# “No, It’s Not Me”: Masked Felon Allegedly Incriminates Himself When Confronted By Former Co-Worker

Cleveland Willis, 28, will face an interesting witness for prosecution for alleged armed robbery . . . himself.  When an employee of KFC restaurant recognized Willis behind a mask and asked if it was him, Willis responded. “No, It’s Not Me.”

Police say that on October 3rd, Willis held up a KFC in Baton Rouge while wearing black clothes and a black mask.  After pointing a cocked gun at the head of one of the workers, one of them asked “Cleveland, is that you?” He responded “No, it’s not me.” (He worked for a few months at the KFC.)  He then drove off in a silver Nissan Altima, the same car he drove as an employee.  Reportedly, he left with over \$600.

With the witness identification, Willis was later arrested for armed robbery.

## 53 thoughts on ““No, It’s Not Me”: Masked Felon Allegedly Incriminates Himself When Confronted By Former Co-Worker”

1. bigfatmike says:

I find it interesting that some many here seem to believe that Cleveland is guilty on the basis of witness statements and “facts” that are simply not present in the article.

I have pointed out some of the claims of “facts” that are not mentioned at all in the article we have here.

But we have not talked much about witness reports.

Lets assume the witness has a 90% probability of accurately reporting a fact and that each report of a fact by the witness is independent of other reports made by the witness. These may not be good assumptions, but they can illustrate a point about the usefulness of witness testimony.

Lets further suppose the witness tells us that the gunman had 1. medium complexion, 2. dread locks, was 3. holding a gun, 4. stated he was not Cleveland, and drove off in a 5. silver Nissan Altima.

What is the probability that the witness reported all the facts accurately? We assumed the reports by the witness are independent, so we can calculate .9^5= .59. Even if the witness is 90% accurate for each fact the probability that he accurately reported all 5 facts accurately is less than 60% – barely enough for a favorable decision in a civil case and no where near the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

Not only that, but the reported facts may not be independent. For example several of the reported facts depend on eyesight. If the witness’ eyesight is flawed then the reports of facts are not all independent. All the reports that depend on eyesight may be less reliable, so the probability that all the facts are reported accurately will be much less.

Is it possible the witness was excited, flustered or dazed. Mental state could affect the reliability of all the stated facts.

Many at this blog seemed so willing to assume Cleveland’s guilt. Yet it is clear that we should be skeptical of the facts reported by the witness. We know that it is not very likely that all the reports of fact are accurate. And anyone of these reported facts could be enough to demonstrate that Cleveland was not the perpetrator.

Is Cleveland guilty? Maybe. But it ought to take more that what we have in this article to convict him.

2. Liberty Second says:

I would put him on the stand. He will say: “it wasn’t me.” “I should not have said: It’s Not me.” Having said that: I was at home with my mom. She is our next witness.”

3. Ralph Adamo says:

Okay, since JT finds silly stories about dumb criminals so endlessly fascinating, here’s a song that Cleveland Willis can sing in his defense:

4. Independent Bob says:

How about 2 weeks in solitary confinement listening to Barbara Streisand recordings 24 hrs. a day.

5. George says:

Is this Ebonics?

“No, It’s Not Me.”
_____________

“When asking “Who is there?” it would be correct to answer in the nominative case, “I am here.” Likewise, asking “Who is it?” should elicit “It is I” or “I am it.”
___________________________________________________________________________________

I’m just sayin’…

6. Karen S says:

What the hell possesses someone to point a loaded weapon at his former co-worker to rob a restaurant for \$600? A hiccup and that guy would have been gone, his family destroyed forever…for \$600.

How is Cleveland Willis lacking? Let me count the ways:

1. Disrespects the law; he is a thief.
2. Lacking in morality; pointed a loaded weapon with a chambered round at the head of his former co-worker
3. Lacking in common sense; phrased his denial to implicate himself and drove away in his own vehicle.

He got though childhood and the school system to arrive as an adult in this state of moral turpitude and lack of reasoning skills. It is a sad waste of life when healthy kids do not successfully learn, or are taught, how to be a decent contributing member of society. He had so much potential at birth, and now most doors of opportunity are closed.

He put himself in a cage where he will be told what to do for a while. Boy, he sure showed us who’s boss! Sad.

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

Cue Edward Banfield. Problems born of limited time-horizons. The wisdom of society is communicated by culture, which is helpful to those too busy or addled to think things through. This is what happens when purveyors of mass entertainment and purveyors of classroom learning take a sledgehammer to popular culture.

7. Debbie Barnhart says:

If I were defending him, I’d give him a suit, a haircut, horn-rimmed glasses and a briefcase. Then I’d file a hearsay objection to the “No, it’s not me.” statement. Keep him off the stand, otherwise he’ll reveal his intellectual challenge and maybe get tripped up by a Charles Laughton-type cross exam (from “Witness for the Prosecution): “Tell us, defendant, which was it? Were you lying then or are you lying now?” It would be hilarious if he said, “I wasn’t lying then!”

8. Chris P Bacon says:

The point is not to laugh and gloat over someone’s mental dysfunction but to find ways to address mental dysfunction that are both humane and respectful. While violent folks must be constrained, no matter their level of mental function, they don’t need to be treated badly. The first step is easy availability of birth control and termination of unwanted pregnancies. How sadistic is it to “protect the unborn” so that you can lock them up and abuse them later on?

• Debbie Barnhart says:

Hmmm. Which is harsher: laughing at someone’s stupidity, or claiming they are a walking example of the need for birth control?

• Foxtrot Foxtrot Sierra says:

So you kill the unborn on the chance they will grow up to be a criminal????

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

The point is not to laugh and gloat over someone’s mental dysfunction but to find ways to address mental dysfunction that are both humane and respectful.

Fine. When do we start on you?

• Joseph Jones says:

Exactly and specifically, what about you differentiates your humanity from that of a zygote, a one celled human being?

You prescribe ripping unborn human being’s heads off as a means of showing mercy to them.

9. Nick Spinelli says:

Marvin Barnes was a great basketball player from Providence, RI. He was a high school star in the 60’s and known by all. He had AODA issues from a young age. He attempted to rob a city bus wearing his varsity letter jacket emblazoned w/ MARVIN B. Marvin was incredibly talented, starred @ Providence College and then kicked around in the ABA and NBA, an addicted, but likeable man. I had a friend who was a hockey player @ Providence and lived in the same dorm as Marvin. He’s got many stories.

• Tom Nash says:

Nick,…
Barnes bought a ticket for a flight and noticed that, due to a difference in time zones, the arrival time was earlier than his departure time.
He said “I ain’t getting on no time machine” and he rented a car instead.

• Nick Spinelli says:

Tom, LOL! There are many Marvin “Bad News” Barnes stories.

10. John Flynn says:

As my long time judge friend always says… If dumb were a defense….they would all get off…

11. Terminator says:

true: bank robber confronted with the fact that his face was seen on a security camera. no way, he said, I shot out the cameras…

12. Liberty Second says:

Anyone could have said that. Jeso.

13. Bill Thaxton says:

Bill Thaxton was an ex-Texas Ranger one of the bravest by far. It’s said that old Bill was the fastest man ever. Bad men all feared him way back in his day but he was now growing old. Bill was going after an outlaw named Sundown. Sundown was going to kill Bill & add to his fame.

“Tell him that I’m on my way, I’ve never ran and I’ll meet this young man
at any time of the day.” Bill got there just about sunset. The sun still hung like fire in the sky. In just a few moments out there in the street, old Bill or the outlaw Sundown would die. Outlaw Sundown never fights until the sun is going down & his back is facing the west. Bill let him have it & emptied his 6 gun. When there was no reply Bill knew that the outlaw Sundown was dead.

• I’ll see your Mary Robbins and raise you some real Outlaws with their own Sundown tune:

14. bigfatmike says:

“Going to be a short trial.”

I am not so sure. .

Who could possibly know better than the actual robber whether the robber was Cleveland or someone else?

The actual robber clearly stated it was not Cleveland. And who could doubt the veracity of the robbers statement since it was made in what we can assume is a moment of high stress.

The actual robber was wearing a mask. Who could possibly refute the robbers statement.

It seems to me that to convict Cleveland, you will have to find the real robber and get him to explain or renounce his statement that Cleveland was not the robber.

But who could accept the real robbers testimony if he renounced his original statement and claimed that it was really Cleveland after all? Clearly the robber would have much to gain in claiming that it was really Cleveland who committed the crime – which ought to raise serious doubt that Cleveland was the culprit.

Either we know Cleveland was not the robber because of the statement during the robbery, or we have to have reasonable doubt that Cleveland was the robber because of the real robbers self serving testimony.

Looks like Cleveland has a great case.

• Paul C Schulte says:

bfm – Cleveland has no come back from, No, it’s not me. 😉

• Doofus P. Firefly says:

If you go into your bank and they ask you to you identify yourself, can you just look in the mirror and tell them: “Yup, that’s me!”?

• Joseph Jones says:

Cleveland did not report his car stolen, which was the getaway car. You also missed that Cleveland’s ex-coworker recognized Cleveland.

Failed reading comprehension, much?

• bigfatmike says:

“. You also missed that Cleveland’s ex-coworker recognized Cleveland.”

Well, lets unpack this a little as see how it works.

The article tells us: ” After pointing a cocked gun at the head of one of the workers, one of them asked “Cleveland, is that you?””

Clearly, the victim/witness, at most, saw a similarity which is why he posed the question “Cleveland, is that you”.

If he had recognized Cleveland he would has stated something like “it is Cleveland” or “Cleveland is the gunman”. ”

You claim that Celveland’s car was the getaway car. But there is no evidence in the article that Cleveland’s car was the actual get away car. We simply don’t know.

Cleveland’s car may not be the getaway car. Even if Cleveland’s car were used in the getaway, Cleveland may not know that his car is missing. He may have loaned it and assumed it was in good hands. I am sure a few street level hustlers could think of dozens of reasons why the car, if it were actually used in the crime, had not been reported stolen.

Those of us who actually bother to read the article know we need more information regarding the car before we can make any definitive statements regarding the car.

Why don’t you try reading the article again. I am sure if you read the article two or three or a few times, it will eventually sink in that there is no actual witness that Cleveland committed the crime and no evidence presented that Cleveland’s car was used in the getaway. .

In any case, thanks for bringing up some interesting points.

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

Cleveland’s car may not be the getaway car. Even if Cleveland’s car were used in the getaway, Cleveland may not know that his car is missing. H

You mean someone who resembles Cleveland also got hold of a car which resembles Cleveland and answers ‘not It’s not me’ when addressed as Cleveland, but everything is just so uncertain and stuff…

I take it you’re a public defender who passed the bar on his 4th attempt and gets crummy performance reviews.

• bigfatmike says:

“I take it you’re a public defender who passed the bar on his 4th attempt and gets crummy performance reviews.”

Thank you so very much. But you must have me confused with an real attorney. Everything I know about the law comes from Perry Mason, and Law and Order.

However, I can read. The article makes it clear, the witness/victim could not positively identify the gunman as Cleveland, else he would have stated something like: “the gunman is Cleveland”. Instead the witness/victim posed the question “Cleveland, is that you?” demonstrating the witness/victim was not sure whether Cleveland was present or not.

And the article is equally opaque regarding the getaway car. The statement in the article is that the getaway car looked like a car that Cleveland, at some point, drove to work.

There is no statement that Cleveland’s car was actually used in the getaway. There is no statement that the actual getaway car has been recovered which would allow us to determine whether it belonged to Cleveland. There is no statement regarding Cleveland’s actions such as whether he reported or did not report his car missing. There is not statement in the article whether Cleveland may have loaned his car. From the article, we just do not know.

Further we know that eye witness testimony is among the most questionable evidence of all. The probability of a witness accurately reporting multiple facts is very low.

I find it shocking that so many on this blog can read a clearly written article and then jump to such wild conclusions that are not contained, or even implied, in the article.

For example, one person stated that Cleveland did not report his car stolen. There is absolutely nothing in the article that tells us whether Cleveland reported or did not report his car stolen. We just do not know what Cleveland did or did not do regarding the car. Yet some on this blog seem ready to convict Cleveland on the basis of their wild, made-up fantasy that they project onto poor Cleveland. Thank goodness these readers who cannot distinguish the facts reported in the article from their biased delusions are not serving on a jury.

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

Sorry you’re obtuse. Not my problem or anyone else’s here.

• bigfatmike says:

“Sorry you’re obtuse. Not my problem or anyone else’s here.”

I notice you are big on ad hominem attack. But so far you have not said one word to refute my arguments.

If you had any arguments to make regarding my presentation, doesn’t it make sense you would present those first?

But you don’t. You have been reduced to sputtering insults against me instead of discussing the article, the reported facts, or what we can deduce about poor Cleveland.

Do you feel empty? Do you feel revealed as a person who has nothing to say?

I am going to bet that you can say something interesting if you give it an honest try. Why not read the article again and then surprise us with an interesting comment?

Why don’t you take some of that hostility and turn it into something useful.

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

If you had any arguments to make regarding my presentation, doesn’t it make sense you would present those first?

Your presentation is a thoroughly onanistic exercise.

In our last exchange, you pretended to be innumerate. In this one, you manifest very little of a normal person’s rough-and-ready sense of the probable.

• bigfatmike says:

“In this one, you manifest very little of a normal person’s rough-and-ready sense of the probable.”

Thank goodness for that. Normal people demonstrate they have no sense of the likelihood of occurrence. People play the lottery on a regular basis and loose. People play the stock market and loose. People take out loans and mortgages when there is no likelihood they will ever pay them off. People apply for jobs they have not chance of getting. I could go on. The list is just about uncountable. Look at a normal person and it is very likely you will see someone who has not a clue regarding probability of their chance for success in just about any activity.

It is a simple fact of probability that the more facts a witness provides the more probable that some or many of the facts are wrong. Simple probability.

I have to wonder, do you have anything to say about the facts presented in the article? Can you make any factual remarks regarding Cleveland, or the masked gunman? Did you even read the article? Do you have anything to say about the witness, Cleveland, the masked gunman, the car that may or may not resemble one that Cleveland drove to work? Anything? Anything at all?

BTW, thanks for yet again making me the center of attention. You have made me a topic of endless fascination and discussion. But really, I am not that interesting.

Just a friendly suggestion. You might want to try reading the article and commenting on the facts in the article. It can be fun that way! Try it some time. You might like it.

• TurleysSpamFilterStinks says:

The facts do not merit much commentary. The illusion you’ve peddled to yourself and tried to peddle to unimpressed others is that they do.

• bigfatmike says:

“The facts do not merit much commentary.The illusion you’ve peddled to yourself and tried to peddle to unimpressed others is that they do.”

Yet you have made six comments, nearly 15% of the thread, under this pseudonym and who knows how many comments under other names.

Something tells me you words do not match your attitude. You seem to be grasping for a contrary point just to keep the thread going – which is fine.

But really, try reading the article and commenting on the facts. You might find a whole other world out there.

• anonymous says:

“No, it’s not me.” It’s DSS. No, it’s SOT. No — it’s TSFS!

• anonymous says:

Only SOT or DSS (or SOT’s soulmate) would use the word “onanistic” in comment.

• bigfatmike says:

I too noticed the vocabulary.

But most of all I noticed the hostility, as though attacking a reader somehow enhances the status of the one slinging mud. What nonsense.

But the hostility is a tell, and that makes it interesting.

• anonymous says:

@bigfatmike

Yes — absolutely — there’s the “hostility”, as well.

• Allan says:

That is onanism. DSS or SOT or TurleysSpamFilterStinks will next call himself Onan after the biblical Onan from where the word seems to come from. Alternatively, he might call himself coitus interruptus since he never quite finishes what he starts.

• Allan says:

“That is onanism. DSS or SOT or TurleysSpamFilterStinks will next call himself Onan after the biblical Onan from where the word seems to come from. Alternatively, he might call himself coitus interruptus since he never quite finishes what he starts.”

I should have better explained the link between onanism and coitus interruptus. Here is the dictionary meaning.

o·nan·ism
ˈōnəˌnizəm/Submit
nounformal
1.
masturbation.
2.
coitus interruptus.

• bigfatmike says:

It appears that some think this blog is fertile ground to scatter their seedy comments.

• Allan says:

“It appears that some think this blog is fertile ground to scatter their seedy comments.”

Actually, it was a play on words. You are a bit prudish and your mind determines what type of fertile ground you live in.

• bigfatmike says:

Apparently you missed several puns, fertile, scatter, seedy.

I am still trying to find a way to work pregnant in to the thread.

15. Darren Smith says:

Sticky Finger Licking GoodTM.

16. po says:

Wow…for once I agree with Ralph… with so much going on of crucial importance… numbing us down with dumb stories…

• FishWings says:

Just JT doing his JOB, deflect, distract any and everything.

17. Ralph Adamo says:

Why does the Turley Blog focus on trivial, stupid stories like this one, but ignores the big Supreme Court cases in which the financing of worldwide terrorism is at issue?

(It involves . . .)

What’s that?

(It involves actual thinking and doing something useful and important affecting human lives, that’s why.)

Oh, I get it. Sorry. Never mind.

• Wonderer says:

Well Ralph, you’ve clearly identified a market niche that needs filling, perhaps you should write your own blog.

• Paul C Schulte says:

Ralph Adamo – it is JT’s sandbox, we just get to play in it. 😉

• RDKAY says:

Yeah, but it seems he has too much time on his hands.

18. Paul C Schulte says:

Going to be a short trial.