Goat Horns: Charles Raby’s False Confession
On October 16, 1992, the day after the murder of Edna Franklin, Charles Raby heard the police were looking for him. His first thought was: why did they want him? He suspected he had failed a mandatory drug test required by his parole terms. Nevertheless, he began to evade police for another three days. He had spent much of the previous three years locked up and did not want to return to prison.
When police finally caught up with him he was with his girlfriend, Merry Alice Gomez, and her infant son at the home of his mother’s boyfriend. Charles surrendered peacefully. During his arrest he was concerned when he saw Merry and her child escorted to a police vehicle. Sgt. Shirley told Charles that, although it was possible she could be charged with aiding and abetting, they were simply taking her back to her residence. When he heard that she might be charged with helping him, Charles told the officer that he wanted a lawyer. Shirley replied that they would talk about that later.
Initially Charles was picked up on a charge of trespassing. But upon arrival at the station it soon became clear that he was being questioned regarding a murder. He was confused because the victim was a woman named “Edna” and the only “Edna” Charles knew was a young child who was his cousin. Eventually he realized “Edna” was a person he knew only as Mrs. Franklin, the grandmother of two of his friends.
The person conducting the interrogation was detective Waymon Allen. Allen’s partner, Wayne Wendel, admired Allen’s interview skills so much that he stated he sometimes felt sorry for the suspects. As he put it, “He could talk the horns off a billy goat”. Allen was later criticized for his interviewing tactics. In one case he coerced a murder confession from a 15 year old girl, Jennifer Jeffley, in the absence of her parents or a lawyer. On appeal her confession was ruled inadmissible, yet she remains in prison serving a life sentence.
We will never know what was or wasn’t said during the course of the interview because there was no audio or video recording of the process even though the equipment to do so was available. When Charles was escorted for a bathroom break he heard a baby crying from a room. He was told his girlfriend and her baby were at the station. Charles asked why they were there and insisted on seeing them. He was told he could do so when the interview was completed.
Detective Allen had discovered Charles’s Achilles Heel. The horrific experiences with Texas Child Protective Services (TCPS) Charles endured during his youth left deep scars. Rather than see his girlfriend be charged with aiding and abetting and seeing her child placed with TCPS, he agreed to confess.
The day of the murder, Charles spent much of his time drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, and taking valium, and that was reflected in manuscript. His relationship with substance abuse began at the age of eleven. He had a history of memory lapses and blacking out when under the influence. The written confession was typed up by detective Allen and signed by Charles. It is a rambling description of what he did that day, much of it having nothing to do with the crime. It also contains statements that blatantly contradict physical and witness evidence the state presented at trial. For example, Charles claimed he entered through the unlocked front door, killed Franklin, and immediately left out the back door. However, not only did Franklin’s daughter state her mother told her in a phone conversation that she had locked the door that evening but her grandson testified that Franklin habitually locked the doors in the house. At trial the prosecution claimed Charles entered the house through a window. The prosecution also claimed Charles washed his bloody hands in a puddle after he left the house through the back door, yet no traces of blood were found on the back door or any other exit point from the house. Finally the state made the claim that the killer rifled through Franklin’s purse, which contradicts Charles’s confession.
There is little to no description of the actual murder and there is no mention of the commission of rape, burglary or any other aggravating circumstances that would elevate the conviction to a capital offense. The closest Charles comes to an actual admission is when he says he “knew” the next day that he killed Mrs. Franklin. Allen says the “confession” unfolded in the form of a question/answer format, yet the written document includes none of Allen’s part of the interview and only a summary of what Charles allegedly said. It reads like a narrative. Charles never got the lawyer he asked for.
One of the more telling indicators that the confession document was fabricated is that the narration repeatedly refers to the victim as “Edna”. If you ever have the chance to hear Charles speak about the case you will note that he never, ever refers to Edna Franklin as “Edna”. He only ever calls her Ms. Franklin. Consistently. Without fail.
Blacking out, a lack of a recording, a description that does not match the facts of the case, no mention of a motive, the absence of legal counsel and insurmountable pressure in perceiving a threat to a loved one, match many of the hallmarks of a false confession. At a later hearing to determine the admissibility of the confession Charles doubles down on his statement but in a way that reflects his motive to confess and his failure to recall the actual crime. When he signed the confession his fate was sealed. Another “goat” lost its horns.