. Who's was it? They never said. Funny how the only true evidence they had pointed away from Raymond and yet it was never determined who's DNA it was. Also something else about his uniform. The company that Raymond worked for stated that his Uniform was never washed after he turned it in. Even if he washed it before turning it in the very next day there would still be some sort of gun powder residue or blood. You can NOT completely get rid of those signs, especially from a fabric!!. I TRULY BELIEVE that Raymond is innocent of this crime and like others said the case was cold for 10 years and the family, DA and Rex Parris just wanted someone, anyone found guilty no matter who it was. And Since there was no REAL Evidence to convict anyone they laid blame on an innocent man. Like Ray said at the end of the 3rd Trial, "We will all stand before God one day and be judged for our sins, and this is one sin that I will not be judged for". Everyone who had a hand in his false conviction knew they needed an out and because he "knew too much" was the only way they could close an other wise ridiculous case against an innocent man!!! Nuff Said!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - A woman alone at night does NOT roll down her window and get out of the door for anyone but a uniformed authority figure.
      - Why was there mud on his knees?
      - Why did he feel he had to "impress" the cops with a made-up story about how he saw signs of life, and how he had seen other people die? Only sociopaths would do that.
      - Why did he assume just because a woman was wearing revealing clothes that she was a prostitute, unless he has a skewed view of women?
      -With 5 kids, how was his marriage? Sex life? Did he cheat on his wife?
      -Why did he describe her "breasts hanging out" if the only time he saw her was the crime scene, and photos of that show the jacket covering them?
      Bottom line, the guy is a liar and a killer. Just my opinion, and of course, the opinion of MOST of the jurors from 3 separate trials.

      Delete
  30. I honor and respect you for your service to this great country of ours. But I must add, this is my website - I get the last word. Ray could have had two or three uniforms. You are not an impartial source - you are his friend, you see things through a lens.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I saw the Dateline special and was inspired to do a little more research into it online and I think Jennings was railroaded.

    --To those of you that say he had to have seen something, Jennings' car was parked in the same row as Michelle's, about over 350 ft. away...also, after the murder, the parking lot added several more lights to the rear of the parking lot, so the parking lot was more well let when it was visited by the jury than on the night of the murder.

    --Jennings admitted that he knelt behind his car when he heard the gun shots, hence why his pants appeared dirty, also, it seems impossible that if he had killed Michelle that he wouldn't have gotten blood on him, and none of the police officers reported seeing any.

    --Jennings also has a registered handgun that is a different caliber than the one used in the murder. It seems that everyone agrees this would have been a crime of opportunity, so assuming Jennings did not know he was going to be committing murder that night, why would he bring an unlicensed handgun with him in his second week at a new job, when it would be considerably less risky to bring his registered gun?

    --Also, as far as him "knowing too much," he misidentified the wounds on the victims face as gunshot wounds when they were actually blunt force injuries. And, as far as him identifying the chest wound as the first wound, Jennings owned a handgun, and spent some time in the military, it doesn't seem ridiculous that he would be able to recognize a close-range gunshot injury such as the chest wound, hell, I've watched enough CSI that I could probably ID a close range wound. And, from there make a guess that since the car was rolling backwards, the close range shot probably came before the more erratic longer range shots. Regardless, I wouldn't describe any of the inferences Jennings made "things only the killer would know." And, a few educated guesses about gun shots hardly qualifies as definitive proof of guilt.

    --There was also DNA that was not a match to Jennings found under Michelle's fingernails, which in itself is enough for reasonable doubt.

    --While the crime scene photos don't show it, Jennings is not the only one who reported Michelle's breasts being exposed at the scene, at least one of the detectives at the scene made mention of it as well.

    --Victoria Richardson, and 3 friends were, along with Jennings, in the parking lot at the time of the murder, parked around 120 ft from Michelle's vehicle, listening to music. Richardson has claimed affiliation with the Bloods and is currently serving a life sentence for possession of almost $1,000,000 worth of cocaine, and she was proven to be hanging out in a darkened parking lot at 9:30 at night at the time of a murder.

    --To me, It seems a remarkable coincidence that a self professed gang banger and convicted drug dealer was hanging out in a parking lot where a young woman was shot to death, it seems strange to me that she would just be hanging out in a parking lot late at night, and if she was involved in something more illicit, it's possible that Michelle was killed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I, obviously have no evidence to this, but Richardson or an acquaintance of hers seem as viable a suspect as Jennings, a war veteran with no history of violence. And it's disappointing that investigators didn't explore this possibility more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I just watched this special and it left so many unanswered questions I just had to find out more. The supposed lies were not clear and the lack of forensic evidence, i.e. gunshot residue etc. Ray Jennings is innocent and unfortunately is serving time because a horrible murder had taken place and someone had to pay for the crime as soon as possible. When Jennings made the statement at his conviction I saw an innocent man who was about to pay for a crime he did not committ. His cooperation with police backfired on him.

      Delete
  32. While all of the above comments present possible theories to the crime, there is no definitive evidence against Jennings. Being able to devise a believable story is not the same as proving that story is true. In order to earn a conviction the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their version of events is true, and refute other possibilities. My frustration with this case comes from the fact that the prosecution got a conviction without doing any of this. Convicting someone of murder should require more evidence than this case had, and I feel like the justice system failed Ray Jennings.

    ReplyDelete
  33. CoMack , I share the same exact sentiments as you do about this case. Raymond being wrongfully convicted has me frustrated as well
    I will continue to voice my opinion at every opportunity whether it be a forum , a blog etc.
    As long as Im alive I will continue in my quest to be there for him , support his innocence to the bitter end. Yes there are many unanswered questions we the people have , But God willing those responsible for their part in wrongfully convicting an innocent man , and the motive behind it ,the exposure will not be good , but it will come.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I watched this show on the internet because a friend of mine who saw this show and wanted me to watch it and give my opinion. Jennifer and Raymond's story does not match. Where is Jennifer in this show? Everyone seems to believe Michelle was still going to class. I don't think so. I think she was going to go home. If Michelle goes to class she would only have about 15 minutes of class left. If this is the case, I would not have gone. Jennifer does not recall Michelle calling the radio station because I believe Michelle turned on her radio when she got in her Mustang and then heard about the radio contest, that is why she pulled over her car into a different parking stall, not to change her clothes. I want to know if her mustang had that radio station KIIS FM tuned into that radio station. Did the police check that? Based on watching this show and all these comments, I would lean to Raymond's guilt. Jennings knew too much about the details in this crime and I don't understand how Jennings could not see anything. However, the physical evidence bothers me in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Comment to Don , It should bother you , the lack of physical evidence , and the many unanswered questions we the people of Antelope Valley have about the case. As far as Michelle's cellphone missing , the radio station theory was simply to throw people off to the real truth. It will never be devulged as to what her cellphone records reveal as to her last calls coming in or out. Think about it
    why else would her cellphone be missing , It's my believe the shooter took it because it would implicate him that he was the one she last spoke with. Crazed drug dealer didn't think the information could be obtain w/o the phone. And too I am always coming across he knew too much , but then he didn't see the shooter , so he must be the shooter. Im not buying it or the prosecutors theory , a sexual advance that got out of hand , Is this hard evidence ? Doe's this justify a sentence of 40 years. Come on people get with it !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I can only hope that in time those that
    took part in this injustice of sending
    an innocent man up the river to serve
    out a 40 year sentence , Have their day
    in court as well , there is something
    seriously wrong with this picture.
    throw away the key and never look back ,
    I don't believe so.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I just watched this and I will tell why I think Raymond Jennings is guilty. Raymond's first story does not match with Jennifer, Victoria Richardson, or what his supervisor, Iris Malone had to say. Raymond's story just does not add up period. You just can't ignore all this. Jennings said the mustang was parked around 9 o'clock where it was found. That is not what Jennifer said. Why would Jennifer lie about where the mustang was parked? What does Jennifer have to gain from lying? Why would Victoria come back months later and possibly implicate herself if she was involved? Victoria was not going to get the reward money. She did not see the crime happen. Raymond's story was he saw nobody. Again, this did not match Victoria Richardson's story until months later. Raymond said, Oh yeah, I did see her. Jennings told his supervisor, Iris Malone, that the vehicle's engine was running from his position. Iris said, from Jennings position she could not hear the engine running or see exhaust fumes. Again too much information. Raymond saw Michelle's hand twitching, slight pulse in her neck, again, too much information,and again, that is not what his supervisor saw. Iris Malone said, she saw no signs of life. Raymond said he recognized the alarm as a mustang alarm, and heard the engine racing. Again, too much information. How do you know what a mustang alarm sounds like. Raymond speculated Michelle was trying to get away, he speculated she appeared to be a prostitute, again, too much information. I am a man and I can tell you this, Raymond noticed Michelle get out of Jennifer's car. Men are very VISUAL. No way you could not see anything or understand why you couldn't see anything. Raymond could hear very well, too well. Raymond also failed the lie detector test as well. There is no physical evidence but Raymond is very clever. Raymond was able to leave that night. Victoria saw Raymond Jennings moments before she heard popping sounds. Who else could get to Michelle's car that fast on a cold night. Remember, if someone was waiting for Michelle, they would have been waiting for Michelle where her car was parked under the light, not 17 spaces down from where she was parked. No way Michelle was changing her clothes yet. She still had her thongs on. She was attacked immediately. If she was going to change her clothes, she did not get any time to change. It is odd that Michelle was hit with a blunt instrument in the face before being shot. She must have been being attacked first. Why would you hit her in the face after being shot 4 times. In this case, you just can't ignore all this evidence. Raymond is caught in too many lies. If Raymond is not guilty, then he just got caught up in so many lies about what he saw. Raymond knew if he was caught lying about too many things, they would find him guilty anyway. I believe Raymond Jennings is guilty as charged.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It doesn't matter what people believe, it's what can he proved. Whether Jennings actually did it or not is also a non issue. The prosecution did not prove this case beyond reasonable doubt. Read Blackstone's formulation, it's better for the guilty to go free than one innocent suffer. No one can unequivocally say Jennings did it. I hope I never have to rely on US justice.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I just have to say, show me the gun. Jennings never left the scene until after it was secure. If he had a gun, it should be somewhere around the crime scene. Or at least within tossing distance. There is no gun, because they don't have the gunman. And you have to think about blood splatter. There was blood on the ground, but none on Jennings? Well that was just lucky? I have to agree with the last post, I pray and hope I am never part of the justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I, too, saw an innocent man after conviction. I cannot prove his innocence, but nor can anyone prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At least not given the severely limited information we are presented with. I'm struggling with two things.
    1.) I feel it's very unlikely that Jennings would approach Michelle as a John while he's on duty. I know that this happens, but it's not likely that someone with the discipline of a military officer would break conduct like this while on duty. Furthermore, if he lived near Michelle and was fond of her, then he could surmise from her neighborhood, her car and her clothes that she came from a good family and wasn't a likely candidate for prostitution. Given that, he would not approach her bluntly about it, especially while on duty. He would be so vague that she would not even know what he was getting at unless she was a prostitute.
    2.) We are told that Michelle was mindful of security, to the point that she parked under a lamp post and that she told her parents about the security measures at the parking lot. Why would anyone that mindful of her safety ever roll down their window for anyone? I think it's bogus that we are to assume that people make exceptions for people in uniform... today they don't! A safety-minded individual would be aware of someone approaching their car, especially if they're changing their clothes and are nervous about being seen in the first place. Once someone was at the car, the first thing they would do is lock the doors, if they were not already locked. Would you roll down the window for someone you didn't know, uniformed or not? Maybe an inch. But probably not even that. You can hear through glass. There's no reason to roll the window down unless you wanted to do more than just talk. There would have to be the intention of exchanging something more than communication in order for someone to roll the window down. I think the exchange of money or drugs seems far more likely than a discussion about sex that she wasn't even interested in having!
    These are the two things that I feel don't add up. Perhaps Californians are more trusting, but it sounds like she was safety conscious, so it's hard to believe she would leave her doors unlocked and also go as far as to roll the window down, both while getting changed in her car in a parking lot at night. Just doesn't add up. I think she had to have intended to exchange something with the person who killed her. Far be it from me to suggest that it was a drug deal gone wrong because I don't know her or her friends/family, but I think that's as likely a scenario as the mistaken prostitute scenario. It doesn't help that a convicted drug dealer was at the scene at the time of the murder.
    I'm just suprised that anyone can be convicted without any physical evidence, especially when there is physical evidence suggesting that there was someone else involved. (this being the DNA from someone other than Jennings found under her fingernails). I understand the CSI effect leads us lay people to believe that every case can be proven with a handful of various sciences, which isn't how cases work in the real world. But shouldn't there at least be something linking someone to a crime? There was more evidence that Joran killed Natalie. Same with OJ. I think that justice needs to be more uniform. There should be at least one cold hard piece of evidence linking someone to a crime in order for them to get the maximum. Without that evidence, then maybe they should be capped off at manslaughter, or something like that. It just seems way too easy to put someone away for life based on theory and lie detectors. After all, a life sentence is a crime against a person which is premeditated by many when done in error. Far worse in my mind than an accidental death caused by one person which happens in the moment.
    I don't mean to sound callous towards MIchelle's family. I truly hope they find the peace they deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  41. And to think Casey Anthony got off scott free. Utter shame.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The detectives botched this investigation from the beginning. They didn't detain Raymond Jennings or Michelle's best friend, Jennifer, right away. Jennifer and Raymond should have been tested for gun shot residue that night. They should have searched Raymond's car and impounded it for evidence. In order to clear someone you have to rule them out first. Then you move on to other suspects. Jennifer should have been interviewed that night. I don't care how disturbed she was. How does Jennifer not recall Michelle using her phone before they entered the lot? You are talking about two phone calls made! What were Jennifer and Michelle doing before they entered the lot? According to Raymond, he was about 350 feet from the shooting. He was actually about 390 feet away. Do you know how far 390 feet is? That is a a long way to see or hear in the dark. I don't know how Jennings could have heard the car starter crank after the first shot and car racing from that distance. Jennings should have seen Jennifer pull into the lot from where Jennings said he was, especially if Jennifer stopped to drop off Michelle. Jennings should have seen that! It bothers me the phone was missing. Michelle's tube top was pulled down which makes me think Michelle was attacked to be raped or some sort of sexual advances. If she was just starting to change her clothes, I am not a girl, but I would think you would pull your tube top over your head, not pull it down. If someone came to my window, I would not open my window a little looking like that. I would think you would cover yourself first. Michelle was hit with a blunt instrument. Appears to have been attacked first. If it was a gang killing, why attack her with a blunt instrument first. Why not just shoot her. I keep coming up with 3 reasons why Michelle would be approached. (1) Steal her car.(2) Steal her money. (3)Make sexual advances. Her money was still there. Her purse was in plain sight. So I rule that out. They did not take the car, but the car alarm going off would have stopped that if that was the case. Her tube top pulled down makes me think there was sexual advances so that is what I believe what happened. If I was on this jury I would have found Raymond Jennings guilty. I don't care about the physical evidence. Jennings is caught in to many lies. Why lie unless you are guilty. You just can't ignore that evidence. Raymond knows way to many details about this crime and his story did not match his supervisors, Jennifer's, or Victoria Richardson's.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I find it strange that Victoria Richardson could hear popping sounds but she could not hear a car alarm going off. I agree with Mike's statement (above) about hearing what Raymond heard from that far away. Especially with the car alarm going off. With the car alarm going off that would make it almost impossible to hear a car starter cranking and car racing from that distance. You would have to go to this parking lot to see how lit up it is at night. I understand there was more lighting put in the back part of the lot since the shooting. The jurors should have went to this lot with those lights turned off during the trial to get a true picture of what Raymond saw. Without being at this trial, I don't know if I would have found Raymond guilty or not.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment is directed to Ed Lieber (Editor of this Website) First I want to begin with thanking you for creating such a site for someone whom you feel is quilty , that I find quite honerable of you to do so. It's very obvious that most of the entires posted lean more towards his innocence.On Oct.15,2011 you posted an entry , and it's only my opinion , that I felt was quite absurbed , that Raymond may have had 2 to 3 uniforms . Highly unlikely and if so premeditation would have to be a presumption brought up by the prosecutors. Then on Jan 24, 2011 , an entry you posted was even more absurbed as I tried to make sense of your comment he 'He shot her 4 times in the chest and face after realizing she wasn't a prostitute , It's my belief that knowing for certain had she been a prostitute would have gotten her killed rather then being a non- prostitute. Anyone care to comment on this ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I believe he is guilty; this is a blog, and blogs are forums for the blogger. You will notice I have not deleted any of the comments, including yours, in which the man's innocence is proclaimed loud and clear. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.

      Now to address my "absurd" comments:

      "On Oct.15, 2011 you posted an entry , and it's only my opinion , that I felt was quite absurbed, that Raymond may have had 2 to 3 uniforms . Highly unlikely and if so premeditation would have to be a presumption brought up by the prosecutors."

      --First off, I was responding to the previous comment:
      THIS IS THE MOST B S I HAVE EVER HEARD OR READ ! ARE YOU TELLING ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE HE SHOT HER AT CLOSE RANGE VERY CLOSE AND HIS SUPERVISOR SAW NO BLOOD SPATTER ON HIM !!! AND THE COP SENT HIM HOME NO TEST ?????????????????

      --Yes, he could've had an extra uniform in his trunk, maybe from a dry cleaner. Why is it absurd to believe a security guard would have MORE THAN ONE UNIFORM? I was once in the service business and had SEVERAL UNIFORMS. Now for my second “absurd” comment:

      Then on Jan 24, 2011 , an entry you posted was even more absurbed as I tried to make sense of your comment he 'He shot her 4 times in the chest and face after realizing she wasn't a prostitute , It's my belief that knowing for certain had she been a prostitute would have gotten her killed rather then being a non- prostitute. Anyone care to comment on this ??

      ---The comment below this conveniently describes what I was getting at. He made an unprofessional move toward an underage woman. If she were a pro, they would’ve gone through with the transaction or not. Whatever. As she was not a pro, he was caught in a highly compromising position – one that endangered his job, reputation and family. I believe he was married. I wrote this post almost a year ago and don’t remember the details. This, my friend, is motive.

      You home in on trivia. Read the post itself. That girl was alive when he saw her – he could see the vein in her neck pumping, and he did nothing to save her life. I would have moved heaven and earth – mouth to mouth – chest pumping, wrapping the wound – I would have called the police immediately and screamed on the top of my lungs “HELP!!! SOMEONE IS DYING!!!! PLEASE HELP ME!!”

      He didn’t do any of those things. He wanted to preserve the integrity of a crime scene. A sociopath if ever there was one.

      Delete
  45. From a mans perspective, a prostitute would not worry me if I was a security guard about what she said. Who would believe a prostitute. A non-prostitute would be a believable story and might get myself in big trouble. I agree with Ed Lieber on this one. I commented on Feb 28,2012. I believe Raymond Jennings is guilty. Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  46. To Anonymous February 29.2012, Victoria Richardson did hear a car alarm go off and heard popping sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Can anyone tell me EXACTLY what you did 5 years ago today beginning at 9pm? Hell i have problems remembering what i did 5 days ago. Of course there are going to be variences in the details as people ask you questions. It took 5 years for them to even detain Raymond as a suspect. My guess is that they finally ran out of options and leads and said well there was that Security Guard. oh and not to mention that it took the trial being moved to the town in which the murder happened to gain a 100% conviction. Well done Rex, well done!! My opinion and its only my opinion, Raymond was set up to fail from the beginning. The O'Keefe family wanted someone, anyone convicted so they pinned it on the guy closest to the scene. RIP Michelle, but hopefully the true killer will someday be found.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sure I'd remember what happened on a particular night five years ago -- if on the night in question I had committed a savage, senseless murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The reason his story varies is because he is not guilty and doesnt remember every little detail after 5 years. The bottom line on this one is there is no more evidence to convict Jennings than there is to convict Richardson, you or me. There is no evidence period. Everything is speculation. I could speculate how Richardson could have did it and made an even stronger case to convict her. You cannot convict someone with 0 evidence or proof period. You cannot build a case on hypotheticals.

      Delete
    2. Yes you can -- circumstantial evidence-based cases happen all the time... CSI is a Tv show not reality

      Delete
    3. I would like to talk to the person whose DNA was under her fingernails - it was proved not to be Jennings. Personally, I agree that he looks guilty mostly because of his arrogance - but I don't think there is enough concrete evidence. Also, if the security guard had been a female and the victim a male - never in would there have been a conviction - in fact the police would never have gone after a female in the same position as Jennings.

      Delete
  49. I have never watched a show, ending in a conviction, and walked away feeling like justice wasn't served, until this case. All I could think was reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the justice system failed in this case. Where is the gun powder residue? Who's DNA is under her fingernail? Are just a few of the many questions that I have. I do feel for the family of the victim. I just think think that is very scary that someone can be sent to jail for 40 years, with no evidence to support his guilt. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I enjoyed reading your post and some of the comments. I like watching the true crime shows, too--they are entertaining. Of course, they are not news, not objective at all. The hosts are so self-righteous and continually ask leading questions to get the answer that will improve the show's ratings. I have no opinion on who was guilty--too hard to know who to believe...in lieu of real evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Can someone please answer this ? Victoria Richardson's location that evening while in the park n ride was much closer to Michelle's
    mustang , then Raymonds who was ducked behind his vehicle parked at the security assigned parking. One would assume she had a better advantage point of seeing the killer , was she ever questioned or even a suspect at any point. And has anyone ever heard of a drug user / dealer receive a sentence of 100 yrs ?

    ReplyDelete
  52. "The Girl in the Blue Mustang" was a complete prosecution and investigatory speculation of the case. Those that are questioning Mr. Jennings guilt would demonstrate more confusion of the verdict, after reading testimony.

    Victoria Richardson was parked in 5-6 spaces east of the far northwest corner of the lot which would have put her about 43 yards from Michelle's mustang. She testified to seeing a 97-98 Black 2-door Toyota Corolla or Tercel with a spoiler and tinted windows driven by a white male, white t-shirt and red hat tilted to side leave admittedly after tapping. Iris Malone (supervisor) arrived some 4 minutes after.
    Jennings radioed shots fired 9:32 per security dispatch records. Malone testified she was there by 9:42 waited by Jennings car 2-3 minutes. Supposedly he came out from behind his borrowed vehicle and then she went down to the scene. After another 6 minutes she radioed Jennings to come down. Then she observed a orange Toyota with 4 occupants. Richardson was driving a rental car, 2000 Chevy Malibu.
    Jennings was at his post when Richardson left & not even a minute after Cox arrived. Cox went down then Malone radioed for Jennings to come down. Iris Malone moved out of state shortly after all this and only left statements for read off during trial. I'll give you another thing Iris Malone the shift supervisor and worked for All Valley for quite some time. All Valley was constantly under fire due to issues with guards breaking into sites, etc. They held the contract with the city and secured city & county property; schools, parks, public lots, etc. The city council struggled to keep All Valley on, while looking for a new company to contract. The same reasons city settled out of court on the O’Keefe Civil case, there had been prior incidents.

    Dateline reported Jennings went down after Malone, but failed to mention Officer Cox was at the scene already. Another thing Mr. Jennings didn't say anything about twitching or a pulse that evening, like portrayed in the episode. Victoria Richardson contacted authorities March 23rd, stating she was in the lot. Longshore & Harris interviewed Richardson and then went to Jennings house. Instead of asking about Victoria, they questioned him about anything he might have remembered about that night not mentioned in last interview. He said no, gave them his .380 Lorcin Handgun to inspect, which the murder weapon was a 9mm. THEN after more, "are you sure there's nothing else that you remember after shots fired", Jennings stated when he went to the scene that he might have seen twitching. When Raymond Jennings went to the scene it was when Iris Malone and Deputy Cox were already there. Not Datelines story. Then Longshore mentioned Richardson and Jennings stated what he remembered. Exactly the same story Richardson had given. Plus the re enactment was not shot from 388 feet but closer to 150. When they filmed the reenactment, the city had already added additional lighting due to the civil. The jurors went to the crime scene, and still didn't come to a verdict for another 2 weeks.

    Check out the testimony, do the time work. Radioed dispatch, shots fired at 9:32 Iris Malone arrived per her testimony 9:42 (crap) because Deputy Cox arrived at the scene at 9:35. Malone stated she waited for 2-3 minutes at Jennings car before he appeared (crap), so supposedly she went to the scene at 9:45. All Valley Headquarters was 6 minutes from lot, but Malone testified she was a few minutes away and in the immediate area. Richardson said 4 minutes after shots fired, she noticed orange flashing lights and a security vehicle at the scene (Michelle's car). So tell me, Richardson states 9:36, Malone arrived. Deputy Cox testified approximately 9:35 he arrived and Malone was at the scene. But Malone stated 9:45, she arrived.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So let me get what everyone is saying, because I’m a bit confused. Mr. Jennings had some 4 minutes to commit the crime, see twitching, sprint a football field and hide all evidence, while not being seen by Richardson & the other 3 occupants? And he just happens to be so lucky that police didn’t search his vehicle and didn’t collect the only uniform he had (which was picked up at All Valley and had hair only belonging to him) days later. Deputies reported Jennings as excited, and helpful at the scene, not nervous and suspicious. Do you hear how ridiculous this sounds? Longshore & Harris, decades of homicide experience. Man 2nd day at work had a perfectly legal registered fireman at home. Brings an illegal firearm to work and murders a woman he doesn’t know because he was horny. Are you kidding me? And by galley, they didn’t collect a single piece of physical evidence pointing at Jennings. But they did find blood from another male under O’Keefe’s fingernail, blood from her, in the car, outside the car and signs of an apparent struggle, which included dislodging her top, her losing her shoe and losing an earring stud from her left ear. Did they fail to mention that Michelle’s duffel bag contains were tossed around the interior of the car and that the little purse containing her money was underneath the duffle bag and her jeans and not in plain sight. The jeans had been slung against the passenger door; a bullet slug entered one pant leg, exited and hit the passenger upper arm rest.
    @ Larry I suggest researching lie detectors, you can't fail an entire lie detector, like Parris & Longshore led Datelines audience to believe. Two questions showed deception and both were about his service in Iraq. He passed all the questions about the night of Michelle's murder.
    Like I said, Dateline provided a completely one sided speculation of events, and not along with testimony. I have the unpublished appeal briefs too, but I can't release them in a public forum. So you'll need to contact me at my site by message. Warning they are unpublished briefs.. No, Mr. Jennings didn't have 2-3 uniforms; he had one which was confirmed by office manager during testimony. They only had one available in his size & were in the process of ordering more. Mr. Jennings worked for All Valley a total of 3 days per testimony but dateline said 2 then didn't return to work. False, he returned the day after clean shaven & wearing his prescribed glasses. Raymond Jennings is nearsighted another fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julie, can you publish your website? Best analysis I have seen. So, he passes the poly on the murder questions. And he has a registered gun at home? He needs better counsel. I do believe he has hero syndrome, said too much, but just wanting to know like all of us want to know! so we speculate, but that doesnt make us murderers! I hope you can find publicity on your site for jennings to get better counsel and a new trial.

      Delete
  54. I just watched this episode today and I noticed something really odd. In fact, I rewinded it about five times to double check: There is the video of the interview with the suspect which they called the "cognitive interview." This may sound nuts, but I swear there is an apparition of the girl's face around the area of his hands at one point. I'm not a firm believer in that kind of stuff, but for a few seconds the video flickers, her face appears, and then it flickers away. Surely someone else noticed this.

    ReplyDelete
  55. It simply isn't possible for anyone — with any amount of foresight — to describe what he or she would do in a situation like the one Jennings described ... particularly when no one knows if there's still a shooter lurking around somewhere.

    I noticed a previous message in which a commenter believed they would yell for help or something of that nature, but I'm not convinced anyone's first impulse would be to walk up on an individual who'd just been shot in a remote lot at night and immediately begin yelling ANYTHING since it could possibly draw a shooter's attention as much as anyone else's. You might as well be screaming "I'M A WITNESS! Come get me too!"

    Therefore, speculating as to anyone would do in this type of scenario is, in my view, both irresponsible and misguided. Whether Jennings is guilty or not, attempting to determine that guilt based in any part on his actions before and after the shots were fired is unfair, unless clear and obvious discrepancies exist (for example, if he claimed not to get near the body but was found with her blood anywhere on his person).

    That being said, to me this case seems rather simple: Jennings clearly did not leave the park-and-ride before police arrived at the scene, and yet from the best I can gather, the gun has never been found. This leads me to believe only two possibilities exist: Either Jennings put it in his car and was not searched prior to leaving the scene, or the gun remained in the possession of someone who took it with them either on foot or in another vehicle upon leaving after the crime took place.

    I can't imagine the former being true ... allowing one of the few if any other individuals present at the time to leave without conducting a search of their person and automobile. If it's the latter, Jennings is innocent. What seems absolutely impossible is for Jennings to have discarded the gun without it being found by the police — even if he'd dismantled it and scattered the pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well, the guy was in charge of protecting the place. If he was doing his job...

    ReplyDelete
  57. as julie dyer said we know who the real murderer is.....not raymond jennings....

    ReplyDelete
  58. This man is innocent. The family and the judicial community wanted a sense of closure and retribution for the murder of a young, seemingly innocent girl.

    For years they could not accept their own inability to find a suspect linked to forensic evidence and ultimately, after relentless prodding by the girl's father concocted a flimsy case against Jennings - which only succeeded in a conviction on the 3rd try.

    ReplyDelete
  59. what a crock of shit. This scumbag murdered her and everyone knows it, but only some want to admit it....get a life people! He is guilty, i hope he rots in that prison cell., then rots in hell after he dies!!

    ReplyDelete
  60. If this case still raises doubt in the minds of many including me, Jennings should not be in jail. I agree that it is a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the legal system. I don't know how those jurors can sleep at night with a clean conscience knowing they may have convicted the wrong man. Shameful and shame to all of you who convicted from the sidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  61. it is these types of cases that cause me to relize just how broken our legal system is. To see this man convicted for this crime based on nothing more then being there and speaking his mind just sickens me. God forbid that any of us find ourselves in a situation like this, hard to understand how someone can be convicted on no real evidence and the motive the state claimed is pure BS

    ReplyDelete
  62. so when did we forget about reasonable doubt, this case clearly is full. Raymond Jennings is innocent and sadly is the second victim in this sad tale only this time our Judicial system is the criminal and the jury is the willing accomplice.

    ReplyDelete
  63. THIS JURY SHOULD BE TIED TO A WHIPPING POST

    ReplyDelete
  64. I watched this episode tonight and I am left with more questions at the end of it than at the beginning. I can honestly say they did not prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It it so sad that this beautiful woman was murdered "in plain" sight and no believable evidence was found. I don't think if a person is guilty of a crime would voluntarily go to the police station and "spill the beans" . Granted he knew a lot about the case but I believe he maybe was an over eager security guard that did his on research and with his military training, he would know a lot about gun shots and wounds but why wouldn't he have tried not to help her. I wonder if he ever drew his issued weapon. If he was behind a vehicle sheltering himself- kind of doesn't make sense. I know most law enforcement would have came running with his weapon drawn. But I may be confused... none of it makes sense. I think they need to re investigate the case. I can honestly say, I just don't know what happened to that beautiful angle. Oh and her poor parents pain!! Bless their hearts! Oh one more thing, the people sitting in the car just listening to music, I don't buy that story either!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. What balls the lone girl on the 2nd jury had plus the 3 on the 1st jury! Unfortunately, those on the 3rd jury seemed to want to get home for Christmas and gave in to pressure. It is clear there was reasonable doubt. Why would she have a different male's blood under her nails? Did she scuffle with the guy before he shot her and she scratched him? If it was Jennings, where did he dispose of the gun so fast? And really, no blood or gun residue whatsoever on his uniform? Where did her cell phone go? Did they search for pings on her phone to see where it went after the shooting? Scary how the Prosecution with the help of the Privite Investigator spliced the tapes of Jennings testimony to their favor - taking them out of context - and they admitted to it. Sad day for our legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  66. At Julie...........if you know who killed her why didn't or don't you speak out instead if posting shit on the internet! He's guilty as hell and was hiding behind a uniform! What a disgrace to the soldier!

    ReplyDelete
  67. So the motive here is. Hey, are you a prostitute? No? Ok, bang, bang, bang.

    I'm not buying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're an idiot. All you pro-Jennings folks are either bullies or full of shit. Are u all part of a support group for Jennings, work for his lawyer or something? Any normal person with no hidden agenda who watched that show has to believe Jennings is guilty. All these pro Jenning comments are phony. Why this passion for Jennings's innocence from complete strangers watching TV?

      Delete
    2. I am from the UK - I have no connection what so ever to this man. I am female and this young woman deserves justice not "hype."

      Delete
  68. After watching the dateline, I thought the most likely scenario might be Jennings did it, but that it certainly wasn't proven without a reasonable doubt. It should also be noted, that although Dateline generally is objective, the slant of the show was pro-prosecution.

    The total lack of evidence and motive was very troubling.

    The more I dig in this case, the more I think that Jennings is most likely innocent. Not only is there a reasonable doubt, there is significant doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  69. There is no such thing as a jury of your "peers". I don't think the jury system works, and I think it should no longer be used. A judge should have been the only one to find this guy guilty or not guilty as they are educated in the law and experienced in examining evidence. I don't know about you, but twelve people randomly picked from the public are not my peers. Basically, my opinion is that the police totally screwed up this case. No DNA tests on the blood under the girls fingernail, REALLY??.
    However, the Jennings guy had some nerve dressing down that girls parents in court and it should not have been allowed. The police and the judicial system yes, the family no. No one will ever know what happened and exactly who did it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that it is not a fair selection of peers, but judges are too political to trust. They can be easily bought off. But the "justice system" failed Michelle, Sgt. Jennings, Michelle's family, and the saddest people of all, the victims who have suffered at the hands of Michelle;s real killer!! AND THERE HAS BEEN MORE VICTIMS!!

      Delete
  70. First of all, murder cases have no statutes based on time. Why did the prosecution push the case forward? They may have feared the lawsuit which could lead to investigations and a very handsome payout. But they could withdrawal the trial at any time giving them more time on the prosecution. The only physical evidence is the blood drop under the fingernail of Michelle. My question is how big is the parking lot? One guard for a huge parking lot is more of a deterrent and being unarmed not a real threat. Also it is not unheard of that vets have trouble with their memory. They can remember some things and not others. Not saying he's innocent or guilty. I know because i am a veteran. Also being trained to kill, why was the first shot to the chest and not the head if you were at point blank range. Lighting and shadows can have an effect on judging distance. How did he not get blood splatter or gsr on him nor his clothes? He did add attention to himself but a lot of vets get confused and sometimes they insert themselves into stuff because they feel needed. More like a hero syndrome. Hard case, a lot of unanswered questions. I would have liked to seen more evidence. It is an incomplete case because of the blood. Circumstantial evidence I don't think was enough because it leaves too many theories and speculations. Like the FBI profiler's theorey but some things are unavoidable if unprepared. If you are wrong you didn't just ruin raymond's life but his wife's and kids. Keeping an open mind. Maybe security cameras would have been a big help since you have one unarmed security guard patrolling a decent size parking lot. Don't make yourself an easy target, evil lurks all around. I wish she would have asked her friend to stay while she dressed. Not defending or slamming just asking questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are so right. He HEARD the shots and SPECULATED TRYING TO HELP. He is as INNOCENT OF THIS CRIME AS EACH ONE OF US POSTING ON IT. It is the saddest thing I have ever witnessed. He is a good man who was serving his country, taking care of his wife and 5 children, and following the law like every other law abiding citizen. Not only is he losing the precious years his children are growing, but THEY are losing the MOST important years with a father who loves them.

      Delete
  71. I'll give credit to dateline for giving this case a lot of exposure. But people, the show was totally gearing against Jennings. Do you think Michelle's parents would have agreed to do the show if it wasn't? How many people from the defense or even ray did they interview? NONE. I don't believe he did it. The whole case is based on people's memories which most people's are not photographic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So glad I am not the only one who realizes this.

      Delete
  72. "Whoever created this site is an IGNORANT IDIOT!!"

    Screw yourself - you're the ignorant idiot. You are a friend or family member, as are most of the over-passionate loudmouth commentators here...

    ReplyDelete
  73. I read all these posts and replies and saw the dateline show. I just want to say that our advancements in forensic technology act as both a blessing and a curse. many people now believe there must be hard evidence to convict. while we are instructed by law not to allow our emotions to play a role in our vverdict, I feel that we must still use logic, common sense and our understanding of. human nature in our decision.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I knew Raymond Jennings and I hope he did not does this horrible murder. Raymond was the type of person that could know only 5% of a situation, but by the time he finished embellishing he would know 95% of what happened. My problem is whose DNA was under the fingernails of Michelle? Raymond would not have been smart enough to not leave any evidence behind. Another thing; was the cops going on a tip to solve this case from a PSYCHIC of all things?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I have read all the posts here. The wild speculation offered by numerous people scares the hell our of me. If this is the reasoning that jurors use to reach a verdict it is no wonder so many guilty verdicts are rendered in the absence of quantifiable proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We also fail to convict when mountains of evidence exist. It cuts both ways and may come down to presentation and theatrics by the attorneys. I do believe that both sides seek a dumbed down jury as often as possible because lawyers have big egos and think they have a better chance if the juror is more susceptible to their presentation. I wasn't at the trial but Dateline failed to answer so many questions that I have about this case, especially after a two hour episode.

    One thing I know is that no matter who you are, no matter what the situation, you have the right to remain silent for a reason. I don't talk to cops, ever, about anything. These shows always suggest that a person who lawyers up or doesn't talk to cops has something to hide - I call it being smart.

    Why do you think the Miranda warning clearly states "Anything you say can and will be used against you"?

    Don't talk to cops, ever, about anything. It is your right and if Jennings hadn't talked, he would be a free man today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are 100% correct; never talk to the police. If they pull you over and ask you to do something, politely request if it is an order (chances are it might not be). If it's not an order, say, "I'd prefer not to." Protect yourself but BE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL. Asl if you may leave now, because chances are they will say yes. A lot of what cops do is based on their ability to psyche you out. With them hammering confessions out of innocent people and all these cases reopened over DNA, man you gotta be careful....VOR, check out my blog, I stopped writing on this one years ago, really....http://cosa-nostra-news.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  76. A fascinating case with so many questions.

    To this I add my own:

    The victim told her family that
    she would not have long to live.

    Why would she say such a thing,
    seemingly out of the blue?

    Did she really foresee her looming death?

    Or was she involved in something that
    she knew would be the end of her?

    Look to the phone...





    ReplyDelete
  77. Meh.
    Michelle was my friend's cousin. I met her a few times.
    I grew up in that crappy area near the park and ride. Everyone knows that it is unsafe, especially at night. She would have been better off changing at AVC. ( not blaming the victim though. It's extremely tragic). This event shook the Antelope Valley. Such a senseless crime.

    Side fact: many people Michelle and I went to college with thought it had something to do with drugs since she supposedly used pretty often and owed people money for them.
    I wonder why that scenerio was not mentioned.

    Also, palmdale is not considered Northern California. It's the high desert. Major difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Side fact: many people Michelle and I went to college with thought it had something to do with drugs since she supposedly used pretty often and owed people money for them.
      I wonder why that scenerio was not mentioned."

      You did see the famliy on the show, didn't you? Well there you have it.

      Just saw the dateline show for the first time, hideous biased journalism, horrible failing of the justice system,
      Raymond Jennings must get free!

      Delete
  78. I can't say for sure Jennings was innocent but he was in no way proven guilty

    ReplyDelete
  79. Just watched the program Dateline.
    The fact is quite simple. If you can't convict quickly after three trials there is obviously an element of doubt. There is no evidence that Jennings is a danger to the community. Sometimes even if your gut says guilty you have to bite the bullet (no pun) and accept there is doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I can't believe they convicted this guy on the evidence presented. Hopefully someday this guy will get out free. I know the family lost their beloved daughter, but they need to open up their minds on this. Convicting an innocent man is not going to bring justice to their daughter. If their daughter is looking down from heaven right now, she is probably going crazy.

    This was definitely an apparent car-jacking, robbery, or sexual assault attempt by a person on foot. Knew a girl once who was shot and killed during a robbery simply because she struggled. There is no way in hell you can say that she rolled down her window only to an authority figure. You will never know what you will do in a situation like this until it happens to you. You don't have time to think.

    ReplyDelete
  81. So what this proves is that IF you are asked by the Police to come down to the station- DON'T GO, unless they tell you that you are under arrest. It is voluntary whether you go or not. You do not have to go. Also, do not volunteer any information - don't try to be the hero. And Get an Attorney to represent your interests. Please remember, IF the police ask you to go to the station to talk..ask if you are under arrest. if You aren't - don't go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good advice! Too much corruption and rushes to pin a murder on whoever is conveniently there.

      Delete
  82. I just watched the two hour Dateline episode and I still don't know either. The anguish of her parents is apparent though. I did read that Sylvia Brown was a fraud. I thought it was interesting that Michelle's dad asked her if the killer was wearing a uniform (not something like 'What was he wearing?') and she immediately said 'Yes'.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Rest in peace, Michelle

    ReplyDelete
  84. I believe this man killed this girl. He knew WAY too much about what happened. It's not rocket science by no means. That POS is where he belongs!!

    ReplyDelete
  85. idiot never should've spoken in the first place. Second place, around 40 minutes in, he shows his guilt. I will start filming the minutes I am talking about it and post it. Haven't seen episode in years; I am even more certain he's guilty than I was when I first wrote this, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  86. First, the loss of this young lady is tragic. To the family, I am so sorry for your loss and pain. We cannot understand why God takes young angels. Unfortunately, I sadly believe that there are other victims in the Jennings family too-five children without a dad. There are so many questions. If assault was the motive, why would a strong military man not overpower her physically? Why use a gun vs. other physical means which would draw less attention? Men who are sexually driven generally don't shoot their victims without any assault. Why would a girl so responsible as she was-not be back earlier or was she going to meet someone? Why did she and Jennifer not ride together from their house vs. a park and ride? Why is her phone missing? Even without it, you can track who she called-why didn't they? Why would her door be open if she were changing? Why would her friend not wait, especially when she reparked? No one I know would leave a friend in a dark parking lot to change alone. Was there a man with VIctoria who attacked Michelle but left when she hit the car alarm, and was gone before police arrived? She likely sounded alarm off to get security attention not because security was harming her. I can answer a few questions. When Jennings heard the shots, he did what anyone without a weapon would do-he took cover, but his response -fueled by his military experience -would be more exaggerated, rendering him unable to respond. The mud was likely on pants from cowaring in fear. He then called for help (why do this if you just murdered someone?). Not wanting to admit he was rendered frozen and unable to respond, he repeats what he knows from having seen other deaths. He states what he knows about gunshots to save face, and gets it right. It doesn't take much in the army to note trajectory angle or to realize that close shot to chest would be the killing shot. He would also know what a 9mm bullet looks like. I do think he saw nothing because a lot of people with post combat would instinctively take cover if unarmed vs. Staying with the situation. Look to the women in this situation-Victoria and Jennifer- for your answers. Finally, no one on that jury would have been able to stay in that area without continuous scrutiny due to michelle`s family`s pull if he wasn't found guilty. I am all in favor of Justice, but not at the expense of the innocent. Michelle, being the religious girl she was, would want the right person being held accountable too, not some guard who happen to be an easy target. Oh, and his boss used him as a scapegoat too when she skipped out to avoid a civil suit for providing inadequate means to keep the lot safe, which she clearly defaulted on! Again, this is not meant to minimize Michelle`s tragedy, but to avoid two of them.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Well, this is serious shit! I don't see where anyone can say 100% that he is guilty. What evidence they did find did not point to Jennings. ( The DNA under Michelle's nails.) I also can't say 100% that he is innocent. I do know this, if I approached a woman thinking she was a prostitute and it turned out she wasn't I wouldn't kill her. A lame thing for prosecuters to hang their case on. I also know this, I am a father, like Jennings. He didn't admit to anything in court, or ask for forgiveness (when Michelle's brother asked him to) because as a father he would never want his kids to know what he had done. If he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I just watched the dateline episode. I feel jilted as a viewer as so many crucial questions went unanswered. I understand the family wants someone to pay for the crime, but something tells me the guard was just a very aloof, arrogant guy who might not have been paying attention to his job and was panicked talking to cops? So my questions are, if he is an unarmed guard, and it is not premeditated, where did he get the gun? And he has about 6 minutes after shooting four shots at point blank rnge to get rid of a gun, gloves since there was no gun residue, and have no trace of dna on you? No way. And her friend isnt questioned when she just drops her offand has more time and a vehicle to get rid of evidence? I thought the guy was a pompous ass but I really want to understand how this poor girl could be shot point blank and the killer has no dna on him, no gun was found? What about a theory of a fellow concert extra followed the girls and tried to assault michelle, shot her and drove off? I dunno, just bothers me that these questions are not answered.

    ReplyDelete
  89. NO WAY! There but for the grace of God there go we all. Many young men will brag and talk, this is not a reason to convict someone. Either way the dateline episode was horrendous and I don't think I can watch it again. Where was the gun? Who were these two girls? Was there a toxicology report? She was 18 but had a nice car and was in a Kid Rock video- good for her but my point is this is not a nerdy kid sitting at home- who knows who she met and where. This is horrendous and why the DP cannot exist. I bet most who feel Jennings is guilty would vote for the DP too.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ed - are you using the Dateline episode to gather your evidence to support your certainty? I really hope not. Its a TV show you know and horrendously biased.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Victoria Richardson, and 3 friends were, along with Jennings, in the parking lot at the time of the murder, parked around 120 ft from Michelle's vehicle, listening to music. Richardson has claimed affiliation with the Bloods and is currently serving a life sentence for possession of almost $1,000,000 worth of cocaine, and she was proven to be hanging out in a darkened parking lot at 9:30 at night at the time of a murder."

    If this is true I am HORRIFIED - I already thought he should not have been convicted because he was cocky and described his theories. That is a common thing young men do that want to bond with other men. There is a post on here that describes Jennings as an embellisher. To me, he was just taking and if the above info is correct- Victoria Richardson is a gang banger doing life and she was there at 9.30pm- COME ON SHEEPLE. (or ED)

    ReplyDelete
  92. The way I see it, there is doubt and there are unanswered questions. Where these things exist, one cannot, as instructed by the court, convict. I am not going to say that Jennings is innocent because I don't think that was proven just as I do not think his guilt was proven. I want to look into the case outside of what Dateline aired, but it sounds like the police botched the investigation or there literally was no physical evidence connecting Jennings to the crime (was there blood/gunshot residue on his uniform? where was the weapon disposed of between the time he allegedly shot her and the time the police arrived? were his fingerprints/DNA found anywhere on the vehicle or on Michelle? were his vehicle and person searched before he was permitted to leave?, etc...). The lack of a weapon I think is one of the biggest hurdles. If Jennings did it either he would have had the weapon on his person or in his vehicle or it would have been tossed in the immediate area, which I assume was searched. I feel as though his statements to the police could be seen a few different ways: 1. he's the killer and was making moronic statements because he was proud/thought he would never get caught/is mentally impaired or 2. he was trying to play detective and show the police how smart he is and it backed fired majorly. Either way, more investigating on my part because I'm sure Dateline didn't show everything (I mean, how could they in the span of a tv show).

    ReplyDelete
  93. The man did all he could to prove he killed her. He knew the order of the shots and he watched her die. If he is going to admit killing her then they did not need further evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Theres no way this guy killed her....everyone knows criminals will take every opportunity to point the cops in a direction away from themselves...This gal was in the wrong place at the wrong time..that van she was parked nexted to ...hello..the worst spot she could of parked...the killer was probably in that van..and I really think she was mistaken for the girl who owed money for drugs and was killed for it...she was murdered execution style..there is no evidence whats so ever this guy did it and absolutely no motive..just caus hes not a polished speaker doesn't make him a murderer..don't take things out of context..he was smiling cause it was a joke what was being done..this was a witch hunt...no gun power, no weapon..no nothing and the cops showed up pretty quick... the bullets were meant for someone else... come on people..does it really make you feel good to have someone in prison, even if they are not the killer...the real killer is still out there..and by the time it went to Silvia the physic..it was already in the papers..I am physic too..this guy is innocent..

    ReplyDelete
  95. I think Jennings is 100% innocent and I've read everything I could about this case (every contention from either side) after initially seeing On The Case. Julie does a nice job of summing up how ludicrous the case against Jennings is.

    Couple things to consider here:

    This Brian Kellogg that's seems to be constantly mentioned by AV locals as potentially being responsible has likely been arrested for a felony ( I saw a most wanted page on him with his pic from 2011) and given his DNA uploaded in CODIS...unless there's a backlog and it's not in there yet. Would be interesting to see if it's a match with the blood under her nails or if there's a match with another state felon? I wonder if they've even checked after the fact and would they even be incentivized to check as there would be significant recourse to the investigators and city (prosecutors are virtually immune unless it's a Brady situation)

    I'm sorry, but aside from some of his comments, which have been taken out of context and out of timeline looking back retroactively for those who didn't follow the case closely, there's nothing to convict this guy? What scenario taken with the totality of evidence is rational here? You have blood under her nails that don't match Jennings, no record of him owning a 9mm and how would this guy with no criminal record decide to murder this poor girl on his second day on job (couldn't have been very familiar with surroundings) in such a short window of time with no evidence (weapon, blood splatters, logical motive etc..) It's not logical and everything taken in totality is consistent with her being targeted by someone preemptively (don't want to speculate if it was drug debts or what have you).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Warren Kellogg is a career long criminal.

      Dateline aired a special involving his sister Jennifer Anne Kellogg who had a role in a brutal murder in the Antelope Valley; she’s in the episode "Mean Girls" originally aired 11/12/10, while "The Girl With The Blue Mustang" originally aired 4/30/2010

      Go figure



      Delete
  96. I also suspect that O'Keefe's father holds Jennings responsible regardless for being security and perceiving that even if he didn't do it, he did nothing to protect his daughter and deserves to be held accountable. Couple that with investigators over the yrs focusing on him and believing him guilty (headscratcher for me) and the dialogue and strategy that must've taken place over that decade to get him successfully convicted between all parties....I think logic got lost somewhere.
    I also wonder why no one ever came forward when rewards were out showing evidence that Jennings possessed a 9mm that wasn't accounted for? If he possessed one, I'm sure more then one party knew about it.
    I previously mentioned checking the blood under her nails with CODIS to see if they could get a DNA match successfully from a documented prior (now 14 yrs later) felon but I really think the parties responsible for convicting Jennings would have every incentive for that never to happen as think of the cost previously incurred to the county and the potential costs in a recourse lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment.

    I'm no defense attorney but they should've figured out that the best way to show this man's innocence was to do what the prosecution ended doing from the PI with the powerpoint.

    You'd have to believe this Sgt with no prior record and everything to lose (wife, 5 kids etc...) possessed and brought a weapon he has no record of owning (still unaccounted for) to his second day on the job, made the decision to execute Michelle for whatever reason in minutes and successfully leave zero traceable physical evidence from the weapon to forensic/biological, then follow all appropriate procedures (as I would expect a military veteran would w chain of command) of contacting his supervisor and acting/playing this off (is he a sociopath? doesnt seem like it) in such a short amount of time (that's the key imo). It's just crazy? No weapon, no cellphone, so little time, no motive without stretching imagination with a laughable "rejection" theory on and on.....oh and she picked up the blood under her nails from an unknown male possibly at the video concert that night? Come on

    Then you have many locals who have suggested a potentially strong suspect, you have the only other witness (who never testified she saw Jennings fire) in jail for life on substantial drug charges. Someone else also suggested that she had a "blue" mustang with 187 in a series on her plate? Random gang violence? Is that not a strong possibility here?

    I can understand that without another strong suspect some believing in his guilt because they are turned off by Mr. Jennings comments (taken out of context from various interviews over a long period) and perceived narcissism with investigators but if there ever was a case with strong reasonable doubt (at minimum) this one is it

    ReplyDelete
  97. I ask again: how did he know the order of shots? I believe he was subconsciously asserting his guilt. The police spent years following leads. No one collecting the reward kinda confirms his guilt; no one saw him do it -- if anyone else had done it chances are someone would've heard something....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or feared for their life, knowing the real perp, not to say anything and that was prioritized over the reward money possibly?

      As far as knowing the order of the shots (I need to reread the circumstances of Jennings comments on this) I've guessed many things in order in my life when it's 2 to 4 or 5 things in a sequence and I'm sure I'm not alone. That's something that's admittedly a little intriguing (banking on subsconscious guilt) and a coincidence, not discounting it. I'm just not seeing a scenario here that makes sense, with regards to logic, capability, timing and opportunity for Sgt Jennings to be guilty of this murder.

      Case in point, if another suspect was arrested and confessed tomorrow would you really and honestly be that shocked and stunned he was innocent all along considering how circumstantial this case was?

      Delete
    2. You act like the unintentional revealing of guilt is this weird phenomenon, like telepathy and UFOs. Veteran detectives know this stuff like their right hand. Why interrogate people in a stationhouse , why interview them face to face? Most killers don't come out and state their guilt but show it in other ways. Usually they sweat, are nervous, start saying the wrong thing, etc. This guy just had a unique tell.

      Delete