By James E. Causey
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
MILWAUKEE, Wisc. — Police have long used informants to crack cases in which witnesses are hard to find.
But the Walter Ellis case proves that such informants - those who also happen to be criminals - must be thoroughly examined. Informant status should not confer on anyone the cover to commit more crimes.
Ellis, who is charged with killing seven women over 21 years, makes the case for why authorities should be leery of criminals who turn informant to get out from under some charge or to otherwise curry favor.
Ellis bribed his way out of a prison halfway house in November 1992 and is suspected of murdering Irene Smith during that period. When Ellis escaped from the halfway house several weeks later and was caught, the career criminal cut a deal with federal investigators: He would help them bust corrupt halfway house workers if they let him walk.
Three weeks later, Ellis was a free man, and prosecutors say Ellis went on to kill three more women.
This isn’t the first such case. Milwaukee criminal kingpin Michael Lock orchestrated crimes while acting as a police informant for both the FBI and the Milwaukee Police Department. He is now serving a life sentence for two murders, kidnapping and drug dealing.
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said informants sometimes are all that law enforcement have to go on. OK, but an informant’s testimony should not be the only means used. It should be viewed solely as the starting point, evidence that points to other more reliable evidence.
Ellis capitalized on every flaw he could find - and turning informant so he could commit more crimes was possibly one of them. He failed to submit DNA when he was imprisoned by sending another prisoner in his place. If Ellis’ DNA had been collected and placed in the state’s databank, it’s possible that some of the killings attributed to him wouldn’t have occurred.
The Wisconsin Innocence Project - with a clear track record in securing the release of people wrongfully convicted - believes that too much weight is given to informant testimony. The group estimates informant testimony accounts for nearly 20% of all wrongful convictions. That number seems high, but if it’s even a fraction of that, it’s a fraction too high.
While using informants is even older than using fingerprints, it has flaws and should be used sparingly, hesitantly and skeptically.
How much credence should be given to informant testimony? E-mail your opinion to jsedit@journalsentinel.com to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor.
Copyright 2009 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel