February 29, 2011

After careful review of Homicide File #99-163 and the resulting transcripts of the criminal trial versus Justly Johnson in which Mr. Johnson was found guilty of murder, several questions were left unanswered which I feel might have impacted this investigation with different results regarding Mr. Johnson's future. As a retired Detroit Police Officer and former Homicide Investigator with the Detroit Police Department I examined the documents provided to me and came to the below conclusions. It must be noted that my conclusions were based only on the documents provided to me and in no way meant to offend or embarrass the investigative efforts of the investigators originally conducting this investigation into the murder of Lisa Kindred that occurred on May 9th, 1999. No physical interviews or scene investigation were conducted by myself.

The facts of the case are this; Lisa Kindred, a white female thirty-five years of age, was parked in front of 4470 Bewick in a 99' Plymouth Voyager van with her three children. Her husband, a William Kindred, black male twenty-six years old, was inside the residence of a Verlin Miller, brother-in-law of Mr. Kindred discussing the sale of a motorcycle. Mr. Kindred spent a lengthy amount of time inside the residence which prompted Lisa Kindred to exit her vehicle several times and go to the door of the residence to inquire when her husband was ready to leave. Lisa Kindred returned to her vehicle where subsequently a person or persons approached and fired one (l) .22 round into the drivers window striking Lisa Kindred in the chest. At this point Lisa Kindred drove her vehicle away from the scene and came to rest at a Marathon service station where she collapsed from her fatal

wound. These are the facts of the case and where the investigation . into her murder begins.

1. My first suspicion into the case rests with William Kindred.

Nowhere in the documents provided to me is a criminal case history background of Mr. Kindred. After reading his statement to police several "flags" went up in my mind. He states he didn't hear a gunshot but chased a person through the neighborhood that he clearly can't even ID the sex, race, or physical description of that person. And why is he chasing them in the first place? He observes no weapon in this persons hands. Where was his concern for his wife and three children who had sped away from the scene? Mr. Kindred's relationship with his wife was a rocky one. From 1995 to the time of the murder of his wife, the Roseville Police Department had responded seventeen (1 7) times to the Kindred residence on domestic violence calls, child abuse, and other related issues. Clearly this indicates a further investigation into Mr. Kindred as a possible suspect. The late night meeting with his brother-in-law unannounced is another "flag". It should also be noted that an insurance claim was paid out to Mr. Kindred thirtythree (33) days after his wife's murder. Sergeant Kathy Adams, the Ole (officer in charge), absolved Mr. Kindred's involvement with his wife's murder. Based on what? The initial statement? There appears to of been no further investigation into the possibility of Mr. Kindred, especially knowing that this is Mr. Kindred's old neighborhood where he still has family, and most importantly, knows the two defendants convicted of this crime. This avenue was never explored. Also, no inquiry of any weapons owned by Mr. Kindred were investigated. On February 7th, 1998, the Roseville Police confiscated a .22 rifle from Mr. Kindred's residence in relation to a domestic violence call. Lisa Kindred was killed with a .22 cal. Bullet. Any "flags" here? This was never explored. Mr. Kindred was never asked several key questions which might have exonerated him. Also of note is that the victim's sister, Jody Gonterman, a detective with the Albuquerque, New Mexico Police, stated her sister Lisa told her if anything

happened to her to suspect her husband as being responsible. Many questions remain regarding Mr. Kindred's involvement with his wife's murder.

2. Convicted defendant #2 in this case is Kendrick Scott, a black male twenty years old at the time of this event. His actions that night as recorded by several witness statements reflect his intention of diverting attention to himself by claiming to have seen two males going down the street with rifles. His girlfriend looks out her window and observes two males but with no weapons in hand. It appears Mr. Scott is attempting to divert attention away from himself because he repeated these actions with other witnesses. I affirm a strong investigation into Mr. Scott and his actions that night, but when taken into custody shortly thereafter the murder, a standard gunshot residue test was never performed on Mr. Scott's hands to determine if he fired a weapon, nor a GSRT on his clothing or hair. (Suspects familiar with investigative technique's are aware of this and may change clothing, wash their hands, etc., but most times do not wash their hair where gunshot particles remain for some time). There is no record in the file or mention of this at trial. Why was this not done? Also, on June 5th, 1999, Mr. Scott requests a meeting with the Homicide detectives with his attorney present while locked up at the Wayne County Jail to give information on the shooter in this case. No record exists that any such meeting took place. Why?

3. In the initial Homicide team-assigned report prepared by Sergeant John Falk on May 9, 1999, he states this is a "straight up carj acking". Based on what? I see nothing in this initial investigation to suggest this, nor does Sgt. Falk give any reasons for this assertion.

4. Anthony Raby.jncarcerated at the time in theMDOC, Inmate#646575, is the brother of William Kindred. This person

sent a letter to Justly Johnson on September 24th, 2007. Why? What's the connection here?

5. Witnesses Raymond Jackson, B/M/22 and Antonio Burnette, a B/M/14 (at the time of this event), are the only witnesses that give testimony in this case that convicts defendant Johnson and Scott. From the statements given to police and testimony at the preliminary exam and trial, I don't understand why with all the inconsistencies and contradictions that detectives based their case solely on these two witnesses accounts. Neither witness observed the shooting nor has either witness ever observed these defendants with a weapon. No CCH is located in the file on these two individuals to at least gain some insight to their credibility. Of note, both of these witnesses have recanted their statements admitting lying under oath during the trial proceedings.

6. Convicted defendant Justly Johnson, black male twenty-five years old at the time of this event. According to alibi witnesses, Mr. Johnson's cooperation with the police and no eyewitnesses or physical evidence to link Mr. Johnson to this crime, his conviction based on the two witnesses mentioned above, is appalling.

I believe based on the records and information I have that a thorough investigation was not conducted. There are too many holes and questions unanswered. Even further incredible is that a criminal trial resulted in the conviction of Justly Johnson. Police have an obligation to investigate and bring forth perpetrators responsible, however in this case, I believe further investigation was warranted but did not occur. Injustices in the criminal system do occur but can be prevented or kept to a minimum by exploring all avenues wherever the investigation takes them to prevent the wrongful conviction and incarceration of our citizens.



Michael Carlisle D .P~D. (Ret.)

/' .


AS OF MAY 30 '00 17:48 PAGE.01


12 05/30 17: 48 99537554


EC--S'00' 33" 001 071 OK

Facsimile Transmittal

DATE: s::- ~(!J - trD





TEL; 31S-224-Sm

FA);,: 313-224-0974

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful