Customer Reviews

Who Killed Stephanie Crowe: Anatomy of a Murder Investigation

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

What Detectives Claytor, Wrisley and McDonough did to a 14-year-old child was absolutely horrid and evil. I wonder if they regret or have the intelligence to realize what they did was sick and pathetic -- grown professional (not!) men mentally torturing an innocent child. I hope they never work in law enforcement again. DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK -- IT IS GARBAGE! A better book to read is "Shattered Justice" by John Philpin.

This book, written by Paul Tracy, "in collaboration" with chris mcdonough and r. clayton, the detectives who interviewed michael crowe and the other two boys, left me with the impression that the book's true purpose was to justify the actions of the detectives.

In the book, author and criminologist paul tracy concluded that the evidence suggested that the boys were more likely to have committed the murder (a hardly surprising conclusion considering his collaborators). I don't quite understand how Tracy reaches that conclusion when he knows that Richard Tuite, a transient who was a sex offender and convicted felon for breaking and entering, was seen trying to break into homes in the neighborhood (as reflected by 911 calls from Crowe neighbors frightened by Tuite in the hours before the stabbing), was seen in front of the Crowe home, and had the victim's blood on his sweatshirt. I don't understand how he is less likely to have committed that murder. How does Paul Tracy reach this conclusion?

The truth of the matter is these detectives stepped over the line when they questioned 14-year old Michael Crowe without his parents' knowledge and without an attorney present. I know the police are allowed to lie during interrogations but they clearly over-reached and coerced in this instance. The saddest part of the story is the refusal of the detectives to admit that they could have made a mistake. They almost sent three innocent boys to the slammer because they were wrong, but they refuse to admit it. These guys should get a conscience.

There is nothing in the book that wasn't reported or can't be found by doing some simple research on the case. That, along with the bias, made it very easy for me to give this book one star.

I have lived in Escondido my entire life and our entire community lived through this horrible case. According to what Det. Craytor said at the time this book was written, he is supposed to get 20% of sales after the cost of self printing. This is a cop out of control, who tortured three boys and ignored real evidence until others had to finally catch and convict the real killer - now serving his time (Tuite). Ralph Craytor "retired" after this case and moved out of state. And even in another unrelated case, another family sued and won $750,000 settlement against the Escondido Police Department because of Claytor's bad policing. We are glad he moved out of state. Don't buy the book and give them any more money than our taxes are paying his retirement fund - he doesn't deserve it! Plus, this book leaves out some major facts in the case...don't contribute to the tragedy.

It has been several years since the January 20, 1998 murder of Stephanie Crowe in Escondido, California and people are still treating it like a murder "mystery", even though Richard Tuite is presently on trial. Let me tell you something. I have been following this case on the Internet and on CourtTV almost from the very beginning. I have studied just about everything there is to know about the art of police interrogation techniques. I am also a man of science. And I can tell you without hesitation, that there is no forensic possibility that those three boys (Michael Crowe, Joshua Treadway, and Aaron Houser) were involved in this murder. I reach my conclusion for the following reasons:
1) There was no blood on any of their clothes - It is forensically impossible not to get blood spatter on your clothes after stabbing somebody (not that I would know from experience). And even if you buy into the idea that those three boys cleaned up their blood-soaked clothes, there are sophisticated forensic tests that can at least determine if blood has been on an article of clothing even if it cannot be tested. No such evidence has come about. Therefore, we can take it with a grain of salt that these three boys were not near Stephanie when she was stabbed.
2) The implausibility of the confessions - Michael never implicated Joshua or Aaron, but rather claimed that he killed Stephanie during a blackout (which was raised by the detectives). Joshua said that the murder took place well after midnight, even though the medical examiner concluded that her death had occurred no later than midnight. Joshua also said that he walked several miles from his house to Aaron's house and then to Michael's house and back in the middle of the night. That's an awful lot of walking for somebody who is not even an athlete. And then Joshua says he woke up around 7 a.m. and went to school and aced a final exam. I don't think so, people don't murder other people and then go to school as if nothing ever happened. Aaron said that he would have slashed Stephanie's throat and stabbed her in the chest even though the wounds on Stephanie's body were on her back and no neck wound was found.
3) The "so called" murder weapon - The Best Defense, claimed to be the murder weapon used by the three boys didn't have a long enough blade to make some of the deep cuts on Stephanie's body. That means that a longer knife had to have been used. Furthermore, what evidence did the police have to prove not only that the Best Defense knife was the murder weapon, but also whether or not it was taken from Aaron Houser's room by Joshua as he said during the beginning of his interrogation? How can they prove that Joshua was lying about that part?
4) The alibis of the three boys - Joshua and Aaron's family both acknowledged that it would very difficult for their sons to just slip out of the house undetected and then manage to creep back in without waking them up. Trust me...nobody is that sleepy not to hear a family member walking in late at night.
5) The DNA evidence against Tuite - There is no question that the blood of Stephanie Crowe, and only Stephanie Crowe, was found on Richard Tuite's clothing and that it was not smeared. Thus, it had to have gotten on his clothing by force, such as what happens when you stab somebody.
Even if you buy into the theory that Richard Tuite is to mentally unstable to commit a crime, how do you explain his prior crimes and the fact that he had spent years living as a transient. I'm sure he must have had his lucid moments.
Well, that pretty much sums it up. If you want to read a "science"fiction novel, you should check out this book. However, if you are like me and want to know the truth, I highly recommend the movie "The Interrogation of Michael Crowe".

This book was nothing you couldn't have found and read in a newspaper from when this murder happened...This book sucked just like professor Tracy sucks!

First off...if you followed the case closely, you would know that the blood on Tuite's shirt got there because during the evidence processing, a new sheet of butcher paper was not removed and Tuite's shirt was laid on top of it, which caused the transfer of blood. Second, if he had killed Stephanie, the blood would not have just been at the elbow of the shirt, it would have been in certain patterns. Third, very very rarely do innocent kids admit to a crime they have not committed. It's a shame that three murderers are walking free while an innocent man takes the fall.

Hmm, that somebody sounds like a particular disgruntled student from my class... Don't let some biased person discourage you from buying this book. If you are open-minded about considering all the facets of the case, this book is for you. The book goes step by step as to the profile of a person(s)who committed the crime, motive, suspects, and reasons why certain persons were or were not convicted. The book deals closely with how apparently guilty people can commit a crime yet not be found guilty in the American justice system (...sounds like Due Process). As unlikely as some people think it is that a juvenile can walk a few miles at night, commit a murder, and then do well on a test the next morning, I find it even harder to beleive that the murder weapon could be found in his home and he have no correlation to the crime (maybe the tooth fairy left it). Hmmm, how unlikely is that now? And for those who know the author Dr. Tracy- he is an awesome professor, challenging students to consider the depth of what may otherwise seem shallow concepts. This is also apparent in his book.