Frequently Asked Questions

(last updated 3/19/2016)

I hope to eventually compile most of the frequently asked questions and criticisms on this page – along with my reaction to them.

Please feel free to submit any questions you’d like addressed her by sending an email to

Question: Why are you ( publicly identifying Holtzclaw’s accusers by name? Shouldn’t victims of sexual assault have their identity protected? Could you not simply use their initials?

Answer: While the media (and some court records) often redact the identities of individuals who claim to be the victim of sexual assault (for privacy, as there is no legal obligation), I have chosen not to on this website. Why? Primarily for three reasons. One, many of these women have already willingly identified themselves in numerous media interviews. Two, their names already appear on many publicly available court records – including civil lawsuits most of the women have already filed. Three, and most importantly, I sincerely do not believe any one of them was a victim of a sexual assault. Holtzclaw’s only real hope for exoneration and release from prison may come from the eventual confession of one or more of his alleged victims that they lied to police and at trial. Without identifying these accusers publicly, the chances of someone knowing to come forward with relevant information is greatly reduced.

Question: Why are Holtzclaw’s accuser’s criminal pasts being brought up? Why does it matter if most of them are convicted felons?

Answer: Like it or not, a person’s past – especially one of a criminal natural – will almost always be at issue during any criminal or civil litigation. In the Holtzclaw case, literally all of the allegations come down to one person’s word versus another. There is no direct evidence or witnesses confirming that Holtzclaw committed any crime whatsoever. This means credibility is crucial – both Holtzclaw’s and each of the accusers. In Holtzclaw’s case his background is 100% clean. Holtzclaw has no prior arrests, charges or convictions. In addition, the prosecution could not produce a single person to call into question Holtzclaw’s character – no jilted one night stand, no co-workers, no acquaintances, nobody.

On the other hand, virtually all of Holtzclaw’s accusers have had run-ins with police, been arrested, been charged and been convicted of crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies.
Most of Holtzclaw’s accusers were still involved in criminal activity at the time of his trial. Some even testified while testing positive for illegal narcotics.
A person’s character and credibility can most often be judged by the life they have chosen to live. If one chooses to live a life of crime, addiction and a total lack of responsibility, then their word should hold less weight than the word of a person who has lived an honest and responsible life.
By nature, those involved in crime – drug dealing, drug addiction, prostitution, etc. – live each day ‘hustling.’ A hustle involves lying, stealing, cheating and a general disregard for those around them or who their actions affect.

Question: Why would police out one of their own officers and risk having to pay millions in civil litigation awards or settlements?

Answer: This is a two part answer. One, the police dept. itself knows it is most likely not risking a dime of their budget and even if/when individual officer’s are named in lawsuits they will never be personally responsible to make any award payments. Any monetary award would come from the City of OKC’s general budget.

Two, the city has always maintained that the law is on it’s side and the city is not legally liable for Holtzclaw’s actions. Why? Because, unlike incidence of excessive force, the city is not legally liable for the actions of its police officers if those officers are acting outside the scope of their employment. The allegations are that Holtzclaw systematically targeted and sexually assaulted minority women on the City’s Eastside. That is obviously outside the scope of Holtzclaw’s employment as a police officer. This is why attorneys for the accusers are trying to prove that the police dept. was made aware of Holtzclaw’s alleged crimes in advance and ignored them. If the city was ‘put on notice’ they had an issue with Holtzclaw and did nothing, then the city would be liable.

A simplified example is the ‘pothole defense.’ If you drive along a city  road and your tire is ruined by a large pothole, even though the city maintains the road, the city is not responsible for the damage if it had no idea the problem existed (that specific pothole). However, if you can prove that other people had reported that same pothole and how it was a potential danger, and the city took no reasonable action, then the city would be responsible for your damages.

While the City of OKC is fighting the civil suits against large monetary awards, it would not be unreasonable if the city settled with the accusers for a modest amount (thousands, not millions). This would put the matter to rest and stop the litigation costs.

Question: How is it possible that so many women (16 and counting) would make a false allegations against Holtzclaw if those allegations were not true?

Answer: That answer is complicated and I hope to address it in detail in a future article (so check back for a link).

A summary of my answer would be that first you have to understand that the total list of accusers (to date) includes the 13 women that resulted in criminal charges against Holtzclaw and three women and a male accuser that did not result in criminal charges (17 total accusers).

Of the 13 accusers that resulted in criminal charges against Holtzclaw, only three of them came forward of their own free will and were not ‘found’ by sex crimes investigators; Jannie Ligons, Terri Morris and Shardayreon Hill. Of those three, Holtzclaw was found not guilty of the charges alleged by both Morris and Hill. continues to show how OCPD sex crimes detectives Kim Davis and Rocky Gregory conducted a biased and unprofessional investigation when identifying potential victims and how they coerced them into making allegations against Holtzclaw.

Additionally, a closer look at each individual accuser’s allegations show that some knew each other, other’s could not give even the most basic description of Holtzclaw, denied repeatedly even being a victim and often the forensic evidence failed to support their testimony.

In summary, what made it possible for 17 people to falsely accuse Holtzclaw is a combination of bad police work, coerced testimony, and non-credible accusers. All of which will be detailed as each accuser’s story is reported on this website.