Yeah, we heard multiple shots.
Immediately, I think we both looked at each other and said, that's gunfire.
And that's why we immediately responded to the area, because assuming somebody was either going to get shot or had been shot.
And can we prevent it, stop it, help, assist, do our job?
And that's what we did.
I'm Scott Weinberger, investigative journalist and former deputy sheriff.
I'm Anastasia Nicolazzi, former New York City homicide prosecutor and host of Investigation.
Discovery's True Conviction.
And this is Anatomy of Murder.
Today we're heading to the city of Miami Florida, where the most innocent of victims would lose their life to a stray bullet.
It's a case where the community banded together with members of the Miami-Dade Police Department to catch a killer.
It was shocking.
You never expect a child to be the victim of a gunshot wound, especially out in the open in a crowd on a day of celebration.
That is retired Miami-Dade homicide detective Jeff Lewis.
And what we're talking about is a homicide that was caused by a stray bullet.
And they are the type of cases that really test the emotional strength of all those involved.
And it's also a case that, because they can sometimes be so challenging, that the police really look for, and hope for help from the community.
Whether it's an eyewitness, an anonymous tipster or some stranger stumbling onto a key piece of evidence, the fact is that citizens solve murders.
But the relationships between citizens and law enforcement, we know, can also be fraught with issues such as distrust, and whether that is fear for one's own safety or issues between people and the police.
Certain things like that can sometimes get in the way of working together.
However, there are some crimes that are so tragic, so horrific, that a community rises to the occasion in their demand for justice.
And this is one of those cases.
We spoke with Jeff Lewis.
As a detective in the 1980s and 90s.
He was working in one of the biggest cities in America and he thought he'd seen it all.
I was hired by the Miami-Dade Police Department in October of 1980.
I had just been honorably discharged from the United States Air Force.
I was on the streets, started out as a uniformed officer.
Within a month, I was transferred to the midnight shift in the Central District, which encompasses the Liberty City area and the inner city locations of Miami-Dade County.
Miami, of course, is known for its beaches, its nightlife, its fun in the sun.
But like any metropolitan area, it has its working class neighborhoods and its fair share of crime.
Liberty City is almost in the middle of Dade County.
When I started, it was still an up and coming area. which was a very busy beat.
But he also took pride in getting to know the people in his community and earning their trust and even, at times, their friendship.
And I enjoyed being in those areas and meeting the good people that live in those areas, because it's full of them.
Man, it's so many good people.
And I enjoyed solving the cases.
I took a lot of pride in my work.
Now, for various reasons, it is so important for police to earn the trust.
And ultimately, if they do that, that also works in their favor as far as community relations, the people they're working with and for and also hopefully, to solve cases.
To be the most effective beat cop...
It's important to be one with the community.
You rely on cooperating witnesses, people who are willing to share what they may have seen or heard, and also be willing to testify.
That's what these relationships can bring.
And this is so especially true when it comes to investigating homicides, where the stakes obviously can be much higher.
It's a different animal when you go to homicide.
You never know what you're going to get when you walk into the office.
That is something Scott, that I think also made it so interesting was how unpredictable working in homicide is.
You really never knew just like Jeff is talking about what is going to happen when you walk into the office each day.
For sure.
I mean you're responding to all types of situations which may end up being a homicide, but you have suspicious deaths.
You have accidental deaths.
And needless to say, you know, being a detective in Miami in the 80s, You stayed really busy.
Our homicide section is a combined unit and we work utilizing teams.
So we have five detectives on the team.
We work out of the homicide office and we rotate through homicides as they come in.
Today's case takes us to one of those typical sunny days in Miami.
It was January of 1997.
Jeff was out working on the streets of Liberty City.
And on that day, hundreds of people had gathered to watch a parade in celebration of the Martin Luther King holiday.
And that's when tragedy struck.
Previous night, our team picked up a homicide.
We worked out all night and we went back early in the daytime to do an area canvas for that homicide.
While we were canvassing the area, we actually heard the gunfire.
I think we both looked at each other and said, that's gunfire.
Jeff and his partner immediately began running towards the sound of gunfire and into the panicking crowd of parade watchers.
Martin Luther King Day, 4th of July.
People utilize fireworks and light off firecrackers, so we kind of prepared for that.
But there's a distinct sound between a firecracker and a gunshot and the pattern and the sound and the repetition of it.
And we immediately knew that was gunfire and that's why we immediately responded to the area, assuming somebody was either going to get shot or had been shot.
And can we prevent it, stop it, help, assist, do our job?
And that's what we did.
And Scott, it really goes against human nature or instinct.
As law enforcement, you don't run away from gunfire, but rather towards it.
Running towards gunfire is something that becomes instinctive for members of law enforcement.
And unfortunately, active shooter situations are on the rise.
And yes, training for these types of incidents are critical, but they are saving lives as well.
But you can't always prepare yourself emotionally for the bloodshed that you may be responding to and what you may witness when you get there.
When we got on the scene, uniformed officers were already there.
They were tending to the young girl.
She was on the ground lying on her back.
And we could see the head injury.
We didn't know how bad it was.
The child on the ground was five-year-old Rekia Isaacs.
She was the youngest of five children, whose family lived just a few blocks away from the parade route.
And now there she was on the sidewalk, bleeding from an apparent gunshot wound to her head.
That is the last thing that I expected to see.
And I know my partner, Mike, expected to see.
And we were shocked when we arrived on the scene and we literally saw her lying on the ground.
And now it's like, you know, what can we do to help?
A crowd is gathering.
Some people are still running for cover.
Sirens are wailing.
It is chaos.
Fire rescue and the paramedics are doing the best they can do.
We're all trying to get her into the fire rescue unit to get her out of there as quick as possible.
By the various accounts, it quickly became clear that Rekia had been the victim of a stray bullet, the source of which no one knew.
The bullet literally skimmed the top of her head.
I mean, if it had been an inch higher, it would have missed her.
So it wasn't like it was a forehead shot or directly into her head, but it skimmed it just enough to leave a trail across the top of her head.
Had she, you know, been sitting a different way, or you know one move, but one way or another, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Rekia, who had just started kindergarten, was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, still clinging to life.
Obviously, the priority is saving Rekia's life.
But for police at the scene, time is also of the essence.
You have an active crime scene, one or possibly more shooters who are still at large and dozens, if not hundreds, of witnesses that you need to get statements from.
Because, even though Rekia is still alive, you have to prepare yourself for the worst that this will become a homicide investigation.
When homicide investigators first got involved, Rekia was still clinging to life.
But, as we've talked about before, homicide investigators also can get involved when they think there is the possibility or likelihood in New York we call it likely to die cases that the victim will ultimately die.
And the reason homicide detectives are involved in those scenarios is because we want to use their skill set that they have been trained to do at that juncture.
Because, if the person ultimately succumbs to their injuries, you don't want to have lost a detective's most important commodity, which is time.
Sadly, in this case, Rekia Isaacs would not survive her traumatic injuries.
Either by the time she arrived at the hospital or not long afterwards, she actually died.
While it's important for detectives to push their own emotions to the side as they focus on the tasks at hand, it's important to remember that, at the root, they are very human.
I had been in homicide about four months.
I got there in October of 1996.
This was my first homicide involving a child.
Rekia's death is devastating to her mom Jackie, her four siblings and her entire extended family that just adored her so much.
And news of her murder shocks the community of Liberty City to its core.
More than 2,000 people, including the city's mayor, would attend her funeral.
Anytime you have a child involved in a case like this, you definitely get motivated.
Not to say that we wouldn't be motivated on any other side, but yes, it's a child.
We want to catch the guys that killed the child.
You want to close that case.
You want to bring that family to closure.
And that's really kind of the thing I've always found you know, the friends of mine that not only work these cases but they specialize in them.
And I always used to sit with them and we'd talk about how difficult the emotional toll of those cases.
And they said, absolutely it is.
And they needed to do all sorts of things to quiet their brain after handling them.
But at the same time, they were incredible motivators.
Like what type of case could you be more motivated to work, solve and prosecute?
When you're going through a normal homicide investigation and you're learning the depravity that the suspect may have used in their action, you get angry.
And channeling that anger, that hurt, focusing on your job, which is collecting evidence, running down the leads, identifying suspects.
I mean that is what it takes to bring that family justice.
Because you have to think about if you're missing anything, if you overstep One piece of evidence.
If it falls through the cracks, those mistakes can haunt you for the rest of your career.
The saying is dot your I's and cross your T's.
All of that is so super important.
And I really think that's it.
Those of us that have actually worked in homicide for years.
It's like yes, you're a person, you are impacted by these cases emotionally, but you know that you have to separate your emotional thoughts from the work at hand in order to get the job done and hopefully, do it right.
Prior to being a homicide detective, I was a robbery detective for 14 years and I saw the evil that people do to kids and children as victims of robbery.
I'd already seen the violence.
And yes, you are more motivated.
But I didn't overreact, I guess I would say, because I also had confidence in my teammates.
I knew we were going to solve this damn thing one way or another, and I knew what we had to do to solve it.
And the search for answers would begin immediately at the scene of the crime, as investigators try to piece together what had happened.
What we found out was that Rekia's mother had asked another family member to watch her, but keep her in the house.
The mother didn't want her out in the parade.
I mean, the mother had gone to the parade but the babysitter decided I guess the parade was over, it'd be okay to bring her out.
Even more evidence that Rekia was simply, tragically, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But detectives were not ready to just chalk this up to an accident.
Someone had fired that gun, whether they meant to kill or not.
That bullet took the life of an innocent five-year-old girl and that someone would have to be held accountable.
This is Martin Luther King Day.
This was not only a well-attended event, but the location of this homicide was pretty much ground zero for the event.
The heart of 62nd Street, and this particular area is where the majority of people were congregating after the parade had gone through.
There were fortunately numerous police officers out there for the parade itself, so that helped us in securing the scene and grabbing some witnesses and figuring out what occurred.
Now, Scott, obviously they're along a parade route, so there's lots of people there for that reason.
But it also was an area populated by these large apartment buildings.
So I just think about the number of people and the chaos that meant not only for one another, but then, when it was time for police to investigate it, it also can make it that much more difficult.
Yeah, now you're adding gunshots to that description, Anastasia.
You know, people are scrambling, sirens are blaring, you know, all wanting to know who fired that shot, where did it come from?
And more importantly, really, where is the shooter right now?
Is this still an active scene?
And as you can imagine, tensions were probably running really high.
So you have this area that has a lot of people because of the parade, and now you add in that it's also a densely populated area.
Well, people all heard the gunfire word spread so people know what happened.
And so now there's even more people out and about wanting to know what occurred.
And now, of course, when you get lights and sirens and flashing police lights and crime scene, now everybody wants to come and gather around and look and see and talk.
So it kind of brings everybody together.
And this is really where experience is so valuable, especially for officers who know that neighborhood, even know some of the people who live there.
You know, while a crowd of potential suspects can be daunting, it's also a crowd of potential witnesses.
And what they would learn would send investigators on a high-stakes hunt for a gunman before he or she could slip away unnoticed back into the crowd.
In January of 1997, five-year-old Rekia Isaacs was enjoying a neighborhood parade in celebration of the Martin Luther King holiday when she was struck and killed by a single stray bullet.
Detective Jeff Lewis was at the scene and part of the homicide team that would lead this investigation.
Nobody, including us, really didn't know who had obviously shot her or why the shot had come in her direction.
But as we started interviewing the witnesses that were in the area, that's when we found out about this huge fight that was occurring between some guys and some girls, and rocks supposedly, and knives, and somebody said that somebody saw somebody with a gun and shots were fired.
So, as we're going down this path of interviewing these various witnesses, the picture is coming together.
So Scott, easier said than done, that while there's so many people out there, we know that, for various reasons, getting what they know, if they know something, is not always so easy.
No matter where you are, in any city or town or village in the US, you'll find some level of mistrust with police.
So you hope you walk up to a crowd in a situation like this and everyone is ready to cooperate.
But it doesn't always work out that way.
But again, we've said this so many times, time is of the essence.
And this situation is fresh in their minds.
And you want to get it when it's fresh and when they have the best recollection of events.
Because something they saw five minutes ago may be totally different when you talk to them five weeks from now.
So it's important to really utilize spreading out, getting lots of officers within those crowds and talking to as many people as you can.
The information was basically that a fight had broken out between two females.
It started at a store called Jugglers, which is just one of those little mom and pop stores.
Why?
I don't know.
Were they fighting over a boy?
I don't know.
Somebody stepped on somebody's shoe.
Who knows?
But it started at the store between two girls who literally were fist fighting and pulling hair and doing all that.
People that were along the parade route and in some of their apartments would likely have a clear view of the fight that had been going on.
Remember, this is a holiday.
There's a parade.
People are partying.
And things can get a bit rowdy.
And it escalating to a dangerous situation is always possible.
The bad part of everybody hanging out is that now everybody wants to join in.
So now the friends of the friends start joining in to protect each other from what the other person's doing.
And it kind of grew into this conglomerate of men and women, guys and girls that were fighting each other, chasing each other, allegedly pulling knives on each other, hitting each other with rocks, pulling guns out.
So it's a combination of all this information.
So this big brawl is ongoing and everybody sees it.
And it tracks to the apartment where they live, where the girls actually go inside to seek refuge.
And when they ran inside to escape the mob, so to speak.
That's when these guys stood outside and literally were breaking the windows out of the apartment, trying to enter the apartment to terrorize these girls who were inside the apartment.
So these young women are now barricading themselves inside their apartments, while the young men and we're told there was two are threatening them from outside their windows.
So now they're literally smashing out these windows in plain view of everybody that's out there, including the girls and their family members that were inside the residence.
They were scared to death.
And you got to remember their family members.
I believe the mothers and or grandmothers inside of the apartment were scared to death because these boys are literally breaking the windows, trying to kick the door in, trying to get into that apartment to get at these girls.
So they were scared for their lives.
And it continued to escalate because, while they had been using rocks and different things to try to break in whether it was the windows or the doors at some point they pull out guns and at least one of the guys outside fires.
Fortunately, nobody inside that apartment was injured, but it was within moments that Rekia Isaacs nearby, had fallen to the ground.
So, within just a few hours of the shooting, detectives have pieced together a pretty rough idea of what might have led to the gunshot that killed Rekia.
A fight breaks out.
It escalates to throwing rocks, pulling knives, and finally firing a gun.
But here's what they don't know yet.
First, identity.
The names of the young men involved that had been menacing the two girls.
Next, where are those guys now?
And, even more importantly, was it even possible that a bullet fired at the scene of that fight could have made its way and been the one that struck this five-year-old young girl?
We were lucky.
We had a lot of information coming in from a lot of different directions.
So our job at that particular time was to go to the building and start knocking on doors, which is what we did.
We just followed the trail.
You know you get that information, follow that trail and fortunately it took us down the path we needed to go.
You know it started out, we're hearing nicknames, then we got first names, then we got first names and nicknames and then finally we got first name, last name, first name, last name, first name, last name.
Three potential suspects.
By nightfall, investigators had three suspects.
Jason Peavy, Jerome Ford, who was better known by his street name Fourball, and a third individual whose name we want to withhold because he would later be excluded as a suspect.
By the time we were done, we had two prime suspects, knew who they were, knew where they lived.
And we were working on actually locating them that night as we got the information.
And the word was that Jason was actually the gunman or had a gun in his possession.
Unfortunately we didn't have anybody that could point to him and say they saw him shoot in the direction of Rekia Isaac.
Some people said they saw him shooting the gun into the air.
And once we pinned that down, that's when we set out to locate them.
You know, Scott, I really see this almost the work that they were doing.
It's almost like pulling that rope and every tug of the rope was leading them closer to the end.
And here it didn't take that long for them to not only have names, but figuring out where these guys may be.
You know, sometimes on the street, we get a street name before we get an actual name.
That opportunity always comes, opens doors, gets people talking and helps you identify people.
Then you get the one person, you get a photograph, you start to put that in a folder.
And then when you start getting other people, you can start doing the photo IDs to determine who may have seen them at the parade.
Because if you can get a street name, identify it to a name, get their associates and then be able to do a photo lineup.
That's the way in to be able to identify your set of suspects.
After running their name through the computers, police were able to quickly get addresses for where they lived.
But when they went knocking on the doors, surprise, surprise, no one was home.
But again, this is where the community can play a pivotal role in the investigation.
These guys were well known in that area.
So I assume that that particular evening these guys got the heck out of there because they probably knew that because of this victim, somebody might have pointed a finger at them to us.
Hey, there he goes right there.
We knew they weren't at their halls.
We didn't have any other information as to where they might be.
Whether it was the rapport Jeff had with the people living in the area or their anger over the violence of what had been visited upon this innocent child, or most likely a bit of both.
Rekia Isaac's neighbors helped police by giving them critical information about the suspects they believe were responsible for her death.
So what we did was the very next day we met in the district, in Central District, And now we had addresses, of course, from the night before.
So basically, what we were gonna do was go back to the residences of these two individuals and knock on the doors and see if we could come up with them.
Sergeant Tony Monheim.
I think we were at Ford's residence and Tony and another detective were at Peavy's residence.
And Peavy was home, and so Tony called us and we responded to that location where we took him into custody.
And it was at that time I was asked to interview him, take him to the homicide office and interview him, while they were going to go ahead and continue to look for Jerome Ford.
So at that point I took Jason Peavy, put him in my police car, drove him to our headquarters to interview him.
So Scott, obviously interviews need to be handled differently based on who's in the room and the type of case at hand.
What are some of the things that you always put into your brain before deciding how to approach each interview?
It really comes down to developing a realistic rapport.
They know you're not their new best friend, but you're someone who's willing to give them a fair opportunity to speak their mind.
The key word is speaking here, talking.
All the while, you're gaining their trust and information.
And if it's not truthful, it could hurt them.
Remember, not everybody who enters into an interview room turns out to be the one.
But it's how you handle them that could bring you that crucial lead that clears a case.
And it's in this interview Jeff takes the same tact where he starts to really go down the road of rapport.
I got to the homicide office with him about 2 o'clock in the afternoon.
Got him in there.
You know the drill you make him comfortable, you do the rights waiver for him, which is everything I did.
And that, to me, is where you establish your rapport.
And that report can be such an important factor in how far that conversation's going to go.
Every good homicide detective knows, unless they're lucky or very rarely, that the first story you get is going to be a lie, right?
And for law enforcement and prosecutors, it doesn't need to be the confession.
You know, whether it is a partial truth, a half truth or even just that first lie, it's all important, because it all gets you somewhere.
The important thing is for the detective to know what to do with that and how to just keep the person talking.
You know, two important points to make here, Anastasia.
The first one is that in these cases, where you're interviewing someone and they're giving you a story, they tend to put elements into that statement that may factually be true just to make their story sound more believable.
But then there's another fact that you always talk about, which really is you'd prefer people not to confess, in a sense because a negative confession is a lot easier to prove when you have something physical evidence that puts them somewhere, or a witness statement places them somewhere where they're not admitting to.
And I don't know it's that you don't want the confession, right?
Of course, you'll take anything you can get.
But I think the misnomer is that you need the confession.
It is that partial truth, the admission or sometimes just the straight out lie that can be as meaningful and sometimes more clear cut to a jury when showing them why these pieces just don't fit.
Like if the person's lying, why?
And when you put it together with the other piece of evidence, it is only to cover up their crime.
Or if there's a partial truth, well, then it's putting their best foot forward.
So again, I think people think you need the straight confession.
I think Scott, that's exactly what you're talking about, though is that sometimes something too clear?
Cut well, that can at least feed into.
Well, I never said that, and the police just put the words in my mouth.
We'll take it as it comes and we can use it all.
You know, he talked about the fight.
He talked about the girls involved in the fight.
He said he had a rock.
He identifies the girls going to the houses, admits to breaking windows at the house with a rock.
He identifies four balls being there.
And he says after they broke the window with the rock, they got out of there.
They left.
And that was his first story.
In this case, even in his denial, Jeff had actually verified that he was in fact in the area of the crime.
He was one of the individuals that was in the fight in which some of the witnesses claimed a gun was fired.
And in fact he may have already implicated himself in an assault that could give police enough reason to hold him.
And Asika, I guess, admit what you have to, deny what you can.
And it goes down to what Jeff was saying.
It's that he just wants to keep him talking, because if he doesn't have any of his words at all well, it may be that much more difficult to ultimately prove his guilt.
That's when multiple rounds of questioning come in.
Any inconsistency in the retelling of a story can open up chinks in the suspect's armor.
And here's where a favorite tool, at least if you're watching the police procedurals on TV everywhere, a police come in and that's the lie detector test.
I asked him if he'd be willing to take a polygraph test.
Now everybody knows that it's not admissible in court and it's not going to tell you whether a guy committed a crime or not, but I like to use it as a tool.
It's all in the presentation.
So he takes the polygraph test.
And our polygrapher, Robert Gately, was very effective, an excellent polygrapher.
One of the questions was, did you lie to Detective Lewis about the details of the case?
Did you have a handgun in your possession at the end of the parade yesterday?
And did you fire a gun last night in the area of Northwest 19th Avenue and 62nd Street?
So those are three of the main questions that we ask.
So it doesn't ask him if he killed Rekia Isaac or if he shot this little girl, any of that.
We just want to pin him down with being armed with a gun.
And would Peavey's answers to those questions move the investigation forward or keep it at a standstill?
Of course, we were not shocked that he showed deception in these questions.
The biggest reaction that he had was to whether or not he fired a gun in the area of Northwest 19th Avenue and 62nd Street.
So I had something to work with sitting down and I'd say listen, this is what happened during the polygraph examination.
Something's not right.
So now he changes his story.
Now he's going to give me a second story.
So the second story is he said, well, I did have a gun.
It was a .22 caliber chrome handgun.
Yes, I was in the area, 62nd Street and 20th Avenue.
And he did shoot that particular gun one time into the air, and that was it.
It's another method in giving your subject an opportunity to prove what they're telling you is absolutely the truth.
In fact, there's even a scientific tool, as Anastasia said, a lie detector test, albeit it's quite controversial.
Now, again, they're not admissible in court for a reason.
But when Jeff says that he likes to use it as a tool, well, it's more the idea of it.
And a skilled investigator knows that very often, just the idea of being strapped to that machine and having your you know your pulse and different things read as you're speaking.
Well, that is the very thing that sometimes helps them decipher the truth and gets someone just the idea of taking that test to give you information and tell you things very differently than they had said before.
So Jason Peavy claims it was a 22 caliber chrome handgun and he was in the area of 62nd Street and 20th Avenue.
But Jason Peavy claims he did fire his weapon in the vicinity of the shooting, but not on the day of Rekia's shooting.
So what he was telling me was that, on a previous incident prior to this homicide yes, I was in the area yes, I had a gun and yes, I shot the gun.
So now he's giving me the reasons as to why he flunked that.
He's a smart guy.
You know, he's not stupid.
That was a pretty good cover story.
So while he's admitted his involvement in the fight and the firing of a handgun, so far Peavy has managed to avoid incriminating himself.
But this is where a skilled interviewer can amp up the pressure.
Now, our problem was this.
We had no bullets.
We had no shell cases.
We had no ballistics evidence at that time.
All I knew, all I heard was that it was a black gun.
Could have been a semi-automatic.
It could have been a revolver.
I didn't know.
I go back in and I sit down with him again and I go over his second cover story and I just said listen, I don't believe you.
You're lying.
And the other thing is you've got to kind of give these guys an out. right?
I mean, you got to give them an out.
You hate to do it, but you got to give them something.
My out to him was, listen, I know you did not intentionally shoot this girl.
I said, you're not that person.
You wouldn't just go out and arbitrarily say today, I'm Jason.
I'm going to go find a five-year-old girl in the neighborhood and shoot and kill her.
You didn't do that, Jason.
And I'm not saying you did, but Your actions led to her being killed.
Tell me why this happened.
Then of course I play upon the fact that it's now.
Everybody in the neighborhood knows he's involved.
Everybody believes he did it.
You got to protect yourself, too.
People are upset.
There's a five-year-old girl that's killed inside your community.
You need to cover your ass on this.
You know.
So when he's talking about giving the out Scott, you know you and I know it's not because he doesn't want him to be held accountable if he is in fact the shooter who caused her death.
But it's just sometimes that tool again of keeping someone talking if they think they can lessen their culpability for what they may now admit they've done.
And also extend the amount of information they were willing to say five minutes ago, you know, to be able to talk more about other things and maybe other potential suspects.
So it's keeping that conversation going, giving that person a sense that you're willing to hear their story and willing to hear their take of what happened, of events that happened on that day.
And at this point, the investigator usually knows if his words are getting through.
And again, the goal is not necessarily the confession.
You know any information that may help solve or close the case, whether it's the name of an accomplice, the location of the gun or ballistics evidence or, in this case, whatever it is that person wants to say, even if it involves an excuse.
So now he comes up with another story, the third story, which is probably the most believable of the stories.
And basically he says, while he was in the process of breaking these windows at the residence, there's an unknown black male standing across the street from him that's pointing a gun at him and shoots at him.
So because of that he returns gunfire in kind of a self-defense mode, said he shot two times towards the direction of this unknown person.
He said he had a .38 caliber handgun.
It was black and colorful.
Let's just get this straight.
Jason Peavy, who witnesses saw menacing two girls throwing rocks through their windows and waving a gun around, now says that the first gunshots actually came from another man.
And Jason Peavy claims he was just returning fire in self-defense.
So here's two things.
And again, it depends the jurisdiction you're in.
But one.
There's this thing called mutual combat, that people choosing to fire guns at one another they cannot claim self-defense if they kind of have agreed without words to this combat.
So it's gone.
But also remember that.
Peavy is there, admittedly trying to break into this house, and not only with the breaking the windows, but with the gun.
So wouldn't it be the other guy, if anything, who is defending the people inside that house?
So, again, you have to use his words in context with the other facts that are shown.
But absolutely, investigators will take his statement if this is what he wants to say.
We just spoke about the fact that if you keep them talking, he keeps telling you more information.
That's where the rapport of the detective is so critical.
It goes to show you that you catch more flies with honey.
The rapport established not only helped elicit more facts about the crime, but it even assured the suspect's cooperation in solving the case.
So I go with that story.
I take a formal statement from him, swear him in.
He gives me a confession in front of the sonographer, admitting to what I just told you.
He admitted to.
But Jeff takes the investigation one step further, you know really pushing the envelope in a direction that he has no idea where it will land.
So, after we do all of this stuff, I asked him.
I said listen, when you do me a favor, would you be willing to go back out to the scene and do a reenactment?
So I know exactly what's going on.
And he says, yes.
I'll never forget this.
So I put him in my police car.
And when it's unmarked, it's a detective car.
And I put him in the front seat.
I handcuff him, of course.
And he heads back over to the location where the altercation had occurred and where Rakaia was killed.
So we get to the scene and we get him out.
He stands there and he poses like he puts his finger out pointing a gun and shows us how he's crouched down.
And we get about three or four shots.
I have the crime scene technicians out there and all the cooperates and does all that for us.
Remember that the shooting that Peavey is describing took place just a block from the parade route where Rekia was shot.
So why are crime scene technicians there?
Well, remember the thing that police don't have while they're piecing together the other information, in this case,
They still don't have the bullet that killed Rekia or the murder weapon.
A few days later we did go back, based on some other witness information, and found a bullet in a tree that had been lodged in a tree.
Now, here's the thing.
When you're working in any densely populated area it's not so uncommon to sometimes find ballistics evidence that really has nothing to do with your case.
Not uncommon at all in liberty city to find various shell casings of projectiles all over the damn place.
The problem was we never recovered the gun so we couldn't do ballistics with the round that we extracted from the tree.
I mean, that was one of those moments when you know you think you find the projectile that's connected directly with your homicide And it's one of those moments also that you learn that it's not and you have to continue to look.
You have to continue to work to find that evidence you need to make an arrest.
But this was a stray bullet, Anastasia.
How solid of a case can you make, in a sense, about intentional murder, if that's what you're trying to seek?
I think you can make a very strong case.
It can be on transferred intent.
When you're firing a gun, you're shooting it at someone.
And if you're shooting that gun at someone well, the reasonable inference is that you are planning to kill them, or that would be the likely reasonable outcome.
But you also have this idea of mutual combat.
He didn't mean to be aiming at Rekia.
And by all accounts, no one would ever say that she was the intended target.
But, you know, we charge Rekia. murder in these stray bullet cases all the time.
Let's talk about what we do have.
Even with the witness and PV's recounting of the gunfight with this unidentified man with no ballistic evidence, no murder weapon, it could prove to be a very difficult case for a proof beyond a reasonable doubt verdict.
And that is always an important thing to take into consideration and know it has nothing to do with whether they think the person committed the crime or not, because obviously you have any doubt, you shouldn't be taking it to court or even charging.
But there are issues with evidence or what you think the jury's issues may be that prosecutors have to factor in.
And it did seem to play in here and in certain ways, because of laws that are particular to the state of Florida.
And down here and I think it's more prevalent now the stay in your ground rule, where if you've got two drug dealers shooting at each other and an innocent person gets killed, nobody gets charged because they both claim stay in your ground self-defense.
It's ridiculous.
It drives me nuts.
We couldn't prove or disprove the fact that this guy was being shot at.
Now, no other witness indicated that.
I know it's a lie, but that's his defense.
And we couldn't prove or disprove it and I guess they didn't want to take a chance with some jurors saying well, you know, he's protecting himself because this guy's shooting at him.
I think that's why they offered him the pleas they offered him.
This case never went to trial.
These two guys were offered kind of a sweetheart deal.
I don't remember how much time they actually got or received, but they should both be still sitting in prison today and they're not.
This is the point in the story where we talk about the fact that the prosecution did offer these two men a plea deal.
And it's that conversation that the prosecution has to have with Rekia's family about the fact that they would be accepting this deal and not going to trial.
And I'm sure Anasiga, a really difficult conversation for any prosecutor to have.
They are some of the most difficult conversations that we have.
Because her family, any family, they want justice.
And the state definitely wants the individual or individuals held accountable for their crimes.
But the prosecutors also are aware of very real challenges that may hinder the outcome that the family is hoping for in that courtroom.
And that has to be a consideration too.
Because, if you know, there are issues that with maybe, the way certain evidence was gathered, for example,
It has nothing to do with the guilt or non-guilt of the person, but something like that well, you don't want to risk it if you can help it of that person ultimately just walking out the door, and why sometimes cases warrant the compromise of offering that plea.
And often, homicide investigators work off of the family's reaction.
Clearly, if the family is upset with a prosecution's offer, they probably feel in a similar way.
But if a family feels like justice has been served?
Normally homicide investigators follow the same path in their own personal feelings.
You know, there is this irony of the fact that Rekia was killed on a day commemorating Martin Luther King, a man who dedicated his life to justice and nonviolent protest.
In the years since her tragic death, Rekia has become a symbol of the human cost of gun violence which, as of 2023, is the single largest killer of children and adolescents in the US.
And that means it is more than things like cancer, more than narcotics, more than car crashes.
And sadly, those numbers continue to only go up.
Now retired from the Miami-Dade Police Department, Jeff Lewis volunteers his time, along with other ex-cops, at the Seminole Sheriff's Office in Florida investigating cold cases.
And I think that's just great.
I loved hearing him talk about it because he actually volunteers his time.
He drives in.
He meets with other retired law enforcement professionals.
And they aid the department that they're working in with this backlog of cold cases.
And it just really goes to his dedication.
But in retelling this story for us, it was pretty clear that this is a case that Jeff will never forget.
And I'll never forget this case.
Never.
To this day.
You know, when I see pictures of her, I mean this is one of the cases that I will take to my grave, because she was a five-year-old girl that shouldn't have been murdered.
So thinking about this case, I came up with the word responsibility.
Taking responsibility for discharging a firearm and a community taking the responsibility, bending together to clear this horrific homicide of five-year-old Rekia Isaacs.
We are releasing this episode in the days leading up to June for a reason.
The first Friday in June is National Gun Violence Awareness Day.
It is a day and week that takes stock of US gun violence and honors the victims and the survivors of gunfire.
The symbol of this day is to wear the color orange, and that is because it is the color used by hunters to protect themselves.
No one is immune from gun violence, not even the most vulnerable, most innocent children like Rekia Isaacs.
Her family will forever grieve and have that unrepairable hole from her loss.
So let her legacy be the reminder to all of us.
Her face, the symbol of what we have lost due to gun violence.
And with that, let her loss be incentive for change.
Tune in next week for another new episode of Anatomy of Murder.
Anatomy of Murder is an AudioChuck original.
Produced and created by Weinberger Media and Forseti Media.
Ashley Flowers is executive producer.
So, what do you think, Chuck?
Do you approve?
No!
