True Crime All The Time - Ronald Ward

Episode Date: December 6, 2021

Ronald Ward was convicted of committing a triple homicide in West Memphis, Arkansas when he was just 15 years old. When confronted by police, Ronald admitted being in the home but said he wasn't involved in the murders. He told police that an older man had forced him into the house at knifepoint. Ronald's fingerprints were found at the scene but so were others that were never identified.Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss the murders committed by Ronald Ward. An all-white jury convicted Ronald at his first trial despite the objections of his counsel. His defense lost a number of motions to either suppress or introduce evidence they felt was favorable to Ronald. There are many people who feel that Ronald was not guilty of the murders, but, two different juries found him guilty.You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital productionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello everyone and welcome to episode 262 of the True Crime All of the Time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And with me as always is my partner in True Crime. Mike Gibson, Gibby. How are you? Hey, man, I'm doing good. How about yourself? I'm doing really well.

Good. You and I just finished up our weekly Patreon video. We did. We talked a little Warren Buffett, a little Dave Chappelle. They're all over the place. Some true crime news. Yeah. A little bit of everything.

Yeah. So before we get started, let's go ahead and give our shout out. Okay. We had Heather Moore. Hey, Heather. Jillian Piper. What's going on, Piper? Peggy O'Neill jumped out at our highest level.

Peggy, how are you doing? Sounds like that married with children was in her name? Peggy O'Neill or Peggy. No, Peggy. Just Peggy. No. Ed O'Neill was the guy that played her. I think you're putting the two together.

I am. I'm merging. Her show name and his real last name. Right. Yeah. There you go. Lori Preyhar jumped out to our highest level. What's going on?

Preyhar. Raygars. Hey, Raygars. Kimberly Lighthouse. Hey, thanks, Kimberly. Peter Cormacken jumped out at our highest level. Sounds like a famous name. It does, doesn't it?

Yeah. Sandra Harrington. Hey, Sandra. Gibby's cousin Wolf. What's going on, Wolf? Lexi jumped out at our highest level. Thanks, Lexi. Misty Omernick jumped out at our highest level.

Man, look at that. Omernick. Yep, we had Cat Wynn. Hey, Cat. Tabitha Acres. I appreciate that, Tabitha. And last but not least, Bonnie Dudley. Well, thank you, Bonnie.

So we appreciate all the new Patreon support. And then if we go back into the vault, Gibbs, this week we selected Ivory Cople. Hey, thanks, ivory. Yeah, so we appreciate all that long-term support very much as well. For PayPal, we had donations from Tessie Redding. Hey, Tessie. Lauren Porter.

Thank you, Lauren. And Hugh Janice. Well, thank you, Janice from the Janus fun. Which sounds like Hugh Janus, if you say fast enough. Is that what you were thinking? thinking, well, that's what it is. Yeah. I doubt this person's real name is Hugh Janus. Boy, boy, what if it is? Well, maybe. But that's one of those names you, you know, if you say it quick enough. Oh, it's one of those calling names. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can you page such and such for me?

Yeah, don't say them because some of them were really bad. But this one comes out to be Hugh Janus. Oh, awesome. Okay. We got that going for us. We do. Gives right now we have an episode out on Unsolved where we're talking about, the murder of Jeanette De Palma. Yeah, what a set case. This is 1972. We're going to be up in New Jersey. We're going to talk about the 16-year-old girl, Jeanette, that goes missing, and then eventually is found murdered.

So we're diving more into it during the podcast. Yeah. It's a good episode. Make sure you check that out. All right, Gibby, are you ready to get into this episode of True Crime all the time? Man, I am. So we're headed to West Memphis. Arkansas to talk about a young murderer named Ronald Ward.

Back to West Memphis. Back to West Memphis. At just 15 years old, Ronald Ward was convicted of a triple homicide. He broke into a house and raped an elderly woman, stabbed that woman and her elderly sister, and then stabbed their 12-year-old great-great nephew. Ronald, a black teenager, was found guilty and sentenced to death. by an all white jury. So, you know, this is something that you and I have kind of said we would do from the beginning.

We don't normally bring up race unless it plays a very integral part to the case. That is true. This does. You know, the fact that he's a black teenager, the fact that he's going to get an all white jury because, you know, his case brings up some legal and ethical issues. and I think his guilt is hotly debated. It's a topic that, you know, people still talk about today. In 1985, Ronald was 15 years old.

We said he lived in West Memphis, Arkansas, and he was enrolled in the seventh grade for the third time. A triple repeater, huh? Yeah, that's tough. I mean, I know people get held back. I know they have to repeat grades. I know you had to repeat multiple grades. Just one grade.

Oh, was it just one? Yeah. But to have to go through the same grade three times. Man, that's got to be rough. That would be very, very hard. He did have a difficult childhood. Ronald's mother left him with his grandparents when he was just three months old. So he was raised by his maternal grandparents,

Lena Ward, and his grandfather. although in all the sources that we had, they never actually listed his grandfather's name. Now, by this 1985 time frame, Ronald had no criminal record, but he had been in some trouble before. He frequently skipped school. He didn't do his homework, which I think is evident by the fact that he had to repeat the same grade three times. Yeah, if you're not doing your homework and you're skipping school, it's hard to pass. It is very hard to pass. He was also, bullied by some of the younger children in his grade. So, I mean, you have to do the math here, right? He's like two, three years older than all of the other kids and, or I should say most of

the other kids in his grade, but yet he's being bullied by them. It should be the other way around, right? That's how it was when I was held back in the second grade. Well, I don't think it should happen either way, but I do get what you're saying. Most of the time you would find the older, stronger kids bullying the younger kids. Yeah, I threw my husky weight around. I said, hey, I want your chocolate milks. Mine them up. Sometimes you had to throw that weight around. Yeah. He was suspended a few times for refusing to go to detention. The school once had to call his grandmother Lena because he'd overdosed on drugs. So, One, if I refuse to go to detention, I'd get whacked, paddled, whatever by the school principal.

Well, this is 1985. I mean, this is a time that we experienced and know very well. There was paddling going on. Oh, for sure. My rear end can prove it. Yeah. I think younger people find that very hard to comprehend nowadays that there was a paddle. most of the time it hung on the wall of the principal's office.

And if you got in trouble and were sent down to his or her office, there was a chance you were, your ass was getting beat. I don't know how else to say it. It was coming down to that for sure. Yeah. I always hated the wood shop teachers paddle because he spent extra time and drilling those holes into it.

Yeah, and probably had a lacquer, took great care in the construction of this paddle. probably went out and picked the hardest wood he could find. Exactly, yeah. I'm not going to use no pine on this one. No. But I was surprised to see that, you know, Ronald Odeed at a young age.

15 years old, right? Fairly young. Ronald's grandparents loved him. I think that was not in dispute, but his home life wasn't the best environment for a young teenager. You and I have talked about Westminster. Memphis before. You know, it was a poor community. It wasn't a lot of resources there. Also, Lena and her 83 year old husband were in poor health. I guess Gibbs, he was bedridden and she suffered from mild dementia. Yeah, that's rough, you know, dementia. I mean, no secret. I've been

dealing with that with my mom. You have been. And hers is not mild, but, you know, even mild is can be difficult. So take all of those factors and they're trying to raise a 15 year old kid. Their 15 year old grandson. Yeah, on minimal income. Yeah, they lived on social security and disability checks. They didn't have a lot of money. So, you know, Lena did the best she could, but she couldn't supervise Ronald all that much. I think mainly for the factors that we've just listed out. Yeah, yeah. I think she was probably happy to at least give him a bed and, you know, a place to stay. Food. She did what she could. Lena told the LA Times that her daughter gave birth to Ronald in 1969 and she gave him to her at the end of that year. His mother used to visit

every two years. Then her visits started to get spaced out to every maybe four or five years. I don't know how somebody can do that. I don't either. You and I have talked about that before. By 1985, Ronald hadn't seen his mother in over five years. As a child, he was said to have been pretty outgoing and relatively well-behaved. He wanted to be an airline pilot or a computer technician.

But when Ronald turned 12, he stopped trying in school and he refused to listen to Lena. She told the LA Times last year he was kind of slow when I told him what to do. I just don't know what got into him. Well, first of all, he's a teenager. Right. By this point. Sure. You know, 13, 14, 15 years old.

I don't care how great your child is. 13, 14, 15 is a tough time. It is. For parents dealing. with, you know, those kind of early teenage years. They're tough for the kids at for sure that time. A lot of stuff's going on, hormones. Puberty, right?

Puberty. You know, school's not easy. Breakups, dating. There's just a lot going on. Seeing hair grow places you didn't know hair could grow. Exactly. Scary. So we mentioned that Ronald overdosed at school.

You were very surprised by that. When it happened, he told Lena, that someone had given him some spiked candy. And he promised her that it would never happen again. Okay, so break that down. What is a young kid going to say when that happens? Are they going to come up with something imagined? Was it real?

Were they just trying to pull something over on their elderly grandmother who is most likely going to believe it? Meanwhile, they're doing drugs on a, regular basis. Now, I don't know the answer to that, but certainly a good way to pacify the grandma. Right. She's likely likely to believe. And you're promising that you're not going to do it again. But it was said that most afternoons when he got home from school, he slept four hours. Lena became very concerned when he started hanging out with older men. But again, Gibbs, you know,

she told a number of news outlets that she just felt as though Ronald wouldn't live. listen to anything she told him. And when you really think about it, what was she going to do? She couldn't physically enforce anything on him. I don't know what she could have done, really. So if he makes the decision that, hey, I'm not going to listen to you, she's put in a pretty tough spot. Yeah. Now, I mean, he had a lot of behavior problems, but no one believed Ronald was a violent person. And I understand that. I mean, you go back and think about kids that you went to school with people that were not just disruptive. I had a lot of friends that was disruptive. Hell, I was probably disruptive at times trying to be funny or trying to be a class clown or whatever.

But I'm talking about kids that really got into trouble all the time. We're doing drugs. You know, we're doing this and that, skipping school and just didn't care about school in general. I can't remember ever really thinking about any of them that, oh, you better watch out for this person. They're going to kill somewhere. Or, you know, back then the school shooting thing wasn't as big of a deal as it is now. We didn't think about it. We didn't. So I never thought, oh, so and so is such a bad seed.

He's going to shoot up to school. Never thought anything really about the kids that I went. to school with. I thought, okay, I don't really want to hang around with some of these people. But other than that, I didn't. You were too concerned. No, I wasn't really too concerned about any of them. But in April, 1985, Ronald was arrested for the murder of 76 year old Audrey Townsend, her 76 year old sister Lois Townsend Jarvis, and their 12 year old great, great nephew, Christopher Simmons. Christopher normally spent the night with his aunts about once a month. Louis and Audrey picked him up on Thursday, April 11th, at his parents' house, but really after that,

no one heard from them and no one really saw them. Gibbs, it was an 11-year-old neighbor named Deborah Robinson who saw the women's purses about a block from their home. This was on April 12th. At 9.30 a.m., she and her grandmother went to knock on their door. And when they did, a glass pain fell out of the door. So I think right away they thought someone might have broken into the house, so they called the police. Detectives arrived at the home and they were first greeted by a large German shepherd. The dog entered the home through an open door. And apparently this dog refused to let the officers into the house and had to be taken away by animal control. Very protective. There were some rumors that the dog was injured, but this has never been confirmed. From the outside,

the detectives could tell that the house was ransacked. One of the windows was broken. They entered the home and found three bodies in one of the bedrooms of the home. Blood was everywhere. Christopher was curled at Audrey's feet in a fetal position. They were on the floor. Lois was found on the bed. Audrey Townsend looked as though she had been raped. She was stabbed eight times. Lois was stabbed six times and Christopher five times. And it was said Gibbs that all of their wounds were fatal. So to me, that means whoever killed them was not messing around.

Every stab of the knife that they made was meant to kill. So very precise in their attack with some lot of anger behind them. Yeah, and forceful. I think you would have to. say in how the blows were delivered. The police found a butcher knife in the bathroom sink, which they believed was the murder weapon. They also found a loaded shotgun.

The sisters owned the gun for security reasons, but must have been asleep during the break in and unable to defend themselves. Well, clearly, if they could have got a hold of that shotgun, it could have been a different story. Oh, no doubt about it. I mean, if you've got a loaded shotgun, you can fend off. an attacker with a knife. There's no doubt about that. But if you're asleep and a killer comes in and takes you by surprise, you know, that that's the thing. How are you going to get to that weapon

that you have for security? Let's say if it's leaned up in the corner or, you know, especially if it's locked up right in some type of vault or, you know, gun case or something like that, you're not going to be able to if somebody breaks in and surprises you like that. I think right from the start Gibbs, authorities suspected that this was a burglary gone wrong because the women's purses were found outside the home. There were 21 identifiable fingerprints in the home found on pieces of broken glass, an outdoor light bulb, an envelope, and doorknobs. Additional unidentified fingerprints were found and a greasy handprint was left on a pillowcase in the bedroom. The police searched for a motive, but they really had a hard time, figuring out who would

want to kill two elderly women and a young boy. Christopher was a seventh grader, a member of the local boys club, and he delivered newspapers in the town. Audrey and Lois were described as kind women. No one had any reason to hold a grudge against them. Bobby Simmons, Chris's father, told the commercial appeal they didn't have any money. All they had was their social security check. By this time of the month, that check probably was gone.

So it had to have been a burglar. The medical examiner performed the autopsies on April 13th. He found signs that Audrey had had intercourse shortly before her death, but he couldn't conclusively say that there were signs of rape. He confirmed the victims died eight to 12 hours before their bodies were found. The women had a few defensive wounds indicating that they were awake when they were attacked and that they tried to fight off their attacker. So they're thinking this is a robbery that had gone wrong.

So the suspect decided to murder the victims? Well, it happens. I mean, it's not out of the. realm of possibility. I mean, there are people who break into houses. Maybe they have no intention of killing anyone, but when the occupants wake up or they're discovered inside the house, then they feel as though they don't want to be identified and they kill. I think that happens quite a bit. All right, Gibbs, let's take a break to talk about good RX. I want to ask a question. How many people out there shop around to find the best price when you need to fill a prescription?

Well, if you're like me before I found good RX, probably not many. But I bet you shop around for the lowest gas price. You compare prices for flights and hotels. Why wouldn't you look for the best price on your prescriptions? You should and you should do it with good RX. Because what I learned is that prescription prices can vary between pharmacies by as much as $100. I never knew that. But with good RX, you can instantly compare prices on your prescription.

prescription at pharmacies in your neighborhood, including CVS, Kroger, Walgreens, Rite Aid, Vons, and Walmart. You can use Good RX online or on their app, which is the number one most downloaded medical app. It's free, it's easy, and it only takes a few seconds to find Good RX discounts that could save you up to 80%. That's 80%. I have saved a lot of money since I started using Good RX. So for simple smart savings on your prescriptions, check Good RX. Go to goodrrx.com slash teacat. That is goodrx.com slash teacat. Goodrrx.com slash tec. Good RX is not insurance, but can be used instead of insurance. In 2020, Good RX user saved an average of 79% off retail prices. When the citizens of West Memphis first heard the news,

gives a rush to buy guns and ammunition. And how often do we hear this same exact thing, happening in the wake of kind of a tragic, horrific murder. Yeah, I'm sure they're scared. You're thinking there's an individual out there that killed two 76-year-old women and a 12-year-old boy. I don't want that to happen to me. I don't want that to happen to my family. So I'm going to take steps to try to prevent it.

It happens in so many cases. Mayor Leo Chipman held a press conference and he told the town, we have a police department that is in charge shooting first and calling the ambulance later is not a reasonable position so you know i i think obviously what he's saying there gibbs is okay i get it public you're going out you're buying guns you're buying ammunition be careful you just can't go around shooting someone because you're scared that they're the killer Right. Yeah. And there's a real danger in that. You know, people are on edge. They're scared. They make decisions, you know, in those states that they likely would not make if they weren't experiencing those types of emotions. Now, at the same time, if someone breaks into your house and they're threatening you, you got to protect yourself. You got to protect yourself. But I do get what he's saying. You have to be worried about a population. armed to the hilt who is scared, frightened,

and is likely to do something rash. Yeah, man, you go to the wrong house thinking it's where you live and you turn the doorknob and get blown away. Or you're the delivery guy delivering a package, you know, 7 o'clock at night, knocking on the door, someone gets a little trigger happy. Shoots right through the door.

Yeah. Yeah. Stranger things have happened for sure. Neighbor Ricky Vale lived across the street, from the sisters. At 12.20 a.m. He saw and spoke to a black youth walking through his backyard late on April 11th. He told police that he thought the boy was under the influence of something.

He said that his speech was slurred and Ricky identified Ronald Ward from the school yearbook. So police questioned Ronald Ward on April 16th. Ronald was not considered a suspect, so the police didn't inform him of his rights. He told the police that he saw a fight between a man and a woman at the house. He even provided a description of the man. Now, it was said Gibbs that in Arkansas, the police are not allowed to fingerprint minors before they are charged with the crime. I don't know if that was just in 1985.

I don't know if that's still the case today. but Ronald and his grandmother agreed to sign waivers. And so the police took Ronald's fingerprints. And according to the police, they matched those found at the crime scene. So hard evidence. Yeah. In total, it was said that he left 21 fingerprints at the house. In addition to that, he lived just one mile from the murder scene.

He puts them in the area, puts them in the house with the fingerprints. But I want to get back to the signing of this waiver. Why would you do that? I think it's a question that has to be asked. If you killed three people and please come to talk to you and say, hey, we're not legally allowed to take your fingerprints, but if you agree to sign a waiver and your grandmother does as well, we'd love to take them.

Yeah. Would you be so confident as to just say, well, sure, go ahead and take these. You're not going to find anything. So, I mean, it's a question. I mean, obviously we'll get into it a little bit more, probably down the road. But no doubt, police felt pretty good, right? That Ronald had something to do with these murders. They were still searching for a motive, though.

Ronald and Chris went to the same school. They were both in the seventh grade. And the way it's been described Gibbs is that, yeah, they knew each other, but they weren't friends. But I didn't see anything, you know, about the fact that they were enemies. Right. So again, I think if you're the police, you're asking this question. What would have made Ronald brutally murder these three people?

Yeah, what made him go off to do this? On April 18th, 1985, the police arrested Ronald Ward at West Junior High School in West Memphis. he was apparently sitting in his choir class when someone came inside and told him to go down to the principal's office now Gibbs he'd been there plenty of times before but mostly for skipping school and disobeying his teachers i know you saw your share of the inside of the principal's office oh as a youngster at my own little small desk in an office but i think the thing with ronald was he didn't think anything was wrong as he walked into the office, especially to the degree that he was

about to find out that something was definitely wrong. Two police cars full of detectives were waiting for him. They accused him of the triple murder and they arrested him. The school called Lena and told her that Ronald had been arrested for murder. She was in complete shock. Now, many in the community were relieved after Ronald's arrest, but many others couldn't believe it. Ronald's neighbor Ruby Sims told local news outlets it would be too sick. I don't see how one 15-year-old boy could commit murders like that. I get that thinking. You know, it is tough sometimes to kind of have your mind grapple with the reality that a 12, 13,

14, 15 year old child could commit, you know, such a heinous act of multiple murder. The problem is Gibbs, we know it's happened many, many times. Too many times. Yeah. And kids are capable of doing this. Now, I don't think that's the only reason that, you know, friends and neighbors thought that he didn't do it. But this is what one of the neighbors told news outlets.

Ronald was interrogated for four hours without a lawyer, and this would be something that his attorneys would later object to at trial because they recorded this interrogation. Obviously, his attorneys are going to want to try to get that thrown out, but the jury would get to hear the entire interview. Lena, who was present during the interrogation, encouraged Ronald to tell the truth. And what Ronald said was that he was at the Townsend Sisters house because a man named Crazy Ike forced him into the house at Knife Point. He said Ike forced him to rape one of the women, but he said he left the home before anyone was murdered. Ronald didn't know Ike's last name, but he knew that he lived on 17th Street in West Memphis. He then asked the police if they wanted to know the location of a shotgun. Ronald said the gun could be found in a culvert near the victim's house.

And there was at least one point in this interrogation Gibbs that Ronald asked for a lawyer, but the officers didn't end the interrogation. That's unfortunate. Yeah, it's a definite problem. A judge later ruled that all of the statements made after, his request had to be excluded from evidence. But the shotgun statement was not excluded, even though Ronald said it after he asked for a lawyer.

And the reason that that was the case was because it was said that Ronald initiated that part of the conversation spontaneously. He wasn't asked about it. And he wasn't forced to speak. So it will stand because of that. Yes. So there's some big admissions here on the part of Ronald. Number one, he's admitting to being in the house.

He's admitting to raping one of the women. Now, he says he left before anyone was murdered. And he's saying that he was forced to do what he did by a man named Crazy Eye. But then also the gun, the admission of, you know, the shotgun from the victim's home and where it could be found, that's pretty big as well. It is. Along with the fingerprints, it kind of proves you were in the house, right? How did you get the shotgun to later dispose of it in a culvert if you weren't inside the victim's home?

The police found a man named Royster Martin, nicknamed Crazy Ike. He did live with his mother on 17th Street in West Memphis. Police interviewed him Gibbs, but they did. determined that he was not a suspect. I really didn't find much around, you know, how they did that or, you know, really what details led them to that conclusion. But either way, Royster's out. Yeah. And, you know, West Memphis being the size of, of town that it was, Ronald's story got out to everyone pretty quickly. I mentioned it. There were people in town who believed him, but still wondered how a purse robbery led to a brutal murder, some rumors spread that it was a revenge murder, arranged by the

enemies of Bobby Simmons. Bobby Simmons, Christopher's father had taken a plea bargain for possession of narcotics with intent to sell. There were some people in town, Gibbs, who wondered if maybe he'd angered his dealer by taking this plea bargain. And I could see that, how people could make that connection that possibly this was, you know, the work of drug dealers or, you know, revenge on their part. I think to most people, that's a much easier sell, right, than thinking that a 15-year-old kid could perpetrate a triple homicide. Yeah, I mean, drug dealers don't mess around. If they want to take revenge against you, they're going to do it and they're going to be brutal

about it. Some for sure. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of the world they live in, many of them. It's a dangerous world. There was one detail that the police couldn't figure out. And it was the unidentified fingerprints. There was no match for the second set of fingerprints or the handprint. No one knew how long they had been there or the last time that anyone had visited the house. The police determined that Ronald, who was high at the time, wanted to burglarize the house, but he saw Chris. And because Chris knew him, he thought he had to kill the entire family so that Chris could not identify him.

So that's the police theory, right? He didn't go there to kill. He went there to burglarize, to get items, to get money, not realizing that a classmate of his would be in the house, someone that would recognize them, and it ended in him having to kill the entire family. I just find an extreme to kill three people for a burglary. I mean, the kid was only 15 years old. How much time would he have done for that versus three murders? And I think that's an extremely intelligent point. Now, would this 15 year old kid have understood that? or not. That's a question. But in all reality, what would a 15 year old get for a breaking and

entering, a burglary charge? I don't think it would be all that severe. Probably like a slap on the wrist. Yeah. But the police's theory is that he would have been so worried about that that he decided to kill three people. Not to say that it doesn't happen because it does. But it's just a point to bring up you know, something to ponder. On April 19th at a preliminary hearing, Ronald spoke with his attorney, Ken Cook, Cook, Ronald, and Detective Sergeant Gary Gitchell stood in the courthouse hallway.

Gitchell recorded the conversation. Cook told Ronald to be careful about anything he said because the officer would play it in court. Ronald repeated the same statement he gave on April 18th. When Gitchell asked Ronald, if he wanted to say anything else, Ronald told him, um, something just came over me.

It's just like, I didn't mean to. Just something came over me. Something just came over me. Made me go into that house. I just wasn't myself. So it seems like something very strange to say. Your attorney has just told you.

Hey, be careful what you say, Ronald, because this officer is going to play this back in court and you're basically saying, I don't know why I did what I did. Something came over me, but it made me go into that house. It just wasn't myself. It's a statement to me that sounds like it comes from a guilty person. Sure, very incriminating. Yeah, much more so than a person who is trying to deny that, you know, they had anything to do with this. At the preliminary hearing,

the defense presented testimony from John Golden, who overheard a man named Ricky Smith planning a break in and murder, as well as planning to frame someone for the crimes. Golden and his friend Eddie Langford drove Smith to Walls, Mississippi, about 30 minutes from West Memphis, for $20 on April 11, 1985. Smith was said to have been in a hurry. He was scared and shaken. Golden said Smith made the cryptic remark. He did what he told him he was going to do. And that Golden and Langford would hear about it in the news in a few days. On April 15th, 1985, John Golden told the police about this conversation.

He and an officer drove to the house in Walls, Mississippi. They searched the house and they found a brick of cocaine. Eddie Langford corroborated Golden's story, but the judge excluded their testimony as hearsay. So we're going to get into the trial here soon, right? But this is important. You know, a trial very often comes down to what is allowed in and what is excluded. Because the jury can only make their decision based on the evidence that is presented in court before them.

Yeah. As a defense attorney, I'd want them to hear them. And I'm sure they did. But for whatever reason, the judge said, no, it's hearsay. Can't let it do. Another witness named Ruth Jones was also excluded from the trial. She lived across the street from the Townsend sisters. In 1983, Chris Simmons told her that Belinda Simmons, his mother, was at home fixing dope with other people.

She said that she had seen a black man make a deletive. delivery to Belinda at the house. Another excluded witness was Deputy Sheriff Jim Robinson. He was asked if he had tried to serve a subpoena to Ricky Smith, who used the alias James Brown, and a man named Harry Smith at the 20th century motel. Deputy Sheriff Jim Robinson said he did go to the motel, but the manager told him that Smith checked out on April 12, 1985. His testimony was also excluded because it was ruled to be hearsay. He's actually a deputy. So why would you not give his testimony a little bit more

credit? Yeah, I mean, I'm kind of struggling here to understand exactly why some of this is hearsay. I understand what hearsay is, but I mean, to your point, this is a deputy sheriff. Yeah. And he's not testifying to things that someone else told him, right? That's, to me, that's hearsay. Yeah. He's saying, this is what I did. Right. So why would it be hearsay? The local chapter of the NAACP recruited Joe Brown and Samuel Turner to represent Ronald Ward. Brown immediately claimed that a black boy could never get a fair trial in Arkansas.

People accused him of making everything about race from the very beginning. Ronald's defense had less than $5,000, which was not enough. to conduct a thorough investigation, his attorneys were also frustrated that he kept changing his story. According to the LA Times, Joe Brown later said, Ron is a classic example of everything teenage defendants shouldn't do. He never told us everything. He made up details to cover his lying. I think there were others involved who forced him that night, but he was totally afraid of telling us certain details. It seemed as though he was more concerned about something else other than the death penalty. Ronald's murder trial began on September 12, 1985. Prosecutor Scott Hunter had no

trouble with the decision to charge Ronald as an adult, but he did have some trouble with deciding whether or not to charge him with capital murder. Hunter later told L.A. Times, I don't go into the psychology of all of this. It shakes me up to send a 15-year-old to death row. But I have to think of the law of the state and of the three victims hurled into eternity. I feel what I did was my job as a prosecutor. I'm not crowing about it. It is a bad thing all around.

Yeah, I'm sure he didn't feel great about it. No, it's a tough decision. First of all, you're trying a 15-year-old as an adult. Yeah. And then the next step is you're going to try to go after the death penalty. But if his job is to follow the law and represent the law for the victims, then that's what he has to do. Yeah, I don't think the law required it.

I mean, I think he had the decision to make. But it sounds as though he's saying that in his mind, that was the right decision. It fit the crime. It fit the vicious. this of the murders and we're you know we're talking about three murders here yeah two elderly ladies and a child now one of the issues from the very beginning was the all white jury we mentioned it right up front crittenden county was roughly 40% black in 1985 so Gibbs an all white jury

it seemed a little suspicious right if almost half of the people are black how do you get an all-white jury. It'd be difficult to explain, I think. Now, the jury foreman told news outlets after the trial, if the jury had been green, the verdict would still have been the same. This had nothing

to do with race. The defense motion for a mistrial during jury selection, but the motion was denied and the trial continued. Yeah, I think if you're the defense team, you're going to say that's not true. Right. You're just going to say that's not true. That race

wasn't a factor at all. No, I don't know if it was or not. I do think this is very common for juries to say after the fact that race was not a factor in their decision. You hear that all the time. No matter what the makeup is of the jury, because, you know, one of the arguments almost all the time is that, okay, race was a factor. And juries are pretty quick to say. And juries are pretty quick to say, no, it wasn't. We were in there. It played no part in our decision. Now, whether it did or it did not, we don't know in any of these cases. Right. But you also can say what if it was an all black jury and he's found not guilty with the, or could the prosecution come back and say he got off because of the black jury. We had him. He should have been found guilty. No, I'm sure that's

probably exactly what you would hear because no matter how much we want it not to play a part, race always comes in. Yeah. It does. It shouldn't, but it does. Well, especially when you have a community that's 60-40 and you don't have a mixed jury, you're setting yourself up. I look at it this way. The jury is not representative of the county, the city. The city. the area. Yeah. It's just not. So are you getting a jury of your peers? I think the argument is, no, you're not. Now, can you really, if you're 15 years old, you can't have 12, 7th graders in the jury box, but you're being tried as an adult. I think at the very least, you have to have a representation from different walks of life, different ethnicities. You just kind of

to have it. The prosecution argued that Ronald was high when he impulsively broke in, raped and killed the women. His fingerprints were found at the scene and a witness saw him leaving the house on April 12th. The defense argued that the Townsend sisters home was used for drug trafficking, a suspect named Ricky Smith and another man planned to rob the home and kill the people living there. And Ronald was set up to take the blame. We already mentioned it, but the defense was not allowed to use John Golden's testimony to verify this story. They did have some evidence that kind of went in their favor, though.

Although Ronald's fingerprints were found in the house, there were no fingerprints on the murder weapon. There was also no blood on the sweater. Ronald was allegedly wearing the night of the murder. And we mentioned it. There were a number of unidentified fingerprints in the home. Well, there could be a lot of identified fingerprints. If this house was used by Christopher's father to traffic drugs,

you could have all kinds of fingerprints in there. Or you could just have people who came over to the house to visit and touch something. I mean, there's a lot of different things you can make of that. The jury listened to the tape interrogation where Ronald first mentioned crazy eye. According to the commercial appeal, Ronald told his interviewers, I ain't no maniac. I'm telling you, I did that, y'all. I swear before living God, I did that. He made me have sex because he had a knife to me saying that he was going to kill me.

If I was there when the stabbing happened, I'd tell y'all. Yeah, I was there when it happened, but I weren't. I ran out when I, when he, when he was fixing, I think he was going to stab her. I ran. I took off because I heard a lady holler. That's when I took off. So Ronald admits being there, he saw it with the one woman, but then he left. He didn't have anything to do with the stabbing.

And he said he wouldn't have done any of the other stuff if he had not been forced to by this man he called Crazy I. On the last day of the trial, Ronald took the stand. Gibbs, he told a completely different story about what happened on the night of the murders. He said two men, Tony Boyd and Willie, forced him to help with the break-in. Tony Boyd raped him before forcing him to rape one of the Towns and sisters. Ronald said he left before anyone was murdered. He lied because he didn't want the men to hurt. his grandparents and because he said he was embarrassed about being raped.

So I think this goes back to his attorney saying after the trial, he was a tough defendant to work with. Yeah. Because he never told them everything and he kept changing his story. And I would have to imagine Gibbs, it's one thing that juries really don't like, right, is when a defendant tells him. multiple versions of events because it doesn't make you look great. Takes away your credibility.

Yeah, I really think it does. I mean, some of your credibility is already out the door before the trial even starts because you're sitting in that chair. Sure. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. We know it is. And then you do this back and forth wishwashy thing. It's not good.

Because what is the jury supposed to think? Okay. Is what you're saying now the truth? Or is it what you said before on tape? Which one is it? And how do we believe either one of them? And it makes it so hard for your attorney to defend you when you do things like that. Yeah, they could have been completely caught off guard by him getting up there and saying what he did.

At the very end of the trial, Ronald's attorney, Joe Brown, tried to get the charge reduced from capital murder to first degree murder. He argued that the state didn't prove the murders. were deliberate and premeditated. They couldn't show the sequence of the murders, a motive, or show conclusively that Ronald was the killer. He also objected to the prosecution's introduction of rape evidence because, as he said, Ronald was never formally charged with rape. Judge Burdett denied the motion because he said it was too late and that the state is not

required to prove motive under our law. So his attorney's fighting, right? He's not winning a lot of these battles. He fought to get evidence excluded. He lost. He fought on the jury selection. He lost. Now he's trying to get Ronald out from under this death penalty. He lost. But he's tried. Yeah, he has. The jury began deliberating at 8 p.m. on set, September 19th, and it didn't take them all that long because later that night, the jury found Ronald guilty of capital murder. And then the jury continued their deliberation for the sentencing phase. Joe Brown was upset because he had plans to call on the excluded witnesses at the sentencing hearing. He also wanted to establish mitigating factors by calling on family and behavioral experts

but he never got the chance. All of his witnesses had gone home. And the judge only gave him about an hour to round up witnesses. Tough to do. Yeah, because I think in a lot of the trials we've done, right, you have the trial, you have the deliberation on the verdict for that trial. And then you have a sentencing hearing. And then the jury deliberates on that to come up with.

a recommendation for the sentence. Right. Here it sounds like they had the trial, they went into jury deliberation for that verdict and then just kept on deliberating on the sentencing. That's even a little fast tracking. Ronald's aunt and a man who knew about part of the conspiracy testified. So he wasn't able to get many witnesses, obviously. And the sentencing hearing really only lasted for about an hour. It was like 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. And then the jury went into deliberation just after midnight. Didn't take them long, did it? 20 minutes or so. Yeah, 20 minutes at about 1220 a.m. on September 20th, they sentenced Ronald to death. And the jury later admitted they had already decided their sentence earlier. They basically spent the 20 minutes reading the rules and signing papers. And then at 1 a.m.

the judge announced the death penalty. So, you know, I said they kind of went right into deliberation on sentencing. Well, it sounds like his attorney was able to get an abbreviated sentencing hearing. You'd have to call it that. But they later admitted they'd already made up their mind before that even happened. Ronald cried and trembled. As the jury read their decision, one juror had to be carried down the courthouse stairs. According to the LA Times, Judge Burnett said that upholding the jury's sentence was the hardest thing I have ever done as a lawyer.

He could have reversed the decision, but he said the evidence was horrendous, and the jurors had searched their souls. Grown men on that jury were in tears. I thought to undo the decision, they had agonized over, would almost be a travesty of the judicial system. Weldon Roberts, the jury foreman, later told the LA Times, from the evidence we heard,

we had no choice. I wish we had, but we didn't. Judge Burnett set Ronald's execution for April 12, 1986, WDIA, a black-owned radio station in Memphis, broadcast editorials about the trial. They called on citizens to write letters and signed petitions. On October 2nd, the general manager of the station delivered thousands of signatures to Governor Bill Clinton's Partons Council in Little Rock. The LA Times released a lengthy article on the case later that year. Judge David Burnett gave a statement to the LA Times in which he said, the tragedy in the Ronald Ward story is he's a victim of a society that allowed him to live in a situation where he had no guidance or control. But Attila the Hun probably had unfortunate circumstances too.

One purpose of our system is to protect an exact retribution. So I agree with the first part. I do think that Ronald was in a situation where he had very little guidance, very little control. I think it's a little rough to compare a 15. year old boy to Attila the Hun. Oh, I do too. Now, this is a 15 year old boy who you believe murdered three people, a jury believed it, and you sentenced him to death. It's still, I think it's a rough comparison.

The LA Times reached out to Chris's father, Bobby Simmons. He told the times he hated that racism may have influenced Ronald's case. He said, I am able to call a lot of black people my friends when I couldn't do that with my own kin. Bobby also grew up without his parents. He'd committed crimes, made mistakes, and knew what it was like to be thought of as a young punk. He did believe someone older may have tried to make Ronald prove himself. He said, I feel sorry for Ron Ward, and I hate to think of him on death row. My daughter is dating a 15-year-old now, and I see him. He's just a kid. And he ended his interview by saying that Ronald's family can still visit him and have hope, but all I have to look at are pictures and gravestones.

So I do think there's a lot here, Gibbs. I mean, there's no doubt that Bobby believes that Ronald committed these murders. His thought is that maybe someone older, maybe gang affiliated, I don't know what else may be related to drugs, forced Ronald to try to prove himself. and the way to do that was to commit these murders. Sure.

Yeah. That's what he's saying. But it is very true. I think in all these scenarios, from a victim's family members perspective, you may think it's rough that someone's sitting on death row. And he does because the kid was only 15 years old. Right. But he's still alive.

My son is dead. My other two family members are dead. I'll never get to visit them. this kid's family can go visit him. Right. That's a good point. Ronald Ward became the youngest inmate on Arkansas's death row. He gave a prison news conference in October 1985, reflecting on his conviction.

He said that he came to grips with his fear of death, but that he was still scared. Ronald maintained his innocence and said, I'm sorry that it happened to their people, but I did not kill their folks. I did not do it. When asked about his parents, he said they know, I guess they care. My father tried to come and see me while I was in the Crittenden County Jail, but they wouldn't let him. Finally, Ronald said he didn't believe he got a fair trial. He told the Associated Press when they gave me an all-white jury. Right then, I said, this is not going to be a fair trial. Ronald filed his automatic appeal

to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Joe Brown warned him that the appeal, the appeal. The appeal process could take up to 10 years. It's a long time for a 15 year old to sit there. To be on death row to think that, okay, I'm going to appeal, but I may not find out an answer to that appeal for up to 10 years. In his appeal, it was argued that the jury at his trial was biased. The murder victims were white. The judge was white. And every member of the jury was white. The judge and prosecutor also wouldn't accept any jury. jurors who expressed reservations about the death penalty. And again, we really haven't gone into yet how this all-white jury was arrived at.

But in Ronald's appeal, it was stated that after the state excluded four black people from the jury, the state complained that the defense injected race into the proceedings, forcing the state to strike some black jurors or a black juror that they, otherwise would not be predisposed to strike. The trial judge did not conduct a sensitive inquiry into this matter and didn't require the state to explain why they excluded black people from the jury after the defense made a motion for a mistrial. The defense requested a mistrial after jury selection, but Judge Burnett claimed that there was

no systematic exclusion of black jurors. Okay, I guess it boils down to what you mean by. systematic. Obviously, there was an exclusion of black jurors. It was on the record. The state struck down or used their exclusions or whatever you call it to kick off a number of black jurors. Now, they said that they only did that after the defense brought race into the proceedings. The prosecution claimed that they had reasons for each challenge. They said, we investigated each prospective juror, and we considered what they said. There was a prevalent, pervasive attitude in that community that one 15-year-old boy could not have done this.

And we felt others were just predisposed. Not all of that can be seen on the record. We looked at demeanor, at how they react when questioned, at rapport. A lot of it is intuitive. And this was all reported by Justia. I get that, you know, figuring out jury selection. It's a very important part of the judicial process. Oh, absolutely.

On both sides, right? That's why they, you normally have a number of challenges and, and things like that. The state did eventually explain why they excluded black people from the jury, but their reasons were pretty vague. One woman was excluded because she was unmarried, unemployed, and, you know, and, you and lived on a farm. Another was excluded because she appeared hostile. Appeared hostile. On July 20th, 1987, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the original trial decision. The court ordered a new trial on the grounds that all of the preemptory challenges

exercised by the prosecuting attorney eight, in this case, were used to strike black people from the jury. We find the state's use of preemptory challenges exercised by the prosecuting attorney. We find the state's use of preemptory challenges violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and denied Ward a fair trial. So this was huge because basically the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that what the prosecutors did resulted in Ronald Ward not getting a fair trial. Again, it goes back to what we said before. It does seem very strange.

You know, looking at a jury pool that is 40% black and ending up with an all white jury. Something just didn't seem right there. No, it doesn't. The prosecutor chose not to seek the death penalty this time around. Ronald's new jury consisted of eight white people and four black people. On February 21st, 1988, they sentenced 18-year-old Ronald to life in prison without the possibility. of parole. Ronald Ward died on June 29th, 2007 in a prison hospital where he spent the last month of his life. Gips he was only 37 years old. When he died, prison spokesman George Brewer said

he couldn't disclose the nature of Ward's illness, but said that his death was expected. That's an interesting way to say that. Yeah, I think you can make a lot out of that. You know, obviously there was something wrong with him to where they knew he was not going to make it. Right. I'll say it that way. Right. What it was, we don't know. But I think he got a fair trial at that point.

Well, at least he had a much more representative jury, but they still found him guilty. So as we wrap up this case gives, you know, I think it's one that brings up many legal and ethical questions. We've talked about it, right? Should the prosecution have been allowed to exclude, you know, every black jury candidate? Should the judge have rejected the defense's motion for a mistrial? Was the jury biased against Ronald Ward? I don't know that they were. You know, even though it was an all-white jury, I don't think that meant that they came to their decision because they were white and he was black. I don't know that that was the case. I mean, they said they cried. There was grown men crying when they made the decision they made.

Ronald Ward did not do a good job in his own defense, right? He wasn't helpful to his attorneys. He kept changing his stories. There was a lot of evidence against him. Now, although he did change his story several times, you know, this crazy eye guy was a real person who lived in West Memphis. There were rumors from multiple sources that the Simmons family was involved in drug dealing and had used the towns and home as part of their operations. There was testimony from two witnesses about a plot to murder someone and frame an individual for the crime. So I just said he really didn't do himself any favors, right? Ronald didn't when it came to his own defense. He was not a good defendant for his team.

No, he didn't help out his attorneys. He made it tough on them. I also said there was quite a bit of evidence against him. And I think there was. But you have to ask the question. Was it possible that Ronald happened to be wandering around late at night in the wrong place at the wrong time? The problem with that is there's no denying the fact that he was in the home. Right. So did men really force him to break in? Did they force him to rape? Audrey Townsend, or was this just Ronald Ward who went in thinking he could get drugs or, you know, other valuables, money in a burglary, he was surprised to learn that a classmate of his was there and he ended up murdering all three of the occupants in that home.

Could have. I think we were talking about how many times he changed his story. And I think, you know, we all have heard where a defense attorney would say, tell me everything. I mean everything. And the reason they asked that is so they can figure out what needs to be said, what they need to defend against. If he would have told his attorney all the events that he eventually said occurred that night. Well, then his attorney would have crafted the narrative in a much different way. The trial would have happened in a different way.

Yeah. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm getting the sense that the attorney was surprised by what Ronald Ward said on the stand. Yeah. Because it was different from what he had told his defense attorney. You know, then I think another big question is Gibbs, should Ronald have been sentenced to death at just 15 years old? You know, I think that's a, that's a very tough question to answer. It's a tough subject. the death penalty just by itself is tough for a lot of people.

Sure. But that's like we're talking about adults. Now you're applying the death penalty to a 15 year old who is being tried as an adult. I think it becomes an even tougher topic, a tougher question to answer at that point. Yeah, I mean, you can throw in to the equation that sure, you needed to because he killed 12 year old. Okay. But I think some people would make the argument that no 15 year old should ever get the death penalty. Now, should they be tried? Should they be convicted? Sure. But at 15 years old, you know, some other sentence is more appropriate, even if it's life in prison. I think a lot of people

would make that argument. And I agree. Yeah, I do find it tough to think of, handing down a death sentence to a 15 year old. I just do. Now, if that 15 year old killed a member of your family, would that change your opinion? Maybe, maybe not. Yeah. We don't know. I don't want to know. I don't want to have to see that. No, no, right. Nobody wants to have to find that out. I think, you know, when it comes down to it Gibbs, there are many people who believe parts of Ronald's story. So I think for some, there still is quite a bit of mystery surrounding the murder. of the Townsend sisters and Chris Simmons, it's a tough case. You know, it's not one of those where, you know, everything just kind of jumps out at you and, and you feel good and settled at

the end of it because there are some questions. But, you know, I go back to the fact that two different juries heard the evidence. Now, in that first trial, you can make the argument that there was a lot of evidence that was excluded that shouldn't have been. But two different juries came to the same conclusion. That tells you a lot. It does tell you something, right? They found Ronald Ward guilty of these three murders. I'm with you.

I think the end result was the correct one, right? If you find him guilty, he's tried as an adult life in prison. But opinions are going to vary. Of course, they always do. And there's nothing wrong with that. But that's it for the story of Ronald Ward. Gibbs, we've got some voicemails. You want to check those out?

Let's hear them. Hi, Mike. This is Jason from Norfolk, Virginia. I'm a little far behind in your broadcast. I'm trying to catch up now. But I wanted to answer something for you guys in case you haven't gotten the answer yet regarding dishonorable discharges and other than honorable discharges from the military. A dishonorable discharge is actually much more rare, and those are usually reserved for major convictions where jail time is afterwards.

Other than honorable is more or less when things just don't work out. You get in trouble a little bit, you get kicked out. For instance, like a popping on a fifth test would be another than honorable discharge. Also, I want to make a suggestion for you guys, once again, still catching up. I'm listening to the Andre Thomas case regarding mental health issues, stuff like that. I would suggest to you guys, if you haven't already, looking to the Greyhound Bus be had in Canada. And tell me what you think about that.

Maybe do a podcast on a very interesting case, especially when it comes to addressing the mental health and what that kind of stuff can do the person. Thanks, guys. Yeah, so thanks for the information on the discharges. Because I think Gibbs, and this happens a lot with the research, a lot of times, I think the words dishonorable, discharge are used. Right. And probably used incorrectly. Now, that's what we have to go by because

that's what we have available. But that does help shed some light on it. Now, the case that he mentions is a very well-known case. Vince Lee, to beheadings on the bus in Canada. It's definitely on the list. It's a very interesting story. And, you know, the fact that he got out pretty quickly is interesting as well. Hi, Mike. Hi, Givie. I just, and oh, by the way, this Michelle calling from my saying

at Bahamah, but at the end, you were talking about making time off, and I just wanted to say that it is well deserved. I mean, I know my opinion doesn't really mean anything too much without any ideas, and

enjoy, and thank you very much. All right, we definitely appreciate that. Yeah, it's something we talked about on the latest Patreon episode. It's something we're kind of going back and forth on. Yeah, we're trying to figure it all out. Yeah, it would be nice if we can figure out a way to have a couple of weeks off because we haven't had it. No, we have not.

In a very long time. Hi, Mike and Gibby. This is Lisa, and I am a huge T-Cat fan. Woo-boop. You have really helped me more than you know. without getting mushy or anything, but the last, you know, year and a half has been really rough. But you really get me through. I'm a teacher, so shout out to the teacher.

And when I meet my kids' lunch, my husband's lunch, my own lunch, all the lunches on my way to work. I'm listening before I go teach, and it's just a really great distraction. And I am not team bird or deep givey. I don't have to choose. That's what I want to know. Can you really have, is it really a PBJ without the peanut butter and the jelly? So answers no. So I am team both.

I hope you have a great day. Keep doing what you're doing. And keep your own kind of ticket. No, great voicemail. Obviously, I have a soft spot for teachers. My wife's a teacher. a lot of her friends at her school listened to the podcast. They do. And so we appreciate it. And I don't think it is a PBNJ without both. You can have a peanut butter sandwich. You can have a jelly

sandwich. I would never eat a jelly sandwich. I have eaten just plain peanut butter sandwiches. But I would much rather prefer peanut butter and jelly. Got to have them both together and on bread. Don't leave the bread out. Well, what are you doing? You're just smearing it on your hand and then licking it? Maybe. If you got no bread, how are you eating it? Hey, things can be done. Have you never had goobers? That's PBJ in a jar, buddy. But you're still supposed to spread it on something.

Maybe. Oh, the way you live your life, man. Hey, to each his own. But we appreciate it. We definitely do. No mail bag this week, Gibbs. So that's it, buddy. Okay. for another episode of true crime all the time. So for Mike and Gibby, stay safe and keep your own time ticking.