Brief Overview of Case

 

 

 

     Celeste Beard Johnson is behind bars for a crime that she did not commit.  The
Killer’s (Tracey Tarlton) confession, given by her well over two years after the shooting contradicted the little circumstantial evidence in multiple ways (the following list represents only a small sample):

 

     1. Tarlton gave a time for a “pre-arranged walk-through of the home” when Celeste

         had an ironclad alibi documented by business records (Celeste was at a

         hair salon receiving a perm).

     2. Tarlton said she let herself into the Beard Mansion through “hinged doors”.  All seven

         sets of doors were on sliders.

     3. Tarlton testified that the security gate at the entrance to the enclave had been left

         unlocked for her access on the night of the shooting.  In actuality, the immense gate

         had been removed several months prior to the shooting because another house was

         under construction.  The gate was no where in site.

     4.  Tarlton said she climbed stairs inside the home to enter the master bedroom.  No

          stairs ever existed.

     5.  Tarlton said she made botulism with Celeste and that they covered Steven’s head

          with a plastic trash bag.  There was no medical evidence consistent with these

          statements.

     6.  Tarlton testified that Celeste laced Steven’s food with Celeste and Steven’s

          prescription sleeping pills.  The pharmacist testified there was no “overuse” of

          sleeping pills.  The bottles of sleeping pills taken into custody by the police actually

          were hardly used.

 

 

 

    Tarlton’s confession confirms what the police expected to hear—that Celeste was
somehow involved—which is why they most likely accepted it at face
value.  This case illustrates perfectly that as human’s we tend to see what we expect to see.  Since people are subjected to an array of “cognitive biases” that affect
their evaluation of evidence, prosecutors and sworn officers are by no
means immune to this phenomenon. 

      The police investigators and prosecutors in this case were more than likely trying their best to do their jobs.  But, they ended up seeking out circumstantial evidence that confirmed their prior beliefs rather than the hard evidence that challenged these
beliefs.  They ended up interpreting the ambiguous evidence in ways that agreed with their preconceptions.

     Because of this, the prosecutors case was based on character assassination,
innuendo, anonymous letters, dubious forensic science evidence, and the
unreliable and not credible testimony of informants who had criminal
charges pending, that were later dropped in exchange for their made-up
testimonies.

    This case proves that “facts” that didn’t really prove anything were lumped together with suspicions and dubious theories.

 

 

 

This is how they prosecuted Celeste…