'We may never know'

On Thursday, a jury in Kootenai County sent shockwaves through the Silver Valley and surrounding areas when they handed down a not guilty verdict in the first-degree murder trial of Heather Crawford.

Crawford was accused of murdering 22-month old Ezra Wilson, the daughter of her former boyfriend Hiram Wilson in August of 2014.

The trial was moved from Shoshone County to Kootenai County after officials determined that they would not be able to field an impartial jury.

The trial began on Jan. 11, and after 16 days of being presented with evidence, testimony, and cross examinations, the case was handed to the jury on Wednesday, Feb. 1.

The verdict was presented to the court at 3:45 p.m. the next afternoon.

The reaction from the public has been one of utter shock and surprise as many felt as though the case was an open and closed affair, but unfortunately for the prosecution, it was far from such.

Shoshone County Prosecuting Attorney Keisha Oxendine believes that despite the not guilty verdict, the state put forth a strong enough case, but the jurors never got their ‘smoking gun.’

“I felt as though the State put forth a strong case for conviction,” Oxendine said.

“The State provided evidence of cause of death through numerous experts, and provided evidence on the defendant’s motive, intent, and opportunity to commit this crime. Cases like these are often difficult decisions for juries, as our society portrays the courtroom as always having the rhetorical ‘smoking gun’ in a murder case. That wasn’t the case here, and as many of the experts testified, that isn’t the case in many child death cases.”

Former Shoshone County Sheriff Mitch Alexander (who was the sheriff at the time of the alleged murder) had believed that the case was going to be difficult to try, based on a lack of vital evidence, but Oxendine thought that she had strong enough evidence to get the conviction.

“I chose to charge this case and take it forward because the case and evidence was strong,” Oxendine stated.

“I was confident the right person had been charged in this crime and I am still confident the right person was charged for this crime. A prosecutor does not back down from a case because it is difficult. Most child death cases are difficult, but that does not mean that you do not pursue it. Justice demands that a prosecutor seek justice, no matter how difficult the case is. This case has always been about justice for Ezra, and pursuing the case no matter how difficult was done in pursuit of justice for Ezra.”

Late last week, the prosecution was handed a huge blow to their case when one of their key witnesses, Crawford’s ex-husband Jon Crawford was supposed to take the stand, but then things went very badly for Mr. Crawford and for the prosecution.

“The State did anticipate calling Jon Crawford as a witness in this case, and it was anticipated he would testify about alleged statements the defendant made to him before her arrest in this case,” Oxendine said. “However, circumstances beyond the State’s control resulted in the inability to call him as a witness due to credibility issues that included a DUI arrest in Kootenai County on the day of his anticipated testimony.”

Crawford arrived at the courthouse, but it was reported that he smelled strongly of alcohol and was asked to leave.

Then, as Oxendine stated, Mr. Crawford then was charged with driving under the influence, driving without privileges, having an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident; all of which occurred immediately following his departure from the Kootenai County Courthouse.

The statement that Mr. Crawford was going to testify about was an alleged confession that on the night of Ezra’s death, Heather had caught Ezra attempting to strangle one of her other children and proceeded to sit on Ezra’s chest until she fell asleep, at which point she put the child in her bed for the evening.

This testimony, if accurate, would have been a huge part of the state’s case.

Oxendine pressed forward without it though, convinced that the state still had what they needed to get a conviction.

“The evidence that was presented at trial in this matter, and the witness testimony that was presented formed that opinion (that they still had enough evidence to convict),” Oxendine said.

Despite Oxendine’s strong beliefs on the case, Heather Crawford’s defense attorney Anne Taylor, still raised several very serious questions that went unfounded.

When asked if Taylor was surprised by Oxendine’s choice to only pursue Crawford as a suspect, Taylor did not hold back.

“I was surprised the investigation and attendant prosecution was directed solely at Heather, especially given all of the alternatives,” Taylor replied.

“I am surprised there was no investigation of Hiram Wilson (the victim’s father); or persons who may have retaliated against Hiram Wilson for his role in the Dobson Pass murders. Though given the police investigators quick decision to protect him and focus their efforts elsewhere, I probably should not be.”

Wilson was convicted on two counts of accessory to first-degree murder in 2009 as a result of the Dobson Pass murders in 2008.

He was sentenced to the five year maximum penalty with two years fixed and the other three indeterminate.

Taylor also made mention of two other people being in the house that night.

The first, a female who was there at the time that the first responders arrived following the 911 call.

The second, a man who was in the home earlier that night, but was unknown to the older children in the house.

“I still cannot believe there was no real investigation into the identity of the adult female in the house described by two of the first responders; the calm woman that was not Heather. Likewise that no one try to determine who the guy the older children saw in the house that night was, and why he was never looked for,” Taylor said. “The police put the focus on Heather almost immediately. I was and am shocked at the way the investigation focused only on her. It is incredibly vexing that the investigation ignored many leads that did not fit in their theory, focusing on Heather to the exclusion of all else. It was a thinly veiled attempt by the police investigators to, in their words, ‘break her’ and, presumably, to attempt to obtain a conviction by way of character assassination.”

These thoughts were cemented by Taylor’s firm belief that the investigations were never completed and was surprised, at first, that a case she perceived as being poorly investigated was ever taken to trial, but her surprise went away when she started to believe that the reason for the lack of investigation was because the prosecution had already made up their minds on who was guilty.

“This is not a case that was investigated fully or completely. No person should ever go through what Heather went through these last two years on such a poor and lacking investigation,” Taylor said. “Once I saw what was and was not part of the official investigation and began my work, I quickly learned that correcting lacking information and correcting misinformation did not matter to the police investigators. They had very early on made up their mind to protect Hiram and prosecute Heather. It also seemed that they were putting a lot of pressure on the prosecutor to try the case and get a conviction that would validate their rush to judgment against Heather.”

Hiram Wilson does not believe that he was protected in any way and that those thoughts were just part of a smoke screen put up by Taylor to achieved the reasonable doubt that they wanted.

“That whole concept that I was being protected by my father (former Pinehurst Police Chief Rocky Wilson) was there from the beginning,” Wilson said, “the only consistent part of anyone’s story in this is that I was sleeping. The timeline of events shows that Crawford was on her phone all night, the last text leaving at 11:08 p.m. and exactly one hour later the 911 call was made. So that leaves one hour unaccounted for by her, but the whole time she has stated that I was asleep.”

Wilson’s point was that despite the claims that he somehow was involved, Crawford’s story kept changing except for one thing- Wilson being asleep.

“There were stories where she said that she dozed off, but woke up to a breeze, or that she woke up because she heard one of her children make a sound,” Wilson said. “The whole time though, I was always asleep, because I was.”

Inconsistencies like these were part of why Wilson began to suspect that Crawford wasn’t being truthful in what she was saying, but then Crawford began to make statements that really began to make him suspect that she herself was responsible.

“She kept saying that, ‘they’re going to think that I did it and we need to get an attorney,’ and I was of the idea that if you didn’t do anything wrong then you don’t need an attorney,” Wilson remarked. “Then a few days later she made the comment, ‘on a bright note we don’t have to ever see her again (referring to Wilson’s ex-wife Naomi),’ that was when I broke it off with her, when she didn’t want to be cooperative with the police, didn’t want to release her phone, tried to erase everything from her phone, and began making comments like that.”

Wilson is still upset with the concept of Crawford’s character being constantly protected in the courtroom, but as a witness they were able to “drag him through the mud,” as Wilson’s mother Jennifer put it.

“None of her prior history of child abuse was ever brought up, her drug abuse, her alcohol abuse,” Wilson exclaimed. “We couldn’t say a thing about her character, my character and past was brought up and used against me but hers wasn’t allowed. I wasn’t the one on trial for murder. It wasn’t fair.”

Alleged things like prior run-ins with law enforcement and child protective services were also inadmissible in court according to Wilson, but he doesn’t know or understand why.

“There was a lot of evidence that wasn’t used,” Wilson said. “There was evidence they had that I didn’t even know about until the trial.”

Despite all the evidence that wasn’t used, Jon Crawford’s missed testimony, and even false allegations that he was protected by relatives, the Wilson family believed that there was enough evidence presented to convict Crawford.

Wilson was even able to shoot down the incorrect notion that detective Charlie Greear, who was involved in both Wilson’s 2009 case and this one, had been reported as Wilson’s godfather.

“I had never met Charlie Greear until recently,” Wilson said. “He isn’t my godfather, there is no relationship there.”

As the dust continues to settle, Wilson holds no ill will toward Oxendine or the prosecution team that failed to secure a guilty conviction.

“I think Keisha did everything she could and that her entire focus was getting justice for my daughter,” Wilson said. “She did everything she could, she worked until midnight some nights, I am thankful for the hard work she put in for my family.”

Unfortunately for the Wilson family, this is as far as the case can and will be pursued.

Crawford cannot be tried again for the same crime under the double jeopardy rule and the state doesn’t have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court.

Taylor did however, express remorse for the death of Ezra.

“Unfortunately I believe we will never know what happened to Ezra Wilson,” Taylor said.

Oxendine echoed the sentiment that no one will ever know, but not in the same manner that Taylor did.

Oxendine believes that a murderer got away and that she will never know why the jury decided that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Heather Lynn Crawford of murder.

“The State does not intend to pursue another suspect because we are confident that the person that was charged is the person responsible for the death of Ezra Wilson,” Oxendine said. “There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The fact that a jury reaches a verdict of not guilty in a case simply means that the jury did not feel the evidence presented showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries can reach a not guilty verdict for a variety of reasons. Because jury deliberations are strictly confidential, we may never know the reason behind why they reached that outcome.”