Exposing the Lies of the Prosecution
George D. Loeb Jr. was convicted of murder in 1991 following a shooting incident in which he killed a black man, Mansfield, in self-defense. The trial jury never saw crucial witness statements that could have exonerated Loeb, due to the ineptitude and potential intentional misconduct of his legal counsel. These statements, had they been presented, would have likely resulted in a not-guilty verdict, as they consistently described the incident as an act of lawful self-defense.
The inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly regarding the origin of the brick used in the attack, were exploited by the police and prosecutors. Initially, Stephen Rutledge, a key witness, provided a vague account of where the brick came from. Later statements and media reports offered different narratives, suggesting that the brick was either picked up from the ground or taken from Mansfield's car. These inconsistencies were used to convince Rutledge to change his story, implicating Loeb in a murder rather than a self-defense incident.
The legal concept of "felony murder" in Florida played a significant role in the case. This law states that an accomplice can be convicted of murder if their partner is killed during the commission of a felony. It is alleged that Rutledge was informed about this law and, fearing his own prosecution, agreed to lie about the events. This constitutes subornation of perjury, where someone is induced to give false testimony.
Sgt. James P. Kelly, the detective on the case, is implicated in manipulating the evidence and witness statements. Despite driving through the grocery store parking lot frequently and even shopping there, Kelly claimed he had never seen a brick before and had not questioned Rutledge further about the origin of the brick. His actions, or lack thereof, were crucial in building a case against Loeb. It is suggested that higher-ups, including the prosecutor Harry Shorstein, who was running for office, made the decision to prosecute an innocent white man with a "racialist background" rather than a guilty black man serving in the US Navy.
Civilians, including Loeb's wife Barbara and his legal team, easily found evidence that the police claimed not to have discovered. This includes a pallet of bricks, similar to the one used in the attack, located at the home shared by Mansfield and Rutledge. The discrepancy between what civilians found and what the police allegedly did not discover raises questions about the competence and honesty of the investigating officers.
George D. Loeb Jr. was convicted of murder in 1991 following a shooting incident in which he killed a black man, Mansfield, in self-defense. The trial jury never saw crucial witness statements that could have exonerated Loeb, due to the ineptitude and potential intentional misconduct of his legal counsel. These statements, had they been presented, would have likely resulted in a not-guilty verdict, as they consistently described the incident as an act of lawful self-defense.
The inconsistencies in witness statements, particularly regarding the origin of the brick used in the attack, were exploited by the police and prosecutors. Initially, Stephen Rutledge, a key witness, provided a vague account of where the brick came from. Later statements and media reports offered different narratives, suggesting that the brick was either picked up from the ground or taken from Mansfield's car. These inconsistencies were used to convince Rutledge to change his story, implicating Loeb in a murder rather than a self-defense incident.
The legal concept of "felony murder" in Florida played a significant role in the case. This law states that an accomplice can be convicted of murder if their partner is killed during the commission of a felony. It is alleged that Rutledge was informed about this law and, fearing his own prosecution, agreed to lie about the events. This constitutes subornation of perjury, where someone is induced to give false testimony.
Sgt. James P. Kelly, the detective on the case, is implicated in manipulating the evidence and witness statements. Despite driving through the grocery store parking lot frequently and even shopping there, Kelly claimed he had never seen a brick before and had not questioned Rutledge further about the origin of the brick. His actions, or lack thereof, were crucial in building a case against Loeb. It is suggested that higher-ups, including the prosecutor Harry Shorstein, who was running for office, made the decision to prosecute an innocent white man with a "racialist background" rather than a guilty black man serving in the US Navy.
Civilians, including Loeb's wife Barbara and his legal team, easily found evidence that the police claimed not to have discovered. This includes a pallet of bricks, similar to the one used in the attack, located at the home shared by Mansfield and Rutledge. The discrepancy between what civilians found and what the police allegedly did not discover raises questions about the competence and honesty of the investigating officers.



