Exposure of Illegal Procedures

​

The Assistant State Attorney Nicole Dixon took evidence from an unrelated case that Anthony was later acquitted on and deceitfully used this evidence as if Lloyd identified Anthony for the crimes committed in January 11, 2004 as his partner in crime. The truth is, Lloyd only identification of Anthony was of someone that told him about a robbery in an unrelated case. This was truly fraudulent and illegal and had this evidence been exposed to the jury, it would have created a strong reasonable doubt as to Anthony’s being present at the crime scene as Lloyd’s partner in crime. Ultimately exposing that the Assistant State Attorney Nicole Dixon knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain a false identification of Anthony.

​

Also at trial, it was exposed that Lloyd had Anthony’s paperwork inside the trunk of his car. Lloyd testified that Anthony placed his bag in his trunk. There were no fingerprints of Anthony’s found or DNA in Lloyd’s car. A few days after the alleged discovery of Anthony’s bag and paperwork, Lloyd hired an attorney by the name of A.A. McClanahan. This was the same attorney that was appointed to Anthony for his child custody case on December 15, 2003. Lloyd testified he told officers on the scene of the crime on January 11, 2004 that Anthony had some court paperwork in a bag in the trunk of his car. Upon the officers discovery of the bag there were no court paperwork inside the bag. A.A. McClanahan after being hired by Lloyd and allowed to withdraw from Anthony’s case; met with Investigator Wochr a few days after the discovery of Anthony’s bag with more paperwork belonging to Anthony that he received from Lloyd’s wife Michelle Scott. This evidence was not disclosed to the jury, so it went unnoticed that Lloyd hired the same lawyer that Anthony had on his child custody case. Also that Lloyd’s wife was in possession of more of Anthony’s paperwork. All this evidence would have exposed that everything Lloyd testified he knew about Anthony mirrored every portion of evidence A.A. McClanahan said he obtained from Anthony when he met him at court.

​

There was a gun that was found, 250 yards away from the scene of the crime. This gun did not have Anthony’s DNA or fingerprints on it. There was no physical evidence of Anthony’s presence anywhere on the scene of the crime. Had all these facts combined been exposed there is no way that Anthony would have been found guilty.

​

​