{Note from Clara A. T. Boggs: We sometimes get stories that meet with all kinds of obstacles with us. An editor takes a leave of absence, a story provider doesn't respond to questions on time, and the story is delayed. All kinds of unlucky combinations conspire to let a story dangle for months. This was the case with Jack's story. We've had it since March of 1999, and it was supposed to appear in our third issue. Getting answers we needed was slow going, since they had to go through Loretta, Jack's sister, and the editor assigned then was taking time off. Finally, one of our "extended" JD people, who had a separate friendship with Loretta, asked to do the story so it could finally be told. The result was not so much an edit as it was a collaboration between Jack and Loretta. Ms. Lincoln's story about Jack is not the usual fare on JD, for she is clearly convinced of his innocence. JD continues to take the view that only a court of law can declare a person innocent, but our task is to bring you the claim and to let you form your own opinion. Phyllis took on the arduous task of facing our Review Team and its questions. She can tell you that we scrutinize our stories and put them through all kinds of hoops. She is to be congratulated for putting up with us, as is Loretta.}

Jack Frederick -- The verdict was Rape, but the evidence says it was consensual sex.

By Jack L. Frederick in collaboration with Phyllis Anne Lincoln, Guest Editor

Should we have to pay with our freedom for making bad choices, picking the wrong partner or for trusting the wrong people? Read Jack L. Frederick's story, then you judge whether or not the fate he was dealt was fair.

In Jack Frederick's own words:

On November 30, 1994, I was convicted of rape, kidnapping, assault and domestic violence. The assault and domestic violence charges were combined, so I received a sentence of 6 months to be served concurrently with the sentences of 8 to 25 years I received for the rape and kidnapping charges. These convictions are unconstitutional because not only was there not sufficient evidence but the evidence at trial should have acquitted me.

I met Jackie Dawson at a Valentine's Day party and, soon after, moved in with her. After two months I left her because I couldn't take Jackie's drug and alcohol diet. Jackie had gotten pregnant and still refused to stop using drugs and drinking alcohol. As far as I know, no baby was born. I think somewhere along the way Jackie had a miscarriage. During the course of our relationship, there were several times when Jackie would go out drinking with her cousin, JR Roark, and her friend, Bill Mason, leaving me at her home babysitting her children. After I left, my $1200 disability check came to her P.O. Box, and Jackie spent all day trying to find me. Jackie wanted half that check, so she left messages all over Hamilton saying that she wanted to see me.

After receiving those messages on Saturday, April 23, 1994, around 9:30 p.m., I went to see Jackie. I found her passed out on her couch. I'm unsure of exact times, as I didn't own a watch. We talked and I told her it was over between us. Jackie saw that I wasn't going to change my mind about leaving her so she tried the time-tested tactic of tears and sex. I still had feelings for this woman, so we had consensual sex, including anal sex. Afterwards I got dressed to leave and Jackie became enraged. I also refused to give her $600.

I left Jackie's house and went back to Hamilton. I went to visit Bev, a friend of mine. We bought a 12-pack of beer and spent the rest of the night at a private lake where I was a member.

Early on April 24, 1994, I dropped Bev off at her apartment and returned to South Lebanon where I was scheduled to work on my stepsister's vehicle. I stopped at a pay phone and called Jackie. She sounded sober and invited me over for coffee and to discuss the child she was carrying. It was early, about 7:30 or 8:00 a.m., so I said okay. When I got to her house, it was deserted. Jackie's daughter, Lavina, came in but didn't know where Jackie was, so I left and went to my stepsister Donna's house. Donna wasn't home so I went next door where her twin sister, Debbie, lived. At Debbie's apartment I called Jackie again to see if she was home and to find out why she wasn't there when I arrived. Her daughter, Lavina, answered the phone and said Jackie was still not there. Lavina was rude on the phone and I think it was then that I knew something was weird. I called again and a man answered the phone and identified himself as a Warren County Deputy Sheriff. He told me not to call again. Debbie then went to Jackie's house to see what was going on. That's how this tragedy started.

Debbie saw nothing much at Jackie's. A couple of cops were there. Debbie didn't get much information. Jackie claimed I beat her but Debbie saw no marks at all on her. Debbie said she heard Jackie tell the police she didn't want to press any charges against me. I wrote it off as part of Jackie's sickness caused by substance abuse and chose to put her behind me and get on with my life. In early July, the police came and arrested me for raping Jackie Dawson. I couldn't believe it. I bonded out and really didn't worry much because I knew I was innocent.

I was drawing disability for a back injury, so due to lack of funds I had to take a court-appointed attorney -- Andrew Hasselbach. He told me the State's case was extremely weak against me. He began a campaign to have me waive a jury and take trial by judge. Hasselbach told me he had clerked for Judge Bronson for three years and had pull with him. Hasselbach assured me Judge Bronson was a fair man and could pick the truth from the lies. He told me I had no chance of success in a jury trial even though I was innocent. Hasselbach said the jury would be made up of old ladies like Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith show, and they would surely convict me the first time anal sex was mentioned. He had me scared to take a jury trial, so I accepted a bench trial. He told me I could never be convicted of such obviously false charges. Hasselbach told me the State had absolutely no evidence with which to convict me. The evidence they did collect only proved my case.

When trial time came, my attorney didn't call my stepsister Debbie, or my other stepsister Donna, to testify. Hasselbach didn't call my sister, Emma, to testify, since she was the one who could place me at the lake. My attorney didn't ask the right questions of the people who did testify. The judge, prosecutor, and my so-called attorney unlawfully suppressed the transcript of an interview that Jackie gave to police. In it, she told a completely different story than the one she told on the stand. Jackie told a story under oath that not only flew in the face of the evidence, but also contained a glaring paradox. Jackie said I'd broken in her bedroom window and spent four hours savagely beating and kicking her with steel-toed shoes, causing massive physical damage. Debbie Campbell, Deputy Sulfstead, Detective Duvelius, Dr. Glass (the ER physician who examined Jackie) and others who saw Jackie saw absolutely no signs of that beating. They saw no blood either.

Two different people saw me at St. Clare Lake asleep in my car with Bev that night and the following morning. One person testified to that fact. Bev testified that she was with me and that was the truth. The knife I supposedly used to threaten Jackie on April 24, 1994 wasn't even collected as evidence until April 28th, a full 4 days later, according to Detective Duvelius' own evidence report. This contradicted his testimony that he collected it the day of the alleged rape.

Detective Duvelius testified that Jackie's trial testimony was consistent with her police report when there actually were contradictions. How convenient that the police interview transcript was unlawfully withheld from evidence by the Judge, prosecutor and my attorney. I have three pages of that transcript I stumbled across accidentally, which is how I discovered it existed at all. Even with only three pages, it's obvious how different Jackie's story was at trial. That tiny bit I have contradicts massive amounts of Jackie's testimony at trial. The rest of it would surely be even more enlightening. The courts refuse to let me see it. The investigation my two sisters and I have done since I was convicted turned up many such things. Everything I say I can back up with documented proof.

I possess every scrap of paper this case has ever generated except for the other pages of that police interview transcription that the State refuses to let me have. I am being held prisoner against all the facts and laws. My case is an abortion of justice and the record proves it. The Federal Courts have mimicked the State Courts, and so far refused to accept the documented truth. I am an indigent prisoner. I'm a nobody. I have no powerful friends, no lawyer, and no connections.

My present conviction has its roots in my previous marriage. Just a couple of years earlier, my ex-wife, Darlene, had tried to bring charges against me of "violent assault," of which I was acquitted. Jackie knew the whole story because I was stupid enough to tell her. Jackie used this against me and came up with a copycat rape charge. Of course, the courts won't admit they even consider previous acquittals against a person because that's not legal or constitutional, but everyone knows they do. The Federal District Court used them openly in its decision to deny me the writ of habeas corpus.

Let me explain. Darlene was my abusive ex-wife. Her tools of abuse were cops and courts. Darlene learned this little trick shortly after we got together from a woman who was a trained veteran of playing victim to get what she wanted. Nobody really wants to admit there are women who do this but we know they exist. They may do it for the attention, sympathy, to clean a person out while in jail, or even do it to collect state money as victims of violent crime. There are many reasons they may do it, but some women make a career of it and usually come out ahead of the game. Darlene's reason was as simple as it was obvious -- control. Every time I would try to leave her, refused to obey whatever she demanded, or otherwise pissed her off, to jail I went. Charges like rape, assault, felonious assault, domestic violence, and abduction. Darlene would bring charges against me, then drop the charges only if I would come back to her and follow her orders.

When I couldn't take anymore I told her to go ahead and prosecute me. I refused to submit to any more abuse. It was state-sponsored abuse, political correctness gone mad. Even after Darlene admitted on two separate occasions in court that she had made up the whole story because I was leaving her, the system continued to let her sign warrant after warrant. The courts acquitted me time and time again because Darlene's lies were obvious, but still they let her continue to sign warrants against me and drag me into court. Then, by accident, Darlene's charges against me got bound over to a Butler County Grand Jury Court. When the four counts of felonious assault, one of abduction and one count of intimidation of a witness, went to trial, the evidence was so overwhelmingly in my favor that, after I was acquitted, Judge Elliott chewed out the prosecutor and the two Middletown detectives who worked the case. These acquittals were used a dozen times at the trial that sent me to prison.

Jackie Dawson knew all the details of my life with Darlene and all I had gone through. She talked about it on several occasions with my sister, Emma.

Jackie once jokingly told my sister and brother-in-law she would know how to get me now if I ever messed up with her. I should have known then not to trust her. I know now how foolish I was to even tell her about my life before her. At any rate, when she was ready to hurt me she knew exactly how to do it. Jackie knew she would find a willing accomplice in the State. I've begged the courts to review Darlene's acquittals to see the kind of crap they illegally used to convict me. Anyone will be able to see the same copycat pattern Jackie used. The State refuses to look at anything that proves they are wrong. It's their knowledge of the truth that makes this wrong.

Now I'd like you to know a bit about Jackie's side of the story so you can see for yourself the glaring contradictions in what she says happened.

Jackie Dawson says she told Jack their relationship was over 10 days before this incident in April and Jack moved out. In Jack's version of the story, he left Jackie. In Jackie's version of the story, Jackie left him. When Jack's disability check arrived on April 23rd, Jackie made a trip to Jack's hometown to try to locate him. Jackie spent the entire day along with a friend, Bill Mason, looking for Jack. Jackie states that Bill Mason dropped her off at her house around 11:30 p.m. and she fell asleep on the couch.

Jackie says Jack awakened her around 4:00 a.m., and told her he'd come in through her bedroom window. She says Jack accused her of being with Bill Mason and made her pull her pants off so he could stick his finger into her vagina and check her. Under examination by the prosecution, Jackie said that not long after Jack got there, she noticed the chalkboard on which her children usually left messages was missing, so she and Jack walked over to her mother's house to see if her mother knew where her daughter was. Jackie located her daughter by phone while at her mom's. Why this call could not have been made from Jackie's house without waking her mother at 2:00 in the morning was never addressed. One possible reason is that this gave Jackie's mother a way to testify and place Jack at the scene of the crime. Why would Jack knowingly go to Jackie's mother's home, then go straight back to Jackie's house and commit a crime knowing her mother could place him at the scene?

Jackie said Jack made her call Bill Mason and Richard and Linda Barrett to tell them she was not going to have anything to do with them anymore. Bill Mason's sister testified that a call came in through an answering machine, but Jack's attorney never asked about the tape on which these messages were left, so the tape was never brought into evidence. Jack asked his attorney to call Richard Barrett as a witness, but his attorney refused. After Jack was convicted, Richard signed an affidavit swearing that no calls were made to his home the night in question. In this affidavit, he also said: "I cannot testify as to what actually took place that evening, but it is my opinion, based on my own personal experience with Jackie and Bill, that between the two of them, they made the entire story up."

In Jackie's version of the events, she said that Jack held a knife to her throat, and beat her so severely that there was blood everywhere. Jackie said she was bleeding from her mouth and nose, and that she wore white jeans. Jackie says Jack kicked her repeatedly and made her clean up the blood on the floor with a towel. The bloody jeans and towel were never introduced as evidence, and the doctor who examined Jackie at the hospital found only a puffy black eye. The "puffy black eye" was never explained in court. Jack speculates that Bill Mason hit Jackie, but no one, so far, has a definitive explanation. Three people testified to how drunk Jackie was that night, so she could have even bumped into something and got it that way. Jack's fingerprints were not found on the knife that was part of the evidence nor were his fingerprints found on the bedroom window through which he supposedly entered. Jackie also states that although Jack beat her severely and blood was everywhere, he told her to get some lubrication because he was going to rape her anally and he didn't want to hurt her.

Does it make sense to you that a man who would beat someone so severely would then worry about hurting her when he raped her?

There are also contradictions in Jackie's actual testimony. If you look at a copy of her testimony on page 26, the prosecuting attorney asked Jackie if Jack made any threats to her life. Jackie said, "Yes, he did." Then, on page 37, during the same round of questioning, when the prosecuting attorney asked Jackie if Jack ever threatened to kill her that night Jackie answered "No, he just said he would ruin my life."

Jackie says that around 8:00 the next morning, her daughter called and Jackie told her she would go pick her up. According to Jackie, Jack let her put on a robe, but no shoes or anything else. Jackie ran to the car and went to the police station but they were closed. Jackie says that she just happened to see Bill Mason's car parked at a restaurant, so she blew the horn and a waitress came to the door. She says that the waitress saw that Jackie was beaten up, and that Jackie told her to get Bill. This waitress was never called as a witness.

Jackie claims that Bill Mason then took her to JR Roark's trailer. JR Roark is Jackie's cousin and he had gone drinking with Jackie and Bill Mason the night of the alleged rape. Jackie states that after Bill Mason dropped her off at JR's trailer, he went to check on Jackie's daughter and to call the police. Jackie went home after she knew the police were there. Jackie says they could clearly see she was beaten up but she did not tell them about the rape or press charges. After about 3 or 4 hours of pain, Jackie says she went to the hospital and that is when she reported the rape.

JR left town when he heard the case was going to trial because he did not want to testify to the lies he knew Bill and Jackie were going to tell.

Later, after the trial, when JR found out that Jack got convicted, he signed an affidavit in which he says that Jackie came to his trailer alone on the morning of April 24th. Jackie said Jack had raped and beaten her, but she didn't look beat up. When JR asked if she had called Bill Mason, Jackie said she had called him, and he was on his way to JR's trailer. Jackie and Bill left JR's trailer after a short time and JR went back to bed. This is a much different story than Jackie and Bill Mason told on the stand. JR goes on to say in his affidavit, "Since the incident occurred there have been people who say that Jackie gets drunk and brags about putting Jack in prison, and the statements are made in the context that she set Jack up."

In the affidavit, JR also states that Bill Mason told him he was going to return to Jackie's house the night of the 23rd, after he dropped JR off from their night of drinking. Later on, when JR talked to Bill about that night, Bill told him he did return to Jackie's but that she had run him off. Could Bill have returned to Jackie's and they got into an argument? Remember that at this time Jackie was running back and forth between Bill Mason and Jack Frederick. Jack asked his attorney to subpoena JR Roark and force him to come back from wherever he was to testify, but once more his attorney refused.

Another contradiction is when Jackie's daughter, Lavina, testified that she told Judge Bronson the knife was in the drawer with the spoons and forks. Then later, when questioned by Jack's attorney, she said the knife was in the wood chips by the fireplace where, according to Jackie's story, Jack threw it after he threatened her with it.

Bill Mason testified under oath that he, Jackie, and JR Roark went drinking to bars in Lebanon as well as to a bar in Hamilton. When asked if either of them asked anyone at the bar if they had seen Jack, both Bill Mason and Jackie Dawson said, no, they hadn't, yet in Jackie Dawson's police interview, she freely admitted that she and Mason asked around about Jack's whereabouts. Bill says that after he dropped off Jackie and took JR home, he went back to Jackie's to check on her because she was drunk. He says she never awakened, although in Roark's affidavit he says that Bill later told him Jackie ran him off.

Bill goes on to say that, after making sure the door was locked, he went to his sister's house, where he was recuperating from a back surgery. He said he received the message from Jackie on his answering machine that Jackie did not want to see him anymore and drove over past Jackie's house and saw Jack's car parked there. He said that since he was already up early, he went to a little restaurant and ordered breakfast. The restaurant was closed down by the time of Jack's trial, so not only was the waitress not called to testify but also the restaurant owner was not located to check the times of operation. After Jack's conviction, his sisters found out this restaurant did not open on Sundays -- and a Sunday was the day in question -- until 7:00 a.m. Bill Mason claimed to be there around 5:00 a.m. and said he ordered breakfast.

Deputy Sulfsted was the first officer called to Jackie's house the morning of April 24th. He testified that no one took any photos that day and that no weapon was mentioned or shown to him on that visit. He was not shown any bloody items and, when he went into the house that day, he did not remember seeing the knife that was allegedly sticking in the wood chips by the fireplace. He saw no furniture knocked over. He also looked at the window and saw no sign of forced entry. He commented that Jackie reeked of alcohol and the nurse at the hospital later that day also made an entry in her journal that Jackie reeked of alcohol.

Detective Duvelius states that he secured the crime scene the afternoon of April 25th, more than 24 hours following the alleged crime. He testified that he personally fingerprinted the jar of petroleum jelly, the lid, knife, and the window frame, and found none of Jack's prints on any of these items, which leads one to think he must have worn gloves. Could it possibly be that since Jack's prints weren't on these items, maybe he never touched them? There were absolutely no pry marks on the window that Jack supposedly broke to gain access to Jackie's home. Detective Duvelius acknowledges that he did not see any blood anywhere, or find any bloody items. No furniture was in disarray to show that any type of struggle had taken place -- nothing was broken, nothing knocked over. There was only one small drop of blood found on the bed quilt and it did not match Jack's blood. Detective Duvelius did not see any blood anywhere on Jackie.

I come to you, the people, to beg for help. I come to beg for my life. The courts and Judges turn a deaf ear to my pleas. My goal is to open my own web site and put my entire case file online for the world to see. It will exhibit all the court filings, court rulings, lab reports, evidence sheets -- the works. It will contain the truth. It's my last hope. If only the people could read the documented truth, I believe the people would demand that I be released. This mockery of justice is being done in your name and with your tax dollars and I want to put this dirty little secret right out in the middle of the road where you and everyone else can see it. The biggest road in existence -- The Information Super Highway. Any lawyers, investigators or media people who would want to get involved would be a blessing.

Collaborator's note: After reading all this contradictory evidence, do you agree with Judge Bronson's conclusion? Does the evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jack L. Frederick is guilty of rape, kidnapping and assault? You decide. I don't think it does.

The reasons I believe in Jack's innocence:

1. I have read the complete transcript from the trial and looked at all of the evidence and I see no proof of Jack's guilt.

2. Three witnesses can attest to the fact that Jack was in another town when the alleged rape occurred.

3. Jack isn't an alcoholic and does not have a history of violence or abuse in this or other relationships. Jack had cared for Jackie's children many times when she left for the evening. If Jack truly had an abusive nature, would Jackie have allowed him to watch her children?

4. Although claiming to have been beaten for 4 hours, Jackie had no bloodstains on her clothes or marks on her body.

5. Jack's fingerprints were not found on the knife that he supposedly used to threaten Jackie.

6. There were no signs of forced entry through the window Jackie claims Jack broke to get to her.

7. Bill Mason testified that he was at a restaurant at 5:00 a.m. that didn't even open until 7:00 a.m., calling into question his credibility and reliability as a truthful witness.

8. JR Roark says in his affidavit that Jackie arrived at his trailer alone, and that Bill Mason arrived later. This directly contradicts the testimony of both Jackie and Bill on the stand when they say they arrived together. This was also the time period right after Jackie said she had been beaten for 4 hours, but JR says in his affidavit that he saw no sign of a beating.

9. Both of the affidavits from Jr. Roark and Richard Barrett contradict the testimony Jackie Dawson gave under oath. They both say they don't believe Jack raped Jackie, but have no first-hand knowledge of what happened. They state that Jackie was a known drug and alcohol abuser, but that Jack wasn't, and that Jackie would often leave Jack home to watch her children while she went out drinking. They also both say that Jack was not a violent person. These men are friends of Jackie's. They barely knew Jack, so they have no reason to lie for him.

10. Upon medical examination, no tearing or bruising was observed in Jackie's genital area. There was no bruising consistent with a forced hold, yet Jackie said she was forcibly raped and did not cooperate at any time. If Jackie had struggled and been pinned, it seems she would at least have bruising on her shoulders, neck, hips, or at least reddened finger impressions on her body. The doctors, police, and friends noted that they in fact saw NONE.

11. Jack comes up for parole on June 21, 2000. It is a known fact that the parole board looks at a parole more favorably if the person admits to the crime and repents. Jack L. Frederick absolutely refuses to admit to something that he did not do even if it means spending more years in prison. --

P. Lincoln

Write to Jack at:
Jack L. Frederick 305-424
P.O. Box 5500 C.C.I.  A-dorm
Chillicother, Ohio 45601-0990

Contacts: Phyllis Lincoln: PhylAnn45@aol.com
Jack's sister, Loretta, may be reached at: retta@fuse.net

Phyllis Ann Lincoln, born and raised in California, has lived all over the country, but now lives in Phoenix, Arizona with her four children. Phyllis has an AA in Accounting, and is now back in school to get a BS in Computer Information Systems. She has been a Diet Technician, Bookkeeper, Business Manager, and now works for the Lyric Opera Theatre on campus while continuing her education.

Phyllis became involved with the justice system when a friend went to prison for a crime he didn't commit. Appalled at what she learned, she decided to help educate the general public about the plight of the innocent in our prisons. She writes to prison inmates, and urges others to take this small action and experience the rewards she receives -- the pleasure of giving to those who have so little.

© Justice Denied