Here is Thursday’s testimony from Waymond Anderson, who on Wednesday accused Chuck Philips of suborning perjury and smuggling threats for Suge Knight. (Full disclosure: my boss prosecuted Anderson. I have not spoken with her about this.)
From my Friday post, you will remember that Chuck Philips wrote a Page One article touting Anderson’s innocence of the murder, and later told an interviewer that he believed Anderson was innocent. Philips claimed that evidence showed Anderson was in Mississippi just before and after the murder.
That means Philips fell for a mighty interesting story. Because, as Thursday’s testimony reveals, Anderson told police that he was in Compton — not Mississippi — just before and after the murder.
Anderson admitted being in Compton when the murder was planned:
Anderson also admitted that he was present in Compton right before and right after the murder:
Anderson also admits that he helped acquire the vehicle that was used in the murder, and knew the location of the gun that was used to facilitate the murder.
These facts were mentioned in the D.A.’s response to Anderson’s petition. They were set forth in the first paragraph of the introduction to the D.A.’s response. The D.A.’s response says Anderson admitted being present in a Compton record store for the planning of the murder, just one day before the murder — when Anderson’s travel records supposedly show him in Mississippi. I obtained that response through a public records request and it clearly sets out the facts testified to by Anderson on Friday.
Philips didn’t mention any of this in his Page One story. Nor did he mention it in his follow-up story about the District Attorney’s response — even though these facts were prominently mentioned in that response.
Philips was so tied up in this inmate’s story of innocence that he didn’t report basic facts that undercut that story.
What’s Anderson’s explanation for these taped statements? He says a policeman named Tom King, who is now a City Councilman, forced him to say those things as part of a scheme to arrest another individual.
The credibility of that statement, I’ll leave for the reader to decide.
BONUS PELLICANO ANGLE: Also, in Thursday’s testimony, Anderson claimed that he had met with Larry Longo (a former D.A. who lost his job after getting mixed up with Suge Knight while prosecuting him) in prison:
[Longo] said that he was at an investigator by the name of Anthony Pellicano’s office, with the husband of the district attorney on the case.
Anderson goes on to say that while Longo was at Pellicano’s office, the subject of railroaded defendants came up, and his name was mentioned — because the LAPD supposedly knew about his alibi.
The more you read of this fellow’s testimony, the more you realize how foolish the L.A. Times and Chuck Philips were to put any stock in his credibility.
And I haven’t even told you about his deposition yet! That’s the best part.
But it will have to await a future post, because I’m out of time for now.