Disclaimer:

We, at War on Corruption, LLC. are not saying that Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent, we are fully aware that he violated multiple policies which ultimately assisted in his downfall. In this article, we are merely discussing the topics that have led to debate. While we do acknowledge that there are many more questions surrounding his case, it is a very complex situation and would require multiple articles to fully address. Therefore, we are simply opening a door for discussion. At the end of this article, we have added additional links of information. These are so that any person interested may conduct their research and come to their own conclusion regarding the case. The article does not cover everything. This is due to the complexity of the case; it simply would require multiple articles to address the case in full.

Introduction

The case of Daniel Holtzclaw, a former Oklahoma City Police Officer, has always been shrouded with debate. Starting with the questionable tactics used by the investigators, questionable witnesses, and even the evidence itself, there has always been scrutiny. For years, we have sat on this story, unsure as to rather or not it was one that should be written. It is very complicated, it may potentially open old wounds, or it simply may expose just how corrupt our justice system actually is. Either way, we’ve finally decided that it was time to write the article that will, without doubt, be our most controversial one. We’re going to discuss the Daniel Holtzclaw case and the problems within it.

Where it all began

Rather or not Holtzclaw sexually assaulted multiple women remains heavily debated. What isn’t debated, however, is the fact that he did initiate traffic stops to which he failed to report. While this alone does not prove guilt, it is a clear violation of protocol. Regardless of this violation, it was learned that Holtzclaw had initiated stops in, such as this, before.

Originally, he was faced with a total of 36 sexual based crimes. Among these were rape, sexual battery, forcible oral sodomy, and the list goes on. Out of the 36, Holtzclaw would be convicted of 18. With this conviction, began a very heated debate. This is a debate that is still ongoing. The only question to ask is why are people debating his guilt?

Originally, Holtzclaw was charged with more than 30 counts of sexually based crimes. However, by the end of his trial, only 18 would land convictions. Why is that? The simple answer is due to the lack of evidence and credibility issues with the alleged victims. That leads us to ask the most obvious question, “who are these victims?”

The Victims

The women who made accusations against Holtzclaw had a few key similarities with one another. To start, they were all lower class, they were all Black, had interactions with Holtzclaw, and criminal backgrounds. While this has shed light into their credibility, this isn’t the main discussion when it comes to his victims. The discussion is rather or not Holtzclaw did anything at all. According to one victim, Tabitha Barnes, he apparently never lay a hand on her, though she had testified differently.

During the trial, Barnes had testified that Holtzclaw had inappropriately touched her breasts. Ultimately, her testimony was among the charges to which Holtzclaw was found guilty. But there’s a problem with her accusation, an issue that would come much later. As though having a change of heart matters, Barnes has done a complete 180 on her original testimony, now stating that he never did anything to her. In simple terms, she sat in a courtroom, under oath, and fabricated a story that got the former officer convicted. For this, you don’t need to take our word for it, you can watch the video for yourself, we’ve included it below.

While Barnes ultimately recanted her story, she was not alone in having a retraction in statement. Sherry Ellis Smith would later admit to never seeing Holtzclaw prior to the trial. In total, Daniel would be accused of more than thirty sexually based crimes, but only convicted of eighteen, giving him a grand total of 263 years in prison. We can go on and on about this subject, but the article isn’t about the victims. Ultimately, the question is, could Daniel have been innocent of the crimes?

The original accuser, 57 Y.O. Jenny Wiggins, the woman who initially triggered the investigation, has also been a focal point of debate. Prior to her being pulled over, it was discovered that her license had actually been suspended for around thirty years, she had also admitted to using the controlled substance, Cannabis shortly before the encounter. Furthermore, there would be no evidence on this victim linking her to Holtzclaw. The only link is in the interaction, to which he was in policy violation by conducting. The violation being that he failed to notify dispatch and disabling the car’s computer.

During the encounter with Holtzclaw, Wiggins claimed that he had her place her hands on the hood of his patrol car. However, there was no evidence on his car that supported this claim. The investigators explanation for this lack of evidence? The car was full of trash and therefore finding a fingerprint on the outside would be impossible. This is alarming because most of us know that the inside of a vehicle does not affect the outside. With that in mind, we have to ponder on how they were unable to find a simple fingerprint. Beyond this, we cannot ignore the fact that Wiggins actually had changed her story several times. In fact, the description she had given of Holtzclaw was completely off. She described him as having blonde hair and being several inches shorter than what he actually is. It’s important to note that Holtzclaw stands at just over six feet, a hard to miss feature. But this isn’t the only issue within the case. We will link a video that further discusses this in the links below.

The Evidence

Looking at the evidence used, at best, it wasn’t the greatest. In other words, it left a lot of room for debate, and it has. Aside the accusers, many whom had been discredited, and the later retraction, there was nothing that we could100% state tied Holtzclaw to anything criminal. The only thing we can say concretely is this: he broke policy by turning off the computer system in his patrol car, but that doesn’t mean he committed a crime.

The trial was a very heated and emotionally charged one, this was clear to anybody who followed it. Being charged for multiple crimes, primarily on no evidence aside from verbal statements, is absolutely terrifying, but it demonstrates a phrase that we have stated multiple times before: “Sex based crimes are the easiest to charge because they do not require evidence.” Did they have any evidence aside from verbal statements? They had one thing: one sample of DNA belonging to a 17 Y.O. girl, as well as an unknown male. Regardless of its location, this DNA is up for debate.

Under normal circumstances, DNA is a fairly reliable source of forensics. It’s so reliable that it’s used in virtually every criminal case. For the Holtzclaw case, however, it’s been one of many targets for debate. The DNA was located on the outside of the former officer’s pants, near the zipper. For some, this is concrete enough to suggest his guilt. But is it? Well, no. While we wish it were that simple, it’s not. If the officer had any form of contact with the girl, regardless of it being sexual or not, it’s very plausible that this DNA, being skin cells, would have gotten onto the former officer, including his hands. If he had done something as simple as using the restroom, that alone would explain why they were in the location that they were.

What we couldn’t find, when looking at this particular form of evidence, was anything implicating that semen was located in the area. The fact of the matter is, if he had committed such an act, this would had most likely been present. If not, at minimum, pre-ejaculatory fluid, and yet we have found nothing implicating its presence, an abnormality in that he allegedly committed more than one crime while wearing them, and yet that florfenicol evidence was not present.

Regardless of all of the issues, we do know that Holtzclaw was trying to get close to some of the women he had contact with, however unprofessional that might be, it doesn’t necessarily mean he was trying to force anybody into such contacts with him. During his career, he had a couple of major issues involving Facebook messages and visiting a residence of a woman to which he had contact with while on duty. While this isn’t conclusive evidence to support he did anything illegal, it ultimately did come back to bite him at the worst possible time. Again, while the DNA is questionable, as mentioned, we can’t ignore that it was there and where it was located. For this, we would call that a double-edged sword; it doesn’t prove guilt, doesn’t prove innocence, but really looks bad for him.

Conclusion

While we cannot say with 100% certainty that he is guilty, we can’t say that he’s completely innocent, either. Holtzclaw violated policy, he was looking for intimate interactions, he had attempted romantic relations with some of the women he interacted with and appeared to act impulsively. His actions, especially in disabling the computer, does leave the possibility that he may have committed crimes, but it’s not absolute. Ultimately, his case was reckless and poorly constructed, at best. In many ways, the case appeared to an attempt to disarm any potential civil unrest rather than the actual seek for justice. The victims are questionable, with criminal histories, and potential motive for wanting to ruin an officer’s life. Of course, this is just mere observation, one that is heavily debated.