Investigators say a Cincinnati man's murder of a 64-year old man was due to mounting gambling debts. By the time Donald Dawson-Durgan murdered his former benefactor, he was $46,000 in debt.
A jury in Judge Tom Heekin's Hamilton County Common Pleas Court is deliberating over the evidence. Deliberations begin anew on Monday in a case where admissions of guilt are being challenged by Clyde Bennett III, the accused's lawyer.
At the heart of the case is a taped confession, in which Mr. Dawson-Durgan admitted to owing money to "everybody", due to his gambling debts. Details in the court cases suggest that the defendant has a gambling addiction.
Detectives Accused of "Trickery"
Clyde Bennett has accused the Hamilton County Sheriff's detectives of "trickery", undue pressure, and psychological manipulation to extract a confession from his client. Bennett said the interrogations lasted up to 6 hours and Donald Dawson-Durgan "was ready to say and do anything...to get out of that interview room."
When the controversial 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, was handed down, many prosecutors and police officers feared it would undermine law enforcement officials' ability to build a legal case. At the time, the Miranda warnings ("You have a right to remain silent...") were seen by many as a dangerous rollback of the powers of law and order.
51 years later, Miranda v. Arizona has proven to be anything but a rollback. Instead, giving a Miranda warning to a suspect on arrest provides law enforcement with almost blanket admissability in a court of law. If a policemen issues the warning, then the arrested has little legal excuse for confessing a crime in interrogation later.
Americans would agree that the system works most of the time. Yet defense lawyers and civil libertarians believe there are many cases in which interrogators obtain confessions when the facts do not bear out the case. False confessions have been proven to lead to wrongful convictions in cases where the DNA evidence proves a defendant's innocence. Defendants often question whether a confession was legitimate, though hearing a defendant confess to a crime is a powerful tool for the prosecutor.
Anant Singh: Dawson-Durgan's Employer and Friend
Prosecutors tell a different story. They say that the May 4, 2016 killing of Anant Sighn was over Singh's unwillingness to pay Dawson-Durgan's gambling debts. On the day he allegedly killed Sighn, Dawson-Durgan had lost almost $9,000 at the Downtown Horseshoe Casino, now known as the Jack Cincinnati Casino.
Anant Singh was an engineer for General Electric who had bought a number of properties. Singh wanted the properties renovated and Donald Dawsom-Durgan had worked on those renovation projects. The two had formed a close relationship in their time working together.
In the wake of the killing, Donald Dawson-Durgan told police interrogators he needed cash quickly and went to Anant Sighn for a loan. In the past, Mr. Singh had given the problem gambler money for his debts. Singh had treated Dawson-Durgan like a son, and he had apparently paid off Donald's debts like he was his son, too.
Dawson-Durgan: "I Owe Everybody"
Donald Dawson-Durgan told police detectives during a series of three interrogations, "I owe everybody. I had to get my hands on some money. I wanted to get Mr. Singh to bail me out."
Details in the case suggest that Singh had bailed out the accused in the past, but his patience and goodwill had run out. Donald Dawson-Durgan never learned his lesson or got help for his addiction, and so Anant Singh's largesse had done nothing to help his friend.
Rick Gibson's Statement on the Murder
Rick Gibson, the Hamilton County Assistant Prosecutor, said that Mr. Singh declined to pay off any more gambling debts. Dawson-Durgan, desperate and full of rage, lashed out at the kindly man who had helped him out of trouble in the past.
Recordings of the interrogation sessions show the alleged killer saying, "He told me he didn't have (the money). I knew he was lying. I told him I owed somebody $80,000."
In his rage, Dawson-Durgan appears to have viewed Mr. Singh's evasions as a kind of betrayal. If the prosecuters are correct, then a plea for help turned into a capital murder. After a weekend to consider the case, a Cincinnati jury renders its verdict on Monday.
Comments