As Lorain County Prosecutor, I hold as sacred my duty to seek justice—not merely to secure convictions. Justice demands fairness, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to truth, even when it challenges past decisions. Today, I have filed a joint motion with defense counsel requesting a new trial for Alfred Cleveland, Benson Davis, John Edwards, and Lenworth Edwards, who were convicted of the 1991 murder of Marsha Blakely, and were suspected in the murder of Ms. Blakely’s roommate, Floyd Epps. If the court grants this motion, I will move to dismiss all charges against these four men.      

This decision was not made lightly. It comes after a painstaking review of the evidence, testimony, and circumstances surrounding these convictions. Marsha Blakely’s murder was a devastating crime that shattered her family and sent shockwaves throughout our community. I remain committed to honoring her memory and ensuring that justice prevails. The original investigators in this case worked with dedication and professionalism under difficult circumstances, pursuing answers in the face of a horrific tragedy. This is not an effort to cast blame, but rather an acknowledgment that new evidence and deeper scrutiny demand action.   

At the heart of these convictions was the testimony of William Avery Jr., a witness whose credibility has since unraveled entirely. Avery’s initial statements to police changed several times and were made only after learning of a $2,000 reward. These statements became the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. However, before the first trial began, Avery demanded an additional $10,000 to testify. When this demand was denied, he refused to take the stand, later admitting that his original statements were fabrications made to claim the reward.   

In 1991, after recanting his prior statements to police, Avery later claimed he had been coerced into doing so by an unsubstantiated threat from Lenworth Edwards and a corrections officer at the Lorain County Jail. Despite these dubious claims, the State of Ohio continued to utilize Avery’s tainted testimony in four subsequent trials.   

In 2004, Avery voluntarily recanted his testimony in a statement to the FBI and implicated his father, William Avery Sr., as the perpetrator of the Blakely killing. In 2006, Avery formalized this recantation in a signed affidavit, declaring: “I never witnessed the murder of Marsha Blakely. This was a story my father told me to tell.” These recantations, made without reward or incentive, are fatal to the prospect of pursuing new trials. The defendants never had the opportunity to present Avery’s 2004 and 2006 recantations in court or to argue that Avery himself had identified his father as a suspect in the murder. These recantations, combined with the complete lack of physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime, undermine the very foundation of these convictions.      

Even without Avery’s testimony, the remaining evidence against the defendants collapses under scrutiny. Avery alleged that Ms. Blakely was brutally beaten by four men for 20 minutes in a small apartment before her murder. He specifically claimed that chairs, a mattress, and a table were overturned during the lengthy and brutal assault, leaving the place in shambles. Yet photographs of the alleged crime scene, taken shortly after police arrived, show no overturned furniture, no blood, and no signs of a violent struggle. Witnesses who visited the apartment during the timeframe Avery described—including Ms. Blakely’s boyfriend—testified they saw no evidence of an assault. 

Additionally, several witnesses reported seeing Ms. Blakely alive after the alleged assault and murder were to have taken place, further undermining Avery’s timeline. Avery also initially told investigators that he didn’t know where Blakely’s roommate, Floyd Epps, lived but he later contradicted that statement in trial testimony.     

In his initial statement to police, Avery alleged that Dianne Guice’s car was used by the defendants to transport Blakely’s bloody and beaten body to the scene of her eventual murder. Despite this assertion, multiple searches and forensic examinations of the car found no evidence that Blakely had ever been in the car: no blood, no hair, and no traces of any other physical evidence. No fibers from the car’s interior were found on Blakely’s body. Avery later testified at trial that he did not recognize the car allegedly used by the defendants to transport Ms. Blakely, further eroding the reliability of his account.      

The State of Ohio claimed that a jacket provided to police by Lenworth Edwards’ girlfriend, Dianne Guice, supported Avery’s version of the events. The jacket contained small droplets of blood later determined to belong to Edwards—not Blakely. Prosecutors argued this detail corroborated Avery’s claim that Ms. Blakely struck Edwards in the nose during the assault. However, Avery initially described the defendants as wearing black clothing and suggested that Edwards may have been wearing a yellow jacket—not the jean jacket given to investigators by Dianne Guice. Guice also admitted that after turning the jacket over to police, she mentioned it to others, raising serious questions about whether Avery incorporated this detail into his original statement to police on September 11, 1991, after learning it from outside sources.   

Alibi evidence further dismantles the case. Alfred Cleveland provided documentation that strongly suggested he was in New York City at the time of the murder. John Edwards presented witnesses who placed him at a local bar during the hours Avery claimed the crime occurred. These accounts, coupled with the absence of any physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime scene, cast insurmountable doubt on the prosecution’s timeline and narrative.  

Former Assistant Prosecutor Jonathan Rosenbaum, who oversaw the original trials, acknowledged to the Chronicle-Telegram that the physical evidence was “lacking.” He described Avery’s testimony as the “missing piece of the puzzle.” In truth, that testimony was not the missing piece—it was the fatal flaw. Without it, there is no credible evidence linking these four men to the crime.   

During the course of my investigation, I visited the crime scenes, reviewed reports, trial transcripts, and testimony, and met with interested parties on both sides. I searched for evidence to corroborate the convictions, but instead, I found serious flaws in the case that cast overwhelming doubt—doubt in the physical evidence, doubt in Avery’s testimony, and doubt in the State’s ability to meet its burden of proof.   

Prosecutors have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that cases presented in court are built on solid, reliable evidence, not speculation or conjecture. Investigators work diligently to uncover the facts, often under difficult circumstances, but it is the prosecutor’s role to evaluate whether the evidence meets the legal standard of proof. In this case, the reliance on William Avery Jr.’s testimony, despite its numerous inconsistencies and inherent flaws, reflects a failure to uphold that responsibility. 

To this day, William Avery Jr. remains the only person to place himself at the scene of the beating and subsequent murder of Ms. Blakely. Based on the available evidence, the most likely suspects remain William Avery Sr. and, perhaps, Avery Jr. himself. Reports indicate that William Avery Sr. and Ms. Blakely had a tumultuous relationship, further raising the likelihood of Avery Sr.’s involvement in her murder. Adding to the complexity of this case is the fact that Ms. Blakely’s roommate, Floyd Epps, was also murdered on the same night in strikingly similar ways. The similarity of these offenses and the fact that they were committed around the same time, reflect a connection. A connection that was never fully explored.   

To Marsha Blakely’s family and friends, I extend my deepest condolences. Her death was a senseless tragedy, and her loss continues to reverberate through our community. This decision does not diminish the gravity of her loss, or the pain suffered by those who loved her. This decision, as well, is made to ensure that the pursuit of justice remains rooted in truth and fairness.  

Justice demands action, even when it is difficult. It requires the humility to acknowledge when a case does not meet the high standards required by our legal system, and the courage to correct a mistake. Today, we take a necessary step to address the flaws in this case—not only for the four men charged, but for the principles of justice that guide us and the community we serve.

Sincerely,

J.D. Tomlinson

Lorain County Prosecutor