Jannie Ligons Allegations; A Closer Look

2/23/2016 (last updated 2/24/2016) by Brian Bates – Last week I posted an article about the Jannie Pearl Ligons traffic stop and sexual assault accusations – the first of a multipart series detailing each of the 13 Daniel Holtzclaw accusers.

The purpose of this document is to breakdown the events and offer some information for the public discussion.

HoltzclawTrial.com has also posted a detailed timeline of the Jannie Ligons alleged sexual assault allegations (link).

What We Know for Certain About the Traffic Stop:

  1. It was just after 2 a.m. on June 18, 2014.
  2. Daniel Holtzclaw had just ended a 12-hour shift and turned off his patrol car’s computer and AVL (GPS) and was headed home.
  3. Jannie Ligons had been at a male friend’s house; smoking marijuana, taking pain medication that acts as a sleep aid and was also headed home.
  4. Holtzclaw turned on his overhead strobes and pulled Ligons over on NE 50th, just west of N. Lincoln Blvd.
  5. Ligons has not had a valid driver’s license in approx. 30-years and was also driving without insurance.
  6. Ligons was detained by Holtzclaw for approx. 15 minutes.
  7. Holtzclaw did not turn his computer back on and did not run Ligons through any law enforcement database.
  8. Holtzclaw did not ticket or arrest Ligons for any traffic violation or lack of a driver’s license or insurance.
  9. Ligons claims Holtzclaw sexually assaulted her during the traffic stop. Specifically; forced her to expose herself and forced her to perform oral sodomy.
  10. Holtzclaw maintains that nothing inappropriate or illegal occurred during Ligons’ traffic stop.
  11. Ligons and members of her family reported their allegations of a sexual assault within two hours of the traffic stop.
  12. When Holtzclaw reported for line-up later that same day (around 3 p.m.) an inquiry was made as to whether or not someone pulled someone over around 2 a.m. near NE 50 and Lincoln Blvd. – Holtzclaw immediately disclosed that he did.
  13. Holtzclaw is taken by OCPD Sex Crimes detectives to a interrogation room and questioned for over two hours.
  14. There are no eye-witnesses to the alleged assault.
  15. The only video of the Ligons stop is grainy footage from a commercial building nearby. (link)
  16. There is no direct evidence to support that a crime, let alone a sexual assault was committed.
  17. No definitive motive has been uncovered as to why Ligons would lie about the alleged sexual assault.
  18. No definitive motive has been uncovered as to why Holtzclaw would commit what is later alleged to be serial rapes and/or sexual assaults.
  19. Holtzclaw would later be criminally charged and convicted in relation to the Ligons traffic stop with procuring lewd exhibition (5yrs) and forcible oral sodomy (16yrs).
  20. Ligons has since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking monetary damages.

Daniel Holtzclaw Concerns or Discrepancies:

  1. Holtzclaw turned off his patrol car’s computer and AVL (GPS) just prior to the Ligons stop.
    Response: Evidence at trial clearly showed that Holtzclaw almost never followed policy in this regard and routinely turned his computer off after work and before reaching his residence.
    Conclusion: A policy violation, but not sinister, not illegal and not directly tied to Ligons’ sexual assault allegations.
  2. Holtzclaw initiated a traffic stop while not on duty.
    Response: Testimony by police at trial confirmed that officers can and do initiate stops while off-duty at their discretion. It is one reason they are given a take-home vehicle and it does not violate OCPD policy or the law.
    Conclusion: Within the scope of Holtzclaw’s position as a patrol officer.
  3. Holtzclaw did not turn his computer back on after initiating the traffic stop against Ligons.
    Response: Testimony at trial indicated this practice was ill-advised, as it goes to officer safety. That said, running an individual through various police databases is up to the officer’s discretion. Holtzclaw has indicated he did not run Ligons in his computer because he didn’t want to find a reason he’d have to arrest her and delay him any further going home.
    Conclusion: Within the scope of Holtzclaw’s position as a patrol officer.
  4. Holtzclaw did not arrest Ligons for not having a valid driver’s license or insurance.
    Response: Unfortunately, driver’s without a valid license and/or insurance is not an uncommon occurrence in Oklahoma City. Testimony confirmed it is up to an officer’s discretion if they want to arrest in this situation. Holtzclaw knew an arrest would delay him by two hours or more. A records search showed that Ligons has been pulled over by other police officers and they too did not arrest her for not having a SDL or insurance.
    Conclusion: Within the scope of Holtzclaw’s position as a patrol officer.
  5. Holtzclaw claims Ligons self-disclosed that she had prescription medication in her purse – specifically Hydrocodone. Holtzclaw claims when he searched her car he briefly looked in her purse and spotted at least one prescription bottle marked Hydrocodone with Ligons’ name on the label. Ligons told investigators she isn’t on any prescription medications. Investigators never asked to see Ligons’ purse. At trial, a brief (few months) history of Ligons’ prescription history was provided and showed no prescriptions within those few months.
    Response: Goes to credibility. Either Holtzclaw made up the entire prescription pill scenario (for some unknown reason), or Ligons lied to investigators about the narcotics that she takes – either because she doesn’t have a valid prescription or because she wants to place herself and her version of events in a more favorable light.
  6. Ligons claims that Holtzclaw had her raise her shirt up, exposing her breasts – in an attempt to see if she was concealing any contraband within her bra or under her breasts. Holtzclaw claims that while he inquired as to whether or not Ligons had any drugs hidden on her, he declined her offer to voluntarily raise her shirt.
    Response: Goes to the credibility of whomever is telling the truth. Both scenarios are physically possible. Contrary to popular belief, it is not against OCPD policy for a male officer to search a female suspect in regard to pat-searches, pocket searches and even a move that is referred to by police as the ‘clasp and shake’ – where a female suspect is asked to ‘clasp’ their bra (over their shirt), raise their shirt slightly (so as to not expose their breasts) and ‘shake’ (in an attempt to dislodge any hidden contraband).
    Conclusion: Inconclusive.
  7. Holtzclaw allowing a possibly inebriated driver (Ligons) to remain behind the wheel and drive herself home.
    Response: Holtzclaw stated during his interrogation he was not certain Ligons was inebriated when he pulled her over. Ligons did not self-disclose to Holtzclaw that she had been smoking marijuana and taking pain pills. No alcohol or illegal drugs were found in Ligons’ vehicle. Holtzclaw found Ligons to be emotional, but not inebriated beyond the legal limit. Testimony confirmed that the decision to allow Ligons to drive fell under officer discrepancy.
    Conclusion: Within the scope of Holtzclaw’s position as a patrol officer.
  8. Holtzclaw was asked to estimate how long the Ligons stop lasted. Holtzclaw guessed about 15 minutes – which matched the surveillance footage timestamp. Investigators claimed that was an exceptionally long traffic stop and implied that made him look guilty.
    Response: Considering a couple of minutes of any stop is taken up with approaching a vehicle, the initial chit-chat, and then wrapping things up and leaving – this only left Holtzclaw with about 10 minutes of any real investigative interaction. Additionally, a review of Holtzclaw’s history of stops shows this stop fell well within his ‘norm.’

Jannie Ligons Concerns or Discrepancies:

  1. Ligons was driving (for the past 30-years) without a valid driver’s license or vehicle insurance.
    Response: Confirmed at trial.
    Conclusion: Illegal, though not believed to be a direct contributor to her allegations.
  2. Had been smoking marijuana and taking sleep inducing pain medicine prior to driving.
    Response: Confirmed at trial.
    Conclusion: Illegal, though inconclusive as to whether or not this fact contributed to her allegations.
  3. Ligons claimed at trial that Holtzclaw pulled up beside her, saw she was a single black woman alone and then pulled her over.
    Response: Evidence at trial clearly showed the street Ligons was traveling on was unlit and her vehicle had dark tinted windows.
    Conclusion: Highly unlikely.
  4. Ligons claims she was driving home. However, she made no attempt to turn and head northbound on N. Lincoln Blvd. toward I-44. Instead she remained westbound on NE 50th as she went through the intersection and was pulled over.
    Response: Not addressed at trial or in police reports.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive.
  5. Ligons described the officer that assaulted her as 35-45 years old, 5′ 7″ to 5′ 9″ tall, about 225 lbs. with a thick build, blonde hair and skin that was not smooth.
    Response: Holtzclaw was 27-years old, 6′ 1″ tall, 240 lbs. with a muscular/thick build, dark hair and no skin issues. Ligons physical description is off in terms of age, height, hair color and facial features. That said, Holtzclaw admits to making the traffic stop in question. While it’s safe to say Ligons was trying to describe Holtzclaw, her inability may have been influenced by her lack of sobriety or mental issues.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive
  6. Ligons claims Holtzclaw had her place her hands on his patrol car while he searched her for drugs and weapons.
    Response: OCPD forensics professionals throughly examined Holtzclaw’s patrol car and could not find Ligons’ fingerprints nor DNA.
    Conclusion: Lingons’ assertions are not supported by the forensic evidence of the prosecution.
  7. Ligons claims Holtzclaw placed his hands on the top of his patrol car to block the public’s view while she was forced to perform oral sodomy on him.
    Response: OCPD forensics professionals throughly examined Holtzclaw’s patrol car and could not find Holtzclaw’s fingerprints nor DNA on the top of his patrol car.
    Conclusion: Lingons’ assertions are not supported by the forensic evidence of the prosecution.
  8. Ligons claims that Holtzclaw handled her phone while searching her vehicle.
    Response: OCPD forensics professionals throughly examined Ligons’ cell phone and could not find Holtzclaw’s fingerprints nor DNA.
    Conclusion: Lingons’ assertions are not supported by the forensic evidence of the prosecution.
  9. Ligons claims that Holtzclaw had her pull her pants down to her knees as she stood next to his patrol car so that he could see if she had any contraband hidden on her. Holtzclaw denies this claim and states he only had Ligons lift her shirt slightly in front so he could see if she had a weapon in her waistband.
    Response: If true, is illegal. Goes to credibility. Ligons is the only accuser to claim she had to remove her pants to her knees so that Holtzclaw could look for contraband. Additionally, Ligons claims she was made to do this next to Holtzclaw’s patrol car as vehicles passed by and while Ligons is facing a building with 32 security cameras and a 24/7 off-duty police security.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive. Though physically possible, highly improbable.
  10. Ligons claims that Holtzclaw made the comment, “Damn, you sure have a big booty,” after she pulled her pants back up. Holtzclaw claims that never happened.
    Response: Evidence during the discovery process showed that not a single person approached by the prosecution or defense ever described Holtzclaw as an individual who spoke to others in that manner. In fact people from Holtzclaw’s college football days and even fellow police officers described him as mostly quite and didn’t speak much unless spoken to.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive. Physically possible, but not supported by character witnesses, evidence or testimony.
  11. Ligons claims that Holtzclaw unzipped his pants and produced his erect penis through the fly of his uniform pants. Ligons – like all of the other accusers – claims Holtzclaw’s penis either ‘just appeared’ or was exposed without any real effort on Holtzclaw’s part.
    Response: What all of the accusers did not know, but is evident at the end Holtzclaw’s interrogation video, is that Holtzclaw is not dressed like the average male on the street and exposing his penis is not a matter unzipping and pulling it out. Holtzclaw is wearing extremely tight compression underwear without a fly, a t-shirt that hangs below his groin area, a bullet proof vest with a flap that hangs below his groin area, a uniform shirt that not only hangs below his groin area, but is held tightly down by shirt stays that attached to the bottom of your shirt and then to the tops of your socks (to keep your uniform shirt looking unwrinkled). Additionally, Holtzclaw is also wearing uniform slacks with essentially a double belt system to secure his large duty belt with all his gear attached. Unzipping and producing your penis without removing your belt and unbuttoning your pants and getting beyond all your clothing is not an easy or quick task.
    Conclusion: Physically possible. Highly unlikely as described by Ligons.
  12. Ligons claims that when leaving the scene she pulled into a parking space and then turned around.
    Response: Surveillance video from the scene clearly shows this did not occur. Ligons simply made a u-turn.
    Conclusion: Untrue statement.
  13. Ligons claims that instead of following her, Holtzclaw sped in front of her and was “flying” – so fast in fact, Ligons stated that, “I barely saw which way he went” (apparently referring to heading either east or west on I-44 from Lincoln Blvd.).
    Response: Goes to credibility. At the preliminary hearing Ligons repeated her comments that Holtzclaw was speeding away from her at the SE 50th and Lincoln Blvd. stop location. However, she clearly testified that she saw Holtzclaw exit onto northbound Broadway Extension from I-44 – even though that is approx. 1.25 miles from where she claims Holtzclaw left ‘flying’ away from her.
    Conclusion: Highly unlikely as described by Ligons.
  14. On the morning of the alleged assault, Ligons indicated to investigators that a call was not placed to their cousin who is an Oklahoma Police Officer because they flagged down patrol units instead.
    Response: Testimony by Oklahoma City Police Officer Anthony ‘Tony’ Carter disputes this. Carter confirmed he did indeed receive a phone call.
    Conclusion: Untrue statement.
  15. At trial Ligons does not deny a call was placed to officer Carter, however she states his advice was to simply call police.
    Response: Officer Carter’s testimony is that he definitely told the family to “call 911.”
    Conclusion: Untrue statement.
  16. Ligons and her family claimed the morning of the alleged assault to have looked up the phone number and called both the Springlake police station and the Hefner police station and even drove to the Springlake station instead of simply calling 911.
    Response: No reason has been given for not simply dialing 911. At prelim., Ligons claims to have called the downtown police station instead of the Hefner station.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive. It was speculated at trial that the only reason the Ligons family would not have dialed 911 was because those calls are recorded and operators are trained to ask followup questions. It was speculated in trial that the Ligons family did not have their story down and did not want it audio recorded at that time.
  17. Ligons submits to a SANE (aka, ‘rape test’) test at a local hospital.
    Response: No DNA belonging to Holtzclaw is found. No evidence of rape is found.
    Conclusion: While oral sodomy cases are less likely to produce DNA results than vaginal or anal rape, the lack of evidence ultimately supports Holtzclaw’s version of events.

Investigation Concerns by the OKC Police Dept's Sex Crimes Unit:

  1. Investigators claim they did not audio/video record Ligons’ interview.
    Response: Investigators gave no reason for this decision. Investigators know the value of keeping an accurate record and audio/video taping interviews helps to ensure that. Investigators would record some accusers in this case while claiming not to have recorded others. Several of those recorded interviews have been called into question because they do not match the investigator’s written reports.
    Conclusion: Poor investigative technique that if done could have resolved several questions.
  2. Investigators never asked Ligons to allow them to look inside her purse. Holtzclaw maintains that Ligons had prescription Hydrocodone in her purse. Ligons denies this assertion.
    Response: Goes to credibility. No reason given by investigators. Most likely had no real impact on the case.
  3. Investigators immediately created a link between the Ligons assault allegations and the Terry Morris assault allegations – even though Holtzclaw had not been directly implicated in the Morris assault and many of her initial assertions were proved to have been false.
    Response: Investigators felt there was a connection. An audio taped interview with accuser Morris would later show Morris not to be credible and OCPD sex crimes detective Rocky Gregory to have provided Morris with information to change her story to implicate Holtzclaw.
    Conclusion: Poor investigative technique that created the false profile of the ‘perfect victims.’
  4. Investigators never attempted to ‘sting’ Holtzclaw with the use of an undercover officer, unmarked surveillance, or listening devices placed in his patrol car.
    Response: Investigators felt public safety necessitated immediate action.
    Conclusion: Law enforcement often initiates surveillance on suspects and sets up scenarios with undercover officers to try and catch people in the act. Such techniques could have proven conclusively Holtzclaw’s  guilt or innocence.
  5. Investigators took all of Holtzclaw’s clothing during their interrogation of him but choose not to take his underwear. Even though they were investigating a sexual assault that had allegedly occurred earlier that morning.
    Response: Investigators claim they didn’t take Holtzclaw’s underwear because he said those were not the one’s he was wearing on his previous shift – those were “in the wash,” according to Holtzclaw. However, investigators testified that they didn’t think Holtzclaw was being truthful with them during his interrogation – yet they chose to believe him in this instance.
    Conclusion: Extremely bad sex crimes investigative work that could have answered questions regarding Holtzclaw’s guilt or innocence.
  6. Investigators never had their lab test Holtzclaw’s uniform pants for the presence of saliva, semen nor vaginal secretions – even though at this point they knew they were seeking evidence of a forced oral sodomy sexual assault. They simply had the lab look for common skin cells without concern for how they may have been transferred to Holtzclaw’s uniform.
    Response: Investigators simply claimed this is the technique they pursued and gave no reason as to why those other tests were not performed.
    Conclusion: Extremely bad sex crimes investigative work that could have answered questions regarding Holtzclaw’s guilt or innocence.
  7. Investigators never fluoresced Holtzclaw’s uniform pants for the indicators of fluids, even though they did fluoresce Holtzclaw’s patrol car throughly.
    Response: Investigators simply claimed this is the technique they pursued and gave no reason as to why they did not fluoresce Holtzclaw’s pants.
    Conclusion: Extremely bad sex crimes investigative work that could have answered questions regarding Holtzclaw’s guilt or innocence.
  8. Investigators admitted they never tested any other area of Holtzclaw’s pants other than the fly.
    Response: Investigators simply claimed this is the technique they pursued and gave no reason as to why they did not test other areas Holtzclaw’s pants.
    Conclusion: Extremely bad sex crimes investigative work that could have answered questions regarding Holtzclaw’s guilt or innocence. Specifically, if DNA had been found on other less incriminating areas of Holtzclaw’s pants it could have pointed to secondary transfer.
  9. On the afternoon of the alleged sexual assault, OCPD officer Timothy Muzny notes in a report that “[OCPD Sex Crime Detective] Kim Davis is not happy with photo lineup and wanted other options.”
    Response: Not brought up during trial.
    Conclusion: This would seem to indicate Davis did not feel like the prepared photo lineup weighed heavily enough in the prosecution’s favor, so she didn’t want to use it for fear Ligons would not pick Holtzclaw out. There is no mention of a photo lineup being presented to Ligons for positive identification.
  10. Detectives immediately profiled Holtzclaw as a serial rapist who targeted black females with a history of drug abuse and/or prostitution.
    Response: Detectives confirmed at trial that they did indeed create the black female ‘perfect victim’ profile with only one accuser identifying Holtzclaw.
    Conclusion: Extremely poor investigative technique that was used to create a public outcry.

 

Investigators Tried to use Against Holtzclaw:

  1. Investigators and prosecutors used the fact that Ligons knew Holtzclaw had just gotten off work as proof that he made the comment, “Hurry up. I’m tired. I just got off work” while allegedly sexually assaulting her.
    Response: Holtzclaw self-disclosed during his interrogation that he told Ligons during their conversation that he had just gotten off work and was wanting to get home.
    Conclusion: Inconclusive.
  2. Investigators tried to use the fact Holtzclaw turned his patrol car’s computer and GPS off as proof he was escalating his crimes.
    Response: Investigators actually already knew that Holtzclaw routinely (as in literally every day) turned off his computers at the end of his shift.
    Conclusion: Investigators willingly trying to mislead the jury. Testimony in court showed there was nothing sinister behind Holtzclaw’s policy violation.
  3. Investigators insinuated Holtzclaw did not ticket or arrest Ligons because he had assaulted her.
    Response: Holtzclaw maintains that he didn’t arrest or ticket Ligons because he was using officer discretion and wanted to go home. Additionally, not having a SDL or insurance is fairly common in that part of town.
    Conclusion: Court records show that Ligons had been pulled over by other officers and they too did not ticket or arrest her for those same ‘crimes.’
  4. Investigators asserted that the fact Holtzclaw pulled Ligons over off-duty showed he was escalating his alleged crimes.
    Response: Testimony in court clearly showed that officers are known to initiate traffic stops off-duty and the practice does not violate any OCPD policies or the law.
    Conclusion: Another attempt to confuse the jury.

 

Evidence in Ligons’ Favor:

  1. Ligons has no prior criminal conviction history. A background check at the time of Holtzclaw’s trial showed Ligons had one ticket for driving under suspension, had twice reported being the victim of an assault and battery and was arrested in 1988 for distribution of CDS after she was arrested inside a residence being utilized to manufacture and sell drugs.
  2. Ligons was not ticketed or arrested, so why would she make up an allegation against Holtzclaw?
  3. Ligons reported the alleged assault in a timely manner.
  4. Holtzclaw admits he pulled Ligons over and the stop is captured on surveillance video – though it doesn’t show anything illegal.

 

Evidence in Holtzclaw’s Favor:

  1. Holtzclaw has no prior criminal history or history of violence/sexual assaults against women.
  2. There is zero evidence Holtzclaw has a propensity to be physically/sexually attracted to 50-something year old black women. In contrast, most of Holtzclaw’s girlfriends were bikini models or otherwise into fitness and his own race and age group.
  3. The comments and actions attributed to Holtzclaw by Ligons do not have overtones of a rapist that is using ‘power’ or ‘authority’ as his motive. In contrast, Ligons portrays Holtzclaw as basically begging her to perform oral sodomy upon him, not forcing her.
  4. Holtzclaw immediately comes forward and discloses that he was the officer who pulled Ligons over.
  5. Holtzclaw could not have known he was pulling over a black female driving alone – unlit street and Ligons car had dark tinted windows.
  6. Holtzclaw pulled Ligons over on a elevated location, near street lights, with his light bar flashing for all to see and in front of a building he knew to have 24/7 off-duty police security and multiple security cameras. *For whatever reason, the off-duty police officer working security never apparently notices the traffic stop going on directly in front of his building. This even though he was manually rebooting the security cameras at 2am as the stop was happening.
  7. The security camera footage does not show any crime being committed.
  8. The security camera footage never discredits any aspect of Holtzclaw’s version of events – length of stop, use of flashlight, amount of time spent searching Ligons’ car, and how each departed.
  9. Forensic evidence backs up Holtzclaw’s version of events when he claims Ligons never placed her hands on his patrol car, he never placed his hands on the top of his patrol car and he never handled her cell phone.
  10. Forensics examination of Holtzclaw’s uniform found no trace of Ligons’ DNA – despite her claims of forced oral sodomy only hours before.
  11. Holtzclaw willingly was interrogated, did not lawyer up and offered his DNA, clothing, cell phone, search of his residence, search of his car, etc.

 

What Would Be Each Person’s Motivation?

Below are simply theories that I have heard or came up with on my own. If you have your own theory, please feel free to share it. As with all theories, there is very little to back any of these up. They are simply being offered to stimulate conversation on the topic.

 

What Motivation Would Ligons Have to Lie?

Holtzclaw’s defense attorney forwarded the theory that Ligons was indeed at another man’s house until 2am smoking dope and taking pain pills. At trial both the man and Ligons’ boyfriend admitted they didn’t know each other personally. One theory is that Ligons was in trouble and making an accusation against Holtzclaw got her out of that trouble. This could also explain why nobody initially mentioned that Ligons’ boyfriend was even home when Ligons arrived and went to report the allegations. It may also explain why when it was reveled that Ligons’ boyfriend was home, other family members claim he simply went to work – while he later claims a version of events that makes him out to be a caring boyfriend.


Another motive that has been thrown about is the oldest motive in history – money. It is obvious by Ligons’ own testimony that she is in dire need of cash. She herself works only part time at the same daycare her daughter works at and her boyfriend, Richard Long Jr., has a low paying job in foodservice (since laid-off). Both Ligons and Long lived in a tiny apartment with Ligons’ adult daughter, the daughter’s unemployed boyfriend and the daughter’s two children. In Feb. of 2014 Long was sued by a signature loan company. In Feb. of 2015 Long was sued by a Class B loan company. Long was evicted for non-payment of rent in Dec. of 2014. Ligons’ daughter, Marisha Ligons, is also apparently strapped for cash and her boyfriend disclosed that he was unemployed at the time. A court records check shows that Ligons was evicted from her home in 2012 – about the time she moved in with her daughter. Ligons’ daughter, Marisha, (whom she lives with) was evicted from their apartment in the 2600 block of N. Ann Arbor in May of 2015 (where Ligons was headed the night of the alleged assault in 2014) – and left owing over $4,000 in rent and fees. The family was most recently reported to be living in a section 8 apartment complex in NE OKC. In June of last year Marisha was sued by Oklahoma Motor Credit Company for not making payments on her vehicle. In fact, Ligons’ daughter has 11 civil filings against her in Oklahoma County. Marisha’s live-in boyfriend, convicted felon Rickey Lavance Christopher, was most recently (Dec. of 2015) charged in Oklahoma County with felony arson in the first degree. Also in December of 2015, Christopher was charged with domestic assault and battery. In May of 2013 Christopher was found in direct contempt of court and remanded to jail. In 2011 Christopher was convicted of felony possession of cocaine, attempting to elude a police officer and driving without a license.


Another potential theory is that Ligons returned home after the Holtzclaw traffic stop. Ligons’ boyfriend was not home but Ligons, Marisha and Christopher possibly hatched the plan to accuse Holtzclaw in hopes of a big pay day. This could also explain why nobody mentioned Ligons’ boyfriend in their initial statements and why he inserted himself into the story later. This could also explain why they refused to call 911 immediately – where their accusation would be recorded and questions asked.


In support of the financial motives, on Oct. 6, 2015 Ligons’ attorneys filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Holtzclaw and the City of Oklahoma City (5:15-cv-01112-HE) wherein they seek financial compensation. Filing federally and as a civil rights violation is important – that specific filing lifts the cap on how much money Ligons can be awarded.


And a final theory is that there are just people in this world that are crazy or otherwise have no issue with destroying others in their desire to achieve attention or monetary goals.

 

What Motivation Would Holtzclaw Have to Sexually Assault Ligons?

If you subscribe to the theory that Holtzclaw must be a sociopath or psychopath (even though there is absolutely zero proof) then that could explain his motivation to all of a sudden become a serial rapist.
Some have theorized that Holtzclaw was a cop on a power trip and he was simply using sex and humiliation as his weapon. As with the first theory, there is no past history to back this up.