web analytics

Allege Shooting Victim Emerges With Contrasting Version Of Crime: Tells TPC Nyamodi Youth Shot Her And Is Of African Royal Descent

As a trained journalist one must take exceptional caution when composing any article which has the potential of being read by the masses, while having tremendous impact on society’s perception of a story, and the inherited trust that established writers have developed from diverses audiences, care must be taken to strictly guard the insurance of objectivity and fairness. Often times while developing any news worthy topic that arise, all who may be a party to the discussion are often times unreachable or unavailable to solicit commentary related to a written piece. Upon such time that they are made available, it’s only within in sound journalism that a writer obtain additional content from their point of view, especially if previously written material may have, in the absent party’s opinion, been misrepresented, or doesn’t convey their complete perspective.

With that being said, my personal investigation into the Rhonda MacClean shooting in the small town of Youngsville, North Carolina did not afford TPC the opportunity to solicit comment from the victim in this case at the time previous Blog articles were composed. Now a woman has come forward identifying herself as the victim in this case. Since it can’t be established with complete certainty that she is in fact Rhonda MacClean, I’ll only refer to her as “The Woman”, and I caution readers to give her commentary the weight they deem appropriate. If “The Woman” is in fact the victim, by her own admission, “The Woman” purposefully has made herself unavailable to any media outlet which is completely understandable considering the gravity of her experience related to this horrible crime. “The Woman’s” sudden emergence with comment is the initial statement, according to her that she has offered any media organization since she fell victim to gunfire on that August night in 2012. Her version of events that night stand in staunch contrast to what TPC has previously reported related to this ordeal.

“The Woman” first appeared on a Facebook Group Franklin County News Online where she stated that Shannon Nyamodi had in fact shot her and robbed her. A series of comments by others participating in the thread which consisted of individuals who clearly felt that Shannon Nyamodi was in fact guilty, based on their comments. Some of the post were so contrasting to what police and court records show pertaining to the case, that it appeared that “The Woman” wasn’t who she said she was (the name of the poster identifying herself as the victim even spelled her name wrong i.e. McClean). TPC investigations led to obtaining the victims phone number, where she in fact stated that she was the person commenting in the FCNO Group on Facebook.

When I identified myself to her as the Administrator of The People’s Champion Blog she was agitated, but our continued dialogue resulted in very civil discourse regarding this case. “The Woman” spoke articulately, and displayed a civil demeanor while continuously conveying her christian values, and spirit of forgiveness. She also expressed her empathy and compassion for Ms. Elizabeth Crudup, her alleged assailant’s mother, and stated she understands her pain as a mother herself. “The Woman” went on to tell TPC that her daughter was complicit in the crime and has been convicted, and serving time for her role in the shooting. She dispelled the belief that her daughter escaped this crime without punishment. She also denied that Shannon was having sex with her and her daughter as rumors within the community had circulated.

“The Woman” went on to tell TPC that the night the shooting occurred that she heard a door to her home open and went to investigate. She says as she walked out of her bedroom door she saw a door to her closet move which frightened her (her bedroom is on the second floor). She proceeded down stairs and said she saw a man but believed he was hiding in the bathroom, then said she thought he may have left the house, and went to her daughter’s bed room to opened the door and asked her who the man was. “The Woman” says that’s when Shannon came out of the bathroom and shot her in the face at point blank range, and then proceeded to run out of the house. “The Woman” said she ran out of the house to an adjacent home of her neighbor’s for help. When police arrived she said she told police that Shannon was the man who shot her, and they took him away. I knew that police arrest warrants issued in the case show that Shannon was arrested along side her daughter at her neighbor’s home later on in the afternoon that day, so I inquired whether Shannon was placed in handcuffs, to determine if she actually observed him being arrested that night on the scene. “The Woman” told me that she had lost 6 pints of blood at that time and was unaware if he was in fact physically taken into custody.

I raised these facts with her only because she stated that the youths were both taken into custody the night of the shooting. “The Woman” then said that “well they were taken in for questioning.” I also reminded her when and where they were arrested and she said the police never let the pair out of their sights and were keeping close eye on them while they continued to work the crime scene building a case. “The Woman” said that the case against Shannon Nyamodi is solid, because police have bloody clothing which belong to Shannon. She says that after Shannon ran from her home, he took of his shirt (containing incriminating DNA evidence) and stuffed it in a nearby car. She says his prints were recovered from the scene and that the gun cover for the weapon that was used in the shooting was discovered thrown under Shannon’struck. “The Woman” said Shannon was shirtless ans sweating profusely.

“The Woman” says that money was discovered from the robbery at her home at an abandoned building nearby the crime scene, and that Shannon had been observed at the location previously that day and a neighbor had called police to report it because he was trespassing. “The Woman” says some of the money stolen was recovered from the abandoned building. She went on to say that her daughter has admitted conspiring with Shannon, and that he was suppose to kill her in the bed room according to text messages which were exchanged between the two. She says that her daughter even attempted to destroy the SIM Card for one of the cell phones she allegedly had, but that police were able to retrieve the data from the phone.

“The Woman” also stated that Mike Young who resides at the home she fled to for help after being shot, was also involved in the crime. She told TPC that Mike went into the bedroom of the home where her 13 year old daughter’s room is (who has a disability of Down Syndrome), stuck a screw driver/flash light in her back, and covered her mouth telling her “you stay right here.” “The Woman” says that she has repeatedly requested that the police investigate that aspect of the crime because Mike Young was in fact Shannon’s accomplice during this home invasion and shooting. None of these details are contained in police reports obtained by TPC in this case, Mike hasn’t been charged, and I asked MacClean if she was certain of the events that she described. She conveyed with certainty that she did identify Shannon Nyamodi as her assailant to police on the night of the shooting, and was persistent in her belief that his friend Mike Young had participated in the crime as she outlined.

However, “The Woman” says that she has since forgiven her daughter and young Shannon for what they have done. She has even requested that the State’s attorney offer Shannon a plea deal for his involvement because she wants the ordeal to be over, she realizes that Shannon has made a poor choice in his life, and doesn’t want him to spend the rest of his life in prison. She spoke regarding her faith and stated that her beliefs require her to have the power of forgiveness and wants Shannon to have a chance in life. “The Woman” says that she was anticipating going back to court regarding Shannon’s case last week, but his attorney is on vacation and honeymoon. She says that Shannon isn’t being treated unfairly by being locked up for so long, because his attorney continues to postpone the trial date.

“The Woman” also revealed that the state’s attorney in the case informed her that Elizabeth Crudup isn’t Shannon’s biological mother. The attorney told “The Woman” that Shannon was given up for adoption at a young age by a family in Africa with Royal bloodline. “The Woman” further explains that the “Royal Family” in Africa is paying Shannon’s legal fees. I am not sure how, even if it is determined to be factual, what relevance Shannon’s heritage or who pays is legal expenses factors in to the case. When pressed on these details “The Woman” simply said she is just conveying to me what the state’s attorney told her. Her comments in their entirety paint a different scenario of how the events of that night back in August 2012 actually unfolded, and followers of this case will have to deduct their own conclusions related to the credibility of what her commentary presents in relationship to police reports and court documents already presented for this case.

TPC Analysis Of Interview

Assuming that a rational and logical thinking person gives “This Woman’s” version of events related to this case full weight, as if her comments were in fact completely credible, then they would also have to conclude that her account in comparison to official documents in the case is extremely problematic. Any notion that would suggest that “The Woman” told the cops that night Shannon was in fact the person who shot her, in my opinion is completely and utterly untrue. We know this as a matter of fact because neither the Youngsville police nor the Franklin County sheriff’s office took Shannon Nyamodi into custody that night. Lt. M. Little’s report supports this as the youth was only questioned at the scene. Additionally, a search warrant application submitted to a county magistrate indicated that the teen had in fact confessed (although the actual document suggest that some one imputed this with a hand written addendum sometime after the document was created). Police officials wouldn’t have required an arrest warrant for Shannon, because according to “The Woman” she had already fingered the youth for the crime, and that would have been sufficient cause for his arrest on the spot. The fact that some one altered the search warrant application for Shannon’s home clearly suggest it was done so to bolster probable cause to obtain authorization to search his home, and would suggest that he hadn’t as a matter of fact been identified by the victim as her assailant for this crime.

You have a woman shot in the head who at least one officer admits in his report that he believed the woman was about to expire, and her alleged statement to them identifying Shannon as the person who shot her, would have presented a situation where cops more than likely would have pounced on the black youth, especially since a white woman had fingered him as having shot her in the face. Even if cops determined later that her account was inaccurate, the law in most state’s allow police agencies to detain potential suspects for at least 72 hours. Most agencies investigating a serious crime of this nature would siege such opportunity if for no other provocation but in the interest of public safety to insure a suspect doesn’t shoot or harm anyone else.

“The Woman’s” statements also drew further scrutiny to police reports obtained by TPC in the case. When we view the reports of Youngsville police officers Z. Phillip and M. Little, we clearly see that their reports were composed on different forms.  We also must take exception to the dates that each report indicate that they were created. Phillip’s report is in fact composed on what appears to be an Incident/Investigation Report form (probably the agency’s official document for such a report) and noted as having been composed on August 16, 2012. Most police agencies require officers submit a complete report immediate after their shift, especially when serious crimes occur. On the other hand, Lt. M. Little’s report is composed on what appears to be an Incident Supplementary Investigation form. Although the content of Little’s report would suggest that it’s his initial report for this crime, the document is dated August 20, 2012, and contains information from interviews the officer conducted with potential witnesses in the case which in fact occurred on August 17, 2012 a day after the crime had occurred.

As an experienced law enforcement officer who has composed thousands of incident reports, the diversity of the report forms the documents were composed on by these officers, along with contrasting dates suggest to me that Lt. M. Little had in fact rewritten his report all together 4 days after the actual crime occurred. Often times police officials are required to add supplementation to reports for a variety of reasons. An officer could have inadvertently omitted or forgot to include certain details in a report requiring additional information. The information is typically classified as a supplement to the officer’s initial report, and that’s why Supplementary Incident Report forms are designed to aid in this process. As a rule of thumb, to insure or dispel the appearance of integrity issues, officers almost never change the content of their original statements, baring supplemental reports as the only exception. Now in some agencies with storied past and histories of corruption, we see problems with official police reports all the time. In this case, Lt. M. Little appears to have composed his initial statement on a Supplementary Incident Report form.

The title of the form suggest on it’s face that the content contained in the report is an addition to some previously composed report. One might make the argument that perhaps the agency may have ran out of official Incident/Investigation Report forms similar to the form in which officer Z. Phillips composed his report on, but even if the benefit of doubt was given in this instance, it would not explain why Little’s report contained a narration consisting of information he should have entered in his initial report immediately after his shift on the night of the incident. His supplementary report should have only consisted of information he obtained on August 17, 2012 upon interviewing potential witnesses in the crime. I’ll give even more benefit of the doubt to this officer’s report while crediting a possible lack of appropriate forms being on hand at the time his report was composed, but even in that scenario the report should have been composed on blank paper to avoid the suspicion that the document was some how recomposed or altered from it’s original form. Then again. the fact that the report indicates it was composed 4 days after the actual crime on August 20, 2012 creates further suspicion related to the document’s development.

When we consider “The Woman’s” account she offered during my interview with her, juxtaposed to the incident report of Lt. M. Little (the officer who initially interviewed her at the scene that night), it’s simply unconscionable that a ranking police officer would forget to include a crucial statement by the victim in his official report for a serious felony crime that the victim had communicated to him Shannon Nyamodi was the person who shot her, is not only incredible but simply unbelievable. In fact, none of the documents related to this case obtained by TPC indicates that any law enforcement officer was told by “The Woman” that Shannon Nyamodi shot her in the face. The only document which suggest he shot her is the search warrant application with a suspicious handwritten addendum stating that the youth confessed to the crime. The fact that the police official who submitted that application believed the youth had confessed, demonstrates he/she were unaware of the alleged confession, or the official purposely falsified the document which still suggest that Shannon had not been identified as her shooter to police.

“The Woman” tells TPC that as she first walked out of her bedroom (on the second floor) she saw a closet door move which frightened her. That would indicate that the subject closet was on the same floor as her bedroom. I can’t help but wonder why she never investigated the moving door prior to going downstairs. She further states that upon going downstairs she observed a man in her house, but confusingly admits she thought the man had left or had hidden in the bathroom. She says she opened her daughter’s bedroom door and asked “who was that” when Shannon emerged from the bathroom and shot her in the face. Assuming the bathroom was in close proximity of the daughter’s bedroom when the shooting occurred, it would support her suspicion that who ever shot her had in fact hidden in the bathroom.

This account is entirely different from what Lt. M. little, a trained ranking officer indicated in his police report. According to Lt. Little’s report “The Woman” stated that when she went downstairs she saw a man and asked her daughter “what she was doing” and someone hit her in the head with the pole from behind her sliding door. Little’s report went on to say “The Woman” went down and while choking on blood and bleeding profusely when she heard her daughter say “she’s dead, the money is up here come on hurry.” Little’s report also reveals that “The Woman”, although she was seriously wounded, had the presence of mind to notice that her daughter and “some one else” stepped over her, leaving her on the floor bleeding. That’s what Little’s report indicates despite the “The Woman’s’ claims during her interview with me in which she claims to have positively identify Shannon Nyamodi as her assailant.

If “The Woman” had identified her shooter, it’s disturbing that Lt. Little didn’t indicate that statement in his report. Little only describes “The Woman’s” comments repeatedly in his report as “someone”, which suggest that the woman was uncertain who had stuck her with a pole (not shot her). I am concerned that she described during our interview, Shannon as having shot her with complete certainty after he emerged from the bathroom, but unable to identify anyone the night that Little questioned her at the scene. Also, she told TPC that Shannon came from out of the bathroom while telling Lt. Little that some one struck her from behind her sliding door. We do know based on little’s report that the sliding door is within close proximity of the daughter’s bedroom, because he described the area while going in side with someone to retrieve the victim’s youngest daughter, 13 who is handicapped (down syndrome) from the house. Little’ describes a sliding door being a jar, blood splatter in the hallway, front door, and an even larger pile of blood in the daughter’s room where she says she was when she was shot.

Little even indicates in his report that he took pictures with his cell phone while careful not to compromise the integrity of the crime scene. The report also revealed that Little noted a closet inside the victim daughter’s bedroom with a large amount a blood on the floor consistent with her having been on the floor after being shot. Little’s statement in his report is cause for concern related to “The Woman’s” statement to TPC. She only described a closet door when she first walked out of her bedroom on the second floor. She also told TPC that Shannon came out of a bathroom when she opened her daughter’s room door downstairs. So, it’s confusing why Little indicated in his report that she stated “someone” struck her with a pole from behind her sliding door. Clearly Little’s statement from the witness indicates she didn’t identify the person who attacked her, but more importantly the inconsistency in her account raises serious concern whether she actually could identify anyone as having been the person who shot her in the face.

Perhaps the most compelling portion of “The Woman’s” comments to TPC which establish unreliability in her statement is that she believes that Michael Young, Shannon’s friend and who resides at the neighboring home where she fled to for help, is believed by her to be complicit in the crime also. She stated during the interview that Michael also entered her home that night, went to her youngest daughter’s bedroom (on the first floor), covered the child’s mouth with his hands, while pointing an object (which she appeared confused about) in her back, and stating “you stay right here.” I question how she could have known this because her daughters rooms were separate locations in the house, and she had only been in her 16 year old daughter’s room a few moments, by her own account, momentarily when she was shot in the face. Did her daughter handicapped with Down Syndrome communicate this to her after the fact? This seems unlikely considering that Lt. Little along with another person from a neighbor’s home who knew her went to retrieve the child from inside of the house. The child’s inability to exit the home on her own accord highlights the severity of her disability, and with no reports existing by any of the officers at the scene that night suggesting that she had been interviewed by police revealing “The Woman’s” assertion that she was being held while the shooting and robbery transpired creates a lack of credibility to support Mike Young’s involvement in the case.

The officers reports don’t mention any of these claims by the victim, and more importantly, if she some how had the ability to gain knowledge of her accusations while the crime was occurring (highly improbable), why on earth did she run to Mike Young’s home for help? This demonstrates that her belief that Mike was involved had to have come after the shooting and robbery occurred. Information provided to TPC by sources with knowledge of the case suggest that “The Woman” may have implicated Mike’s involvement to counter his support of Shannon, and his grandmother’s comment she made to Lt. Little that Shannon was outside in the truck when the victim came to their home for help. This would also suggest that the victim statements to TPC were constructed to support the charges Shannon Nyamodi now faces related to this crime, which causes reexamination of Lt. M. Little’s report being composed on a Supplementary Incident Report form.

Sources say that police reports did exist describing the victim having told Little that Shannon wasn’t the person who shot her in the face. The awkwardness of what appears to be Little’s initial statement compiled with information from an interview with a potential witness the day after the crime, suggest that the report was composed on the Supplementary form 4 days later in an effort to conceal a previously composed report by Lt. Little, that contained “The Woman’s” statements in which she exonerated Shannon from his involvement in her shooting.  This would also mean that the victim has purposely altered her initial statements to the police. Many following the case question whether the victim’s sudden redirection of her account is related to assisting her daughter facing criminal charges for her role in the crime. There is no information available regarding the final disposition of her daughter’s case. View copies of the police reports of Z. Phillip and Lt. M. Little below while taking care to notice the heading or title of their individual forms their reports were composed on, as well as the dates indicated establishing when the reports were submitted:

Alleged Evidence

Moreover, “The Woman” alleges that DNA evidence was obtained in the crime when a blood stained shirt believed to have belonged to Shannon was discovered stuffed in a near by car. There is no indication in the victim’s statement establishing when police obtained the item, but Shannon’s mother previously revealed to TPC that Shannon had held the woman while comforting her until EMS arrived, and at some point took his shirt off because of the danger of blood borne pathogens, putting it on top of his truck, and was going to change shirts before police arrived questioning him. This would explain why the youth was shirtless when the cops arrived. Elizabeth Crudup also told TPC that the shirt in evidence was obtained by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) a week after the crime, and after Shannon had been arrested. She says the shirt remained on her son’s truck all that time in the elements before it was confiscated as evidence.

Her account is reinforced by the Young family who stated that the SBI knocked on the family’s door to inform them that they were there for the purpose of searching the truck in the yard for evidence. Ms. Crudup says the SBI not only took her son’s shirt, but also confiscated his music equipment (i.e. guitar, amplify, etc.). Any documentation of the agency’s inventory log from the search should indicate the actual date the SBI obtained possession of the items. This further draws suspicion as to why Shannon was arrested and charged with the crime within a twelve hour time period, when articles with DNA evidence possibly linking the teen to the crime was obtained days after his arrest. Also, “The Woman” stated to TPC that some of the money stolen in the robbery along with the alleged weapon used in the crime was obtained by the sheriff’s office a week after the crime. How could cops have linked his DNA or fingerprints to those items when police obtained them after Shannon had been taken into custody. The strongest part of my argument here is that Shannon Nyamodi had no criminal past, meaning he didn’t have traceable fingerprints in any criminal database, that would cause police to link him for prints obtained in their forensic discovery within the home where the crime occurred. They would only have had his prints available upon his arrest, booking, and subsequent fingerprinting which would have been his first of any kind in his life.

The search warrant for Shannon’s address listed as 116 Shearin Court was filed with the Franklin County C.S.C on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 a.m., and on the same day Lt. Little composed his Supplementary Incident Report in the case. The Search Warrant document had a box checked indicating that the warrant wasn’t executed in 48 hours as prescribed by the authorizing magistrate, and was returned not executed to the Franklin County, County Sheriff Clerk. The SBI was the agency charged with conducting the search, which they did inn fact execute, based of the Young family’s account in which they describe the shirt, and Shannon’s music equipment being confiscated. It’s unclear why the warrant was returned not executed when they in fact did search the truck on the Young’s property. A closer evaluation of these facts, shows that the warrant was turned back in not executed, probably because it would  reveal the actual date that the SBI obtained the alleged blood stained shirt, days later which police believed belong to Shannon Nyamodi. The SBI officer who submitted the warrant back to the County Clerk’s officer did in fact submit a falsified document, more than likely to mislead the court that a search was not executed. This shows at least one officer of the SBI complicity in what appears to be a conspiracy to convict an innocent man. By eliminating the execution of the search warrant, police can now claim that the blood stained shirt was discovered at anytime, like the night of the shooting, and justify taking Shannon into custody at such an early stage of the investigation. Yet, it’s highly doubtful that either of the investigating agencies could have processed DNA samples in such a short period of time, making Shannon’s arrest highly suspect at best.We see that the wheels of conspiracy began spinning on August 20, 2012 by observing the Franklin County Court Clerk’s stamp on Shannon’s search warrant, validating the time and date the document was submitted to the court. View Shannon’s search warrant document below taking care to notice how the document has a box with a an x mark indicating the warrant was not executed, and the County Clerk’s stamp validating when it was submitted to the courts:

“The Woman’s” comment which suggest that Shannon was allegedly seen at the abandoned building where the money and weapon were found earlier that day is only a circumstantial element of this case, and quite frankly way too convenient to even give such a perspective any credible weight what-so-ever. Other reports circulating in media which many say points to Shannon’s premeditation of this crime, where a young white male conveys that Shannon had advised him “if something happens and the cops question you, say I was at your house all night,” may be a fabricated story by one of the real perpetrators of the crime that witnesses in the community have fingered. The young man who made the statement, and one of the state’s star witnesses seen describing Shannon’s premeditation on the news is actually a male name Steven, believed to be a relative of the Sheriff whose agency is investigating the crime, and who witnesses have submitted an image of to TPC with him holding a rifle and wearing a black hoodie similar to the style in which Lt. Little indicates in his report that he was told by witnesses that the man fleeing the home after the shooting was wearing, upon his arrival at the scene that night.View the image below:

sc2

 

The text messages which are suppose to have been obtained by police in the case should make for a very interesting piece of discovery evidence if the case ever makes it to trial, considering Shannon didn’t own a cellphone. His mother told TPC that the youth sold his phone when he initially began working to be able to afford lunch money for work. “The Women’s” comment regarding the cellphone SIM card that her daughter attempted to destroy may have text data on it linking some conspirator to the crime, but it’s believed by Shannon’s mother that the text exchange doesn’t link to a phone owned by her son. The more and more the documents and statements obtained in this case are examined, it becomes quite clear to the intelligent mind that a disturbing picture of a conspiracy exist to frame an innocent man for this crime.

Conclusion

Finally, “The Women” indicated that she didn’t feel that Shannon was being held unjustly nor treated unfairly by the courts. She stated that there were plans to go back to court next week in Shannon’s case in which she planned to plead to the state’s attorney to offer the teen a deal, in what she continuously described as her Christian posture of forgiveness in this case. I advised her that I was Go Fearing as well, but unlike her I don’t think that I share her sentiment toward a person I believe had shot me in the face. She conveyed that the only thing prohibiting Shannon’s case from moving forward was his attorney’s constant request for postponement in the case. Clearly that assertion is incorrect because TPC has already produced documents which reveal a motion by the state’s attorney to have the case removed from the court’s Management Docket System, and which was in fact approved by Judge Hight on February 2o, 2013. It’s statements like that from “The Women”  coupled with other inconsistent comments which stand in staunch contrast to established reports that hurts the credibility of this woman who claims to have been the victim in this case.

Moreover, the the opinion of many within the Franklin County, North Carolina community where the crime occurred, as seen in the thread of the Franklin County News Online Facebook Group, would suggest that the case against young Shannon Nyamodi is so solid that it’s a complete outraged that the case hasn’t been resolved. I concur with these sentiments regarding the manner in which the state has failed to expedite this case, but our collective concern for the state’s lack of forward motion should raise serious discussion and suspicion as to why it has taken so long to dispose of, if so many people believe the state’s case is a smoking gun. Shady and falsified police documents, inconsistent statements by the alleged witness (if you believe the woman I interviewed was in fact the actual victim), unexplained justification for the speedy arrest of Shannon Nyamodi, and most importantly the state’s desire to hide the case within the court Management Docket System indefinitely should spell trouble for the strength of their case against this young man by even those who support the state’s belief of his guilt.

According to “The Women” the victim’s daughter has already had her case disposed of for her role in the crime, and is serving time in prison. Suspicion continues to linger if the woman I interviewed is in fact the victim in the case, related to her sudden redirection in statements she made related to who actually shot her. Shannon has been locked up in the Franklin County jail now for nearly 15 months, and the state has removed his case file from the court system. There are no criminal proceedings currently within the state of North Carolina’s entire database which suggest that criminal charges against him are pending. The state’s request for a motion of “Exceptional” status raises suspicion from other legal professionals that TPC and other Advocacy organizations have brought to their attention regarding this case. If “The Women’s” belief that the state has very culpable, evidence sufficient to convict Shannon Nyamodi, why have they shelved this defendant’s case in their archives. That alone speaks volumes to just about every independent observer of this entire bizarre case.

It is the position of The People’s Champion Blog to convey information anyone offers to our advocacy process, and pertaining to every story with honesty, sincerity, as well as giving commenters a platform for which their voice may be heard. In this instance, even if I could establish with certainty that the woman who provided information in this article was in fact the actual victim, her story is extremely troubling related to this entire ordeal. We pray for both the victim, and the alleged perpetrator and their families that true justice is served. God speed.

To Be Continued ..

 

 

The People’s Champion

I’m David Adams.

 

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

As a trained journalist one must take exceptional caution when composing any article which has the potential of being read by the masses, while having tremendous impact on society’s perception of a story, and the inherited trust that established writers have developed from diverses audiences, care must be taken to strictly guard the insurance of objectivity and fairness. Often times while developing any news worthy topic that arise, all who may be a party to the discussion are often times unreachable or unavailable to solicit commentary related to a written piece. Upon such time that they are made available, it’s only within in sound journalism that a writer obtain additional content from their point of view, especially if previously written material may have, in the absent party’s opinion, been misrepresented, or doesn’t convey their complete perspective.

With that being said, my personal investigation into the Rhonda MacClean shooting in the small town of Youngsville, North Carolina did not afford TPC the opportunity to solicit comment from the victim in this case at the time previous Blog articles were composed. Now a woman has come forward identifying herself as the victim in this case. Since it can’t be established with complete certainty that she is in fact Rhonda MacClean, I’ll only refer to her as “The Woman”, and I caution readers to give her commentary the weight they deem appropriate. If “The Woman” is in fact the victim, by her own admission, “The Woman” purposefully has made herself unavailable to any media outlet which is completely understandable considering the gravity of her experience related to this horrible crime. “The Woman’s” sudden emergence with comment is the initial statement, according to her that she has offered any media organization since she fell victim to gunfire on that August night in 2012. Her version of events that night stand in staunch contrast to what TPC has previously reported related to this ordeal.

“The Woman” first appeared on a Facebook Group Franklin County News Online where she stated that Shannon Nyamodi had in fact shot her and robbed her. A series of comments by others participating in the thread which consisted of individuals who clearly felt that Shannon Nyamodi was in fact guilty, based on their comments. Some of the post were so contrasting to what police and court records show pertaining to the case, that it appeared that “The Woman” wasn’t who she said she was (the name of the poster identifying herself as the victim even spelled her name wrong i.e. McClean). TPC investigations led to obtaining the victims phone number, where she in fact stated that she was the person commenting in the FCNO Group on Facebook.

When I identified myself to her as the Administrator of The People’s Champion Blog she was agitated, but our continued dialogue resulted in very civil discourse regarding this case. “The Woman” spoke articulately, and displayed a civil demeanor while continuously conveying her christian values, and spirit of forgiveness. She also expressed her empathy and compassion for Ms. Elizabeth Crudup, her alleged assailant’s mother, and stated she understands her pain as a mother herself. “The Woman” went on to tell TPC that her daughter was complicit in the crime and has been convicted, and serving time for her role in the shooting. She dispelled the belief that her daughter escaped this crime without punishment. She also denied that Shannon was having sex with her and her daughter as rumors within the community had circulated.

“The Woman” went on to tell TPC that the night the shooting occurred that she heard a door to her home open and went to investigate. She says as she walked out of her bedroom door she saw a door to her closet move which frightened her (her bedroom is on the second floor). She proceeded down stairs and said she saw a man but believed he was hiding in the bathroom, then said she thought he may have left the house, and went to her daughter’s bed room to opened the door and asked her who the man was. “The Woman” says that’s when Shannon came out of the bathroom and shot her in the face at point blank range, and then proceeded to run out of the house. “The Woman” said she ran out of the house to an adjacent home of her neighbor’s for help. When police arrived she said she told police that Shannon was the man who shot her, and they took him away. I knew that police arrest warrants issued in the case show that Shannon was arrested along side her daughter at her neighbor’s home later on in the afternoon that day, so I inquired whether Shannon was placed in handcuffs, to determine if she actually observed him being arrested that night on the scene. “The Woman” told me that she had lost 6 pints of blood at that time and was unaware if he was in fact physically taken into custody.

I raised these facts with her only because she stated that the youths were both taken into custody the night of the shooting. “The Woman” then said that “well they were taken in for questioning.” I also reminded her when and where they were arrested and she said the police never let the pair out of their sights and were keeping close eye on them while they continued to work the crime scene building a case. “The Woman” said that the case against Shannon Nyamodi is solid, because police have bloody clothing which belong to Shannon. She says that after Shannon ran from her home, he took of his shirt (containing incriminating DNA evidence) and stuffed it in a nearby car. She says his prints were recovered from the scene and that the gun cover for the weapon that was used in the shooting was discovered thrown under Shannon’struck. “The Woman” said Shannon was shirtless ans sweating profusely.

“The Woman” says that money was discovered from the robbery at her home at an abandoned building nearby the crime scene, and that Shannon had been observed at the location previously that day and a neighbor had called police to report it because he was trespassing. “The Woman” says some of the money stolen was recovered from the abandoned building. She went on to say that her daughter has admitted conspiring with Shannon, and that he was suppose to kill her in the bed room according to text messages which were exchanged between the two. She says that her daughter even attempted to destroy the SIM Card for one of the cell phones she allegedly had, but that police were able to retrieve the data from the phone.

“The Woman” also stated that Mike Young who resides at the home she fled to for help after being shot, was also involved in the crime. She told TPC that Mike went into the bedroom of the home where her 13 year old daughter’s room is (who has a disability of Down Syndrome), stuck a screw driver/flash light in her back, and covered her mouth telling her “you stay right here.” “The Woman” says that she has repeatedly requested that the police investigate that aspect of the crime because Mike Young was in fact Shannon’s accomplice during this home invasion and shooting. None of these details are contained in police reports obtained by TPC in this case, Mike hasn’t been charged, and I asked MacClean if she was certain of the events that she described. She conveyed with certainty that she did identify Shannon Nyamodi as her assailant to police on the night of the shooting, and was persistent in her belief that his friend Mike Young had participated in the crime as she outlined.

However, “The Woman” says that she has since forgiven her daughter and young Shannon for what they have done. She has even requested that the State’s attorney offer Shannon a plea deal for his involvement because she wants the ordeal to be over, she realizes that Shannon has made a poor choice in his life, and doesn’t want him to spend the rest of his life in prison. She spoke regarding her faith and stated that her beliefs require her to have the power of forgiveness and wants Shannon to have a chance in life. “The Woman” says that she was anticipating going back to court regarding Shannon’s case last week, but his attorney is on vacation and honeymoon. She says that Shannon isn’t being treated unfairly by being locked up for so long, because his attorney continues to postpone the trial date.

“The Woman” also revealed that the state’s attorney in the case informed her that Elizabeth Crudup isn’t Shannon’s biological mother. The attorney told “The Woman” that Shannon was given up for adoption at a young age by a family in Africa with Royal bloodline. “The Woman” further explains that the “Royal Family” in Africa is paying Shannon’s legal fees. I am not sure how, even if it is determined to be factual, what relevance Shannon’s heritage or who pays is legal expenses factors in to the case. When pressed on these details “The Woman” simply said she is just conveying to me what the state’s attorney told her. Her comments in their entirety paint a different scenario of how the events of that night back in August 2012 actually unfolded, and followers of this case will have to deduct their own conclusions related to the credibility of what her commentary presents in relationship to police reports and court documents already presented for this case.

TPC Analysis Of Interview

Assuming that a rational and logical thinking person gives “This Woman’s” version of events related to this case full weight, as if her comments were in fact completely credible, then they would also have to conclude that her account in comparison to official documents in the case is extremely problematic. Any notion that would suggest that “The Woman” told the cops that night Shannon was in fact the person who shot her, in my opinion is completely and utterly untrue. We know this as a matter of fact because neither the Youngsville police nor the Franklin County sheriff’s office took Shannon Nyamodi into custody that night. Lt. M. Little’s report supports this as the youth was only questioned at the scene. Additionally, a search warrant application submitted to a county magistrate indicated that the teen had in fact confessed (although the actual document suggest that some one imputed this with a hand written addendum sometime after the document was created). Police officials wouldn’t have required an arrest warrant for Shannon, because according to “The Woman” she had already fingered the youth for the crime, and that would have been sufficient cause for his arrest on the spot. The fact that some one altered the search warrant application for Shannon’s home clearly suggest it was done so to bolster probable cause to obtain authorization to search his home, and would suggest that he hadn’t as a matter of fact been identified by the victim as her assailant for this crime.

You have a woman shot in the head who at least one officer admits in his report that he believed the woman was about to expire, and her alleged statement to them identifying Shannon as the person who shot her, would have presented a situation where cops more than likely would have pounced on the black youth, especially since a white woman had fingered him as having shot her in the face. Even if cops determined later that her account was inaccurate, the law in most state’s allow police agencies to detain potential suspects for at least 72 hours. Most agencies investigating a serious crime of this nature would siege such opportunity if for no other provocation but in the interest of public safety to insure a suspect doesn’t shoot or harm anyone else.

“The Woman’s” statements also drew further scrutiny to police reports obtained by TPC in the case. When we view the reports of Youngsville police officers Z. Phillip and M. Little, we clearly see that their reports were composed on different forms.  We also must take exception to the dates that each report indicate that they were created. Phillip’s report is in fact composed on what appears to be an Incident/Investigation Report form (probably the agency’s official document for such a report) and noted as having been composed on August 16, 2012. Most police agencies require officers submit a complete report immediate after their shift, especially when serious crimes occur. On the other hand, Lt. M. Little’s report is composed on what appears to be an Incident Supplementary Investigation form. Although the content of Little’s report would suggest that it’s his initial report for this crime, the document is dated August 20, 2012, and contains information from interviews the officer conducted with potential witnesses in the case which in fact occurred on August 17, 2012 a day after the crime had occurred.

As an experienced law enforcement officer who has composed thousands of incident reports, the diversity of the report forms the documents were composed on by these officers, along with contrasting dates suggest to me that Lt. M. Little had in fact rewritten his report all together 4 days after the actual crime occurred. Often times police officials are required to add supplementation to reports for a variety of reasons. An officer could have inadvertently omitted or forgot to include certain details in a report requiring additional information. The information is typically classified as a supplement to the officer’s initial report, and that’s why Supplementary Incident Report forms are designed to aid in this process. As a rule of thumb, to insure or dispel the appearance of integrity issues, officers almost never change the content of their original statements, baring supplemental reports as the only exception. Now in some agencies with storied past and histories of corruption, we see problems with official police reports all the time. In this case, Lt. M. Little appears to have composed his initial statement on a Supplementary Incident Report form.

The title of the form suggest on it’s face that the content contained in the report is an addition to some previously composed report. One might make the argument that perhaps the agency may have ran out of official Incident/Investigation Report forms similar to the form in which officer Z. Phillips composed his report on, but even if the benefit of doubt was given in this instance, it would not explain why Little’s report contained a narration consisting of information he should have entered in his initial report immediately after his shift on the night of the incident. His supplementary report should have only consisted of information he obtained on August 17, 2012 upon interviewing potential witnesses in the crime. I’ll give even more benefit of the doubt to this officer’s report while crediting a possible lack of appropriate forms being on hand at the time his report was composed, but even in that scenario the report should have been composed on blank paper to avoid the suspicion that the document was some how recomposed or altered from it’s original form. Then again. the fact that the report indicates it was composed 4 days after the actual crime on August 20, 2012 creates further suspicion related to the document’s development.

When we consider “The Woman’s” account she offered during my interview with her, juxtaposed to the incident report of Lt. M. Little (the officer who initially interviewed her at the scene that night), it’s simply unconscionable that a ranking police officer would forget to include a crucial statement by the victim in his official report for a serious felony crime that the victim had communicated to him Shannon Nyamodi was the person who shot her, is not only incredible but simply unbelievable. In fact, none of the documents related to this case obtained by TPC indicates that any law enforcement officer was told by “The Woman” that Shannon Nyamodi shot her in the face. The only document which suggest he shot her is the search warrant application with a suspicious handwritten addendum stating that the youth confessed to the crime. The fact that the police official who submitted that application believed the youth had confessed, demonstrates he/she were unaware of the alleged confession, or the official purposely falsified the document which still suggest that Shannon had not been identified as her shooter to police.

“The Woman” tells TPC that as she first walked out of her bedroom (on the second floor) she saw a closet door move which frightened her. That would indicate that the subject closet was on the same floor as her bedroom. I can’t help but wonder why she never investigated the moving door prior to going downstairs. She further states that upon going downstairs she observed a man in her house, but confusingly admits she thought the man had left or had hidden in the bathroom. She says she opened her daughter’s bedroom door and asked “who was that” when Shannon emerged from the bathroom and shot her in the face. Assuming the bathroom was in close proximity of the daughter’s bedroom when the shooting occurred, it would support her suspicion that who ever shot her had in fact hidden in the bathroom.

This account is entirely different from what Lt. M. little, a trained ranking officer indicated in his police report. According to Lt. Little’s report “The Woman” stated that when she went downstairs she saw a man and asked her daughter “what she was doing” and someone hit her in the head with the pole from behind her sliding door. Little’s report went on to say “The Woman” went down and while choking on blood and bleeding profusely when she heard her daughter say “she’s dead, the money is up here come on hurry.” Little’s report also reveals that “The Woman”, although she was seriously wounded, had the presence of mind to notice that her daughter and “some one else” stepped over her, leaving her on the floor bleeding. That’s what Little’s report indicates despite the “The Woman’s’ claims during her interview with me in which she claims to have positively identify Shannon Nyamodi as her assailant.

If “The Woman” had identified her shooter, it’s disturbing that Lt. Little didn’t indicate that statement in his report. Little only describes “The Woman’s” comments repeatedly in his report as “someone”, which suggest that the woman was uncertain who had stuck her with a pole (not shot her). I am concerned that she described during our interview, Shannon as having shot her with complete certainty after he emerged from the bathroom, but unable to identify anyone the night that Little questioned her at the scene. Also, she told TPC that Shannon came from out of the bathroom while telling Lt. Little that some one struck her from behind her sliding door. We do know based on little’s report that the sliding door is within close proximity of the daughter’s bedroom, because he described the area while going in side with someone to retrieve the victim’s youngest daughter, 13 who is handicapped (down syndrome) from the house. Little’ describes a sliding door being a jar, blood splatter in the hallway, front door, and an even larger pile of blood in the daughter’s room where she says she was when she was shot.

Little even indicates in his report that he took pictures with his cell phone while careful not to compromise the integrity of the crime scene. The report also revealed that Little noted a closet inside the victim daughter’s bedroom with a large amount a blood on the floor consistent with her having been on the floor after being shot. Little’s statement in his report is cause for concern related to “The Woman’s” statement to TPC. She only described a closet door when she first walked out of her bedroom on the second floor. She also told TPC that Shannon came out of a bathroom when she opened her daughter’s room door downstairs. So, it’s confusing why Little indicated in his report that she stated “someone” struck her with a pole from behind her sliding door. Clearly Little’s statement from the witness indicates she didn’t identify the person who attacked her, but more importantly the inconsistency in her account raises serious concern whether she actually could identify anyone as having been the person who shot her in the face.

Perhaps the most compelling portion of “The Woman’s” comments to TPC which establish unreliability in her statement is that she believes that Michael Young, Shannon’s friend and who resides at the neighboring home where she fled to for help, is believed by her to be complicit in the crime also. She stated during the interview that Michael also entered her home that night, went to her youngest daughter’s bedroom (on the first floor), covered the child’s mouth with his hands, while pointing an object (which she appeared confused about) in her back, and stating “you stay right here.” I question how she could have known this because her daughters rooms were separate locations in the house, and she had only been in her 16 year old daughter’s room a few moments, by her own account, momentarily when she was shot in the face. Did her daughter handicapped with Down Syndrome communicate this to her after the fact? This seems unlikely considering that Lt. Little along with another person from a neighbor’s home who knew her went to retrieve the child from inside of the house. The child’s inability to exit the home on her own accord highlights the severity of her disability, and with no reports existing by any of the officers at the scene that night suggesting that she had been interviewed by police revealing “The Woman’s” assertion that she was being held while the shooting and robbery transpired creates a lack of credibility to support Mike Young’s involvement in the case.

The officers reports don’t mention any of these claims by the victim, and more importantly, if she some how had the ability to gain knowledge of her accusations while the crime was occurring (highly improbable), why on earth did she run to Mike Young’s home for help? This demonstrates that her belief that Mike was involved had to have come after the shooting and robbery occurred. Information provided to TPC by sources with knowledge of the case suggest that “The Woman” may have implicated Mike’s involvement to counter his support of Shannon, and his grandmother’s comment she made to Lt. Little that Shannon was outside in the truck when the victim came to their home for help. This would also suggest that the victim statements to TPC were constructed to support the charges Shannon Nyamodi now faces related to this crime, which causes reexamination of Lt. M. Little’s report being composed on a Supplementary Incident Report form.

Sources say that police reports did exist describing the victim having told Little that Shannon wasn’t the person who shot her in the face. The awkwardness of what appears to be Little’s initial statement compiled with information from an interview with a potential witness the day after the crime, suggest that the report was composed on the Supplementary form 4 days later in an effort to conceal a previously composed report by Lt. Little, that contained “The Woman’s” statements in which she exonerated Shannon from his involvement in her shooting.  This would also mean that the victim has purposely altered her initial statements to the police. Many following the case question whether the victim’s sudden redirection of her account is related to assisting her daughter facing criminal charges for her role in the crime. There is no information available regarding the final disposition of her daughter’s case. View copies of the police reports of Z. Phillip and Lt. M. Little below while taking care to notice the heading or title of their individual forms their reports were composed on, as well as the dates indicated establishing when the reports were submitted:

Alleged Evidence

Moreover, “The Woman” alleges that DNA evidence was obtained in the crime when a blood stained shirt believed to have belonged to Shannon was discovered stuffed in a near by car. There is no indication in the victim’s statement establishing when police obtained the item, but Shannon’s mother previously revealed to TPC that Shannon had held the woman while comforting her until EMS arrived, and at some point took his shirt off because of the danger of blood borne pathogens, putting it on top of his truck, and was going to change shirts before police arrived questioning him. This would explain why the youth was shirtless when the cops arrived. Elizabeth Crudup also told TPC that the shirt in evidence was obtained by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) a week after the crime, and after Shannon had been arrested. She says the shirt remained on her son’s truck all that time in the elements before it was confiscated as evidence.

Her account is reinforced by the Young family who stated that the SBI knocked on the family’s door to inform them that they were there for the purpose of searching the truck in the yard for evidence. Ms. Crudup says the SBI not only took her son’s shirt, but also confiscated his music equipment (i.e. guitar, amplify, etc.). Any documentation of the agency’s inventory log from the search should indicate the actual date the SBI obtained possession of the items. This further draws suspicion as to why Shannon was arrested and charged with the crime within a twelve hour time period, when articles with DNA evidence possibly linking the teen to the crime was obtained days after his arrest. Also, “The Woman” stated to TPC that some of the money stolen in the robbery along with the alleged weapon used in the crime was obtained by the sheriff’s office a week after the crime. How could cops have linked his DNA or fingerprints to those items when police obtained them after Shannon had been taken into custody. The strongest part of my argument here is that Shannon Nyamodi had no criminal past, meaning he didn’t have traceable fingerprints in any criminal database, that would cause police to link him for prints obtained in their forensic discovery within the home where the crime occurred. They would only have had his prints available upon his arrest, booking, and subsequent fingerprinting which would have been his first of any kind in his life.

The search warrant for Shannon’s address listed as 116 Shearin Court was filed with the Franklin County C.S.C on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 a.m., and on the same day Lt. Little composed his Supplementary Incident Report in the case. The Search Warrant document had a box checked indicating that the warrant wasn’t executed in 48 hours as prescribed by the authorizing magistrate, and was returned not executed to the Franklin County, County Sheriff Clerk. The SBI was the agency charged with conducting the search, which they did inn fact execute, based of the Young family’s account in which they describe the shirt, and Shannon’s music equipment being confiscated. It’s unclear why the warrant was returned not executed when they in fact did search the truck on the Young’s property. A closer evaluation of these facts, shows that the warrant was turned back in not executed, probably because it would  reveal the actual date that the SBI obtained the alleged blood stained shirt, days later which police believed belong to Shannon Nyamodi. The SBI officer who submitted the warrant back to the County Clerk’s officer did in fact submit a falsified document, more than likely to mislead the court that a search was not executed. This shows at least one officer of the SBI complicity in what appears to be a conspiracy to convict an innocent man. By eliminating the execution of the search warrant, police can now claim that the blood stained shirt was discovered at anytime, like the night of the shooting, and justify taking Shannon into custody at such an early stage of the investigation. Yet, it’s highly doubtful that either of the investigating agencies could have processed DNA samples in such a short period of time, making Shannon’s arrest highly suspect at best.We see that the wheels of conspiracy began spinning on August 20, 2012 by observing the Franklin County Court Clerk’s stamp on Shannon’s search warrant, validating the time and date the document was submitted to the court. View Shannon’s search warrant document below taking care to notice how the document has a box with a an x mark indicating the warrant was not executed, and the County Clerk’s stamp validating when it was submitted to the courts:

“The Woman’s” comment which suggest that Shannon was allegedly seen at the abandoned building where the money and weapon were found earlier that day is only a circumstantial element of this case, and quite frankly way too convenient to even give such a perspective any credible weight what-so-ever. Other reports circulating in media which many say points to Shannon’s premeditation of this crime, where a young white male conveys that Shannon had advised him “if something happens and the cops question you, say I was at your house all night,” may be a fabricated story by one of the real perpetrators of the crime that witnesses in the community have fingered. The young man who made the statement, and one of the state’s star witnesses seen describing Shannon’s premeditation on the news is actually a male name Steven, believed to be a relative of the Sheriff whose agency is investigating the crime, and who witnesses have submitted an image of to TPC with him holding a rifle and wearing a black hoodie similar to the style in which Lt. Little indicates in his report that he was told by witnesses that the man fleeing the home after the shooting was wearing, upon his arrival at the scene that night.View the image below:

sc2

 

The text messages which are suppose to have been obtained by police in the case should make for a very interesting piece of discovery evidence if the case ever makes it to trial, considering Shannon didn’t own a cellphone. His mother told TPC that the youth sold his phone when he initially began working to be able to afford lunch money for work. “The Women’s” comment regarding the cellphone SIM card that her daughter attempted to destroy may have text data on it linking some conspirator to the crime, but it’s believed by Shannon’s mother that the text exchange doesn’t link to a phone owned by her son. The more and more the documents and statements obtained in this case are examined, it becomes quite clear to the intelligent mind that a disturbing picture of a conspiracy exist to frame an innocent man for this crime.

Conclusion

Finally, “The Women” indicated that she didn’t feel that Shannon was being held unjustly nor treated unfairly by the courts. She stated that there were plans to go back to court next week in Shannon’s case in which she planned to plead to the state’s attorney to offer the teen a deal, in what she continuously described as her Christian posture of forgiveness in this case. I advised her that I was Go Fearing as well, but unlike her I don’t think that I share her sentiment toward a person I believe had shot me in the face. She conveyed that the only thing prohibiting Shannon’s case from moving forward was his attorney’s constant request for postponement in the case. Clearly that assertion is incorrect because TPC has already produced documents which reveal a motion by the state’s attorney to have the case removed from the court’s Management Docket System, and which was in fact approved by Judge Hight on February 2o, 2013. It’s statements like that from “The Women”  coupled with other inconsistent comments which stand in staunch contrast to established reports that hurts the credibility of this woman who claims to have been the victim in this case.

Moreover, the the opinion of many within the Franklin County, North Carolina community where the crime occurred, as seen in the thread of the Franklin County News Online Facebook Group, would suggest that the case against young Shannon Nyamodi is so solid that it’s a complete outraged that the case hasn’t been resolved. I concur with these sentiments regarding the manner in which the state has failed to expedite this case, but our collective concern for the state’s lack of forward motion should raise serious discussion and suspicion as to why it has taken so long to dispose of, if so many people believe the state’s case is a smoking gun. Shady and falsified police documents, inconsistent statements by the alleged witness (if you believe the woman I interviewed was in fact the actual victim), unexplained justification for the speedy arrest of Shannon Nyamodi, and most importantly the state’s desire to hide the case within the court Management Docket System indefinitely should spell trouble for the strength of their case against this young man by even those who support the state’s belief of his guilt.

According to “The Women” the victim’s daughter has already had her case disposed of for her role in the crime, and is serving time in prison. Suspicion continues to linger if the woman I interviewed is in fact the victim in the case, related to her sudden redirection in statements she made related to who actually shot her. Shannon has been locked up in the Franklin County jail now for nearly 15 months, and the state has removed his case file from the court system. There are no criminal proceedings currently within the state of North Carolina’s entire database which suggest that criminal charges against him are pending. The state’s request for a motion of “Exceptional” status raises suspicion from other legal professionals that TPC and other Advocacy organizations have brought to their attention regarding this case. If “The Women’s” belief that the state has very culpable, evidence sufficient to convict Shannon Nyamodi, why have they shelved this defendant’s case in their archives. That alone speaks volumes to just about every independent observer of this entire bizarre case.

It is the position of The People’s Champion Blog to convey information anyone offers to our advocacy process, and pertaining to every story with honesty, sincerity, as well as giving commenters a platform for which their voice may be heard. In this instance, even if I could establish with certainty that the woman who provided information in this article was in fact the actual victim, her story is extremely troubling related to this entire ordeal. We pray for both the victim, and the alleged perpetrator and their families that true justice is served. God speed.

To Be Continued ..

 

 

The People’s Champion

I’m David Adams.

 

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Allege Shooting Victim Emerges With Contrasting Version Of Crime: Tells TPC Nyamodi Youth Shot Her And Is Of African Royal Descent”

  1. Jay says:

    Has anybody found out if there was a gun powder residue test done on Shannon? If he shot a gun & they took him into custody that soon after the crime, it seems that his clothes & his hands, would reflect the fact that he shot this woman or at the very least, fired a weapon. I also find it suspect that this woman you spoke with who alleges she is the victim has changed her story & how difficult would it be to corroborate her story that her daughter is serving time in prison for this crime? If she’s in state custody, even as a minor, there should be a record of that. This case smacks of the Scottsboro Boys. It’s amazing how we are in another millenia & the system is still using the same criminal tactics to target innocent black men.

Leave a Reply

- See more at: http://thepeopleschampion.me/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=side-tab#sthash.HEuco14y.dpuf