An INNOCENT Man was Tortured and Killed!
Now, what are you going to do about it?
#JusticeForAlfredBourgeois
NPR Podcast Highlighting Innocence
Alfred Bourgeois’s Last Words:
"I confess and repent to God all I have ever said and done against your will. I ask for forgiveness for all those who planted and plotted evidence in my home and truck. For they know not what they did. In no form of fashion did I murder, rape, or sexually molest my daughter or anyone else in my whole life. I did not commit this crime. I love my kids with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. God, I love you with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. I pray you welcome me into your kingdom. As I close my eyes may I enter into your hands and kingdom.”
- Alfred Bourgeois
On December 11, 2020, an African American male, Alfred Bourgeois, was one among the 13 inmates executed by the United States Federal Government during the Trump Administration's Rush to Kill. Although proclaiming his innocence throughout his entire 18 year prison sentence, Mr. Bourgeois was accused of 5 Horrible Crimes- all of which should have been proven untrue with forensics.
FIVE Accusations remain at the forefront of the case built against Alfred Bourgeois. We are here to debunk & prove these accusations to be absolutely FABRICATED.
With the use of medical reports, autopsy findings, and actual witness testimonies from Mr. Bourgeois’s 2004 trial- the below documents will CONFIRM that EVERY SINGLE CRIME Mr. Bourgeois was accused of NEVER took place- thus confirming an innocent father was sent to prison, tortured, and kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day... 7 days a week... for his entire prison sentence.
Mr. Bourgeois was the “ONLY INMATE” not granted outside contact or allowed to speak to his family for 18.5 years, then EXECUTED because of lies & judicial corruption. We will prove to you in less than 1 hour what our legal system failed to do at trial & thereafter- leading to the brutal MURDER of an INNOCENT MAN.
"Justice can never be served if those who are witnesses to the injustices remain silent."
Accusation 1: The rape & molestation of his 2-year-old daughter
The Proof/Refutation:
Only last year, the same physician used to prosecute Mr. Bourgeois stated that she may have made an error- 18.5 years later! At Mr. Bourgeois’s 2004 trial, the prosecution used an expert pathologist & rape specialist, Dr. Rouse, who confirmed along with her SANE nurse (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) that Ja'karenn displayed absolutely “NO” signs of rape. Attached is a copy of Dr. Rouse’s statement, admitting she “Exhibited a Hesitancy About Her Conclusions as to the Cause of Death and Expressed a Willingness to Consider the Opinion of Another Neuropathologist”.
Accusation 2: Blunt-Force Trauma caused by slamming his 2 year-old daughter’s head into his 18-wheeler window, thus killing her on impact while unloading at a Corpus Christi Texas naval base.
The Proof/Refutation:
The “Only” individuals who were alone in the truck with Ja’karenn at the time she went unconscious was Alfred’s wife, Robin & his 1-year-old infant daughter. Mr. Bourgeois was unloading his truck when he & other workers felt shaking coming from inside the truck cabin. Following the shaking, Mr. Bourgeois walked in to see his wife performing CPR as Jakarenn’s body lay lifeless on the floor.
Below is a scanned copy of the “ACTUAL FINDINGS” of Ja’karenn’s 2002 autopsy. We ask that you try to get past the medical jargon & focus on the highlighted sections, which blatantly confirm 2 things.
1. There was NO fractured skull, meaning the story of Alfred Bourgeois banging his daughter’s head into his truck window NEVER took place.
2. The autopsy confirms the hematomas were at a minimum- 1 WEEK OLD. If the hematomas were in fact “1 week old”- this FURTHER confirms the story of Alfred Bourgeois banging his daughter’s head into his truck window was FABRICATED.
When investigators searched the truck for signs of battery or blood, they could find none.
Accusation 3: The torture & abuse of his 2 year-old daughter leading up to the date of her death, June 27, 2002
The Proof/Refutation:
1. One of the lead medical experts & the “Prosecution's own physician used to convict Mr. Bourgeois”, later admitted she biasedly gave her report & testimony based principally on the allegations made by Mr. Bourgeois’s spouse. In Recent Communications with this physician, Dr. Rouse, she Exhibited a Hesitancy About Her Conclusions as to the Cause of Death and Expressed a Willingness to Consider the Opinion of Another Neuropathologist. Countless medical reports from experts & specialists with 30+ years of knowledge ALL agreed there was NO ABUSE. Duplicitously, EVERY expert neurologist who wanted to testify stating the brain swelling was inconsistent with abuse were NEVER allowed to testify. The Defense refused to return their calls for weeks to months, until the day of Alfred Bourgeois’s trial- making these expert testimonies inadmissible to be used in court. Therefore, the jury heard none of it.
2. A cousin of Alfred's former wife, Robin, interacted with Ja’karenn the “DAY BEFORE HER DEATH”- making no reports to authorities of alleged signs of abuse. Robin's testimony initially accused Mr. Bourgeois of forcing his 2 year-old-daughter to remain seated on her potty during a hot Summer day. She later perjured her allegation by testifying that upon returning to the Bourgeois residence, she immediately left with her cousin Jason to visit a Utility Assistance Provider & was gone for hours. This statement confirms that Robin was not present to know exactly where Ja’karenn was during this short period of time. Before heading to Corpus Christi, Texas later that night, the family stayed at their home for approximately 5 hours, giving Jason plenty of time to interact with Ja’karenn & observe visible signs of abuse. However, abuse was never reported.
3. Ja’karenn interacted with countless family members throughout this period of time & showed absolutely no signs or indications of abuse- including Robin’s Uncle who also resided at the Bourgeois residence & per her testimony, “watched the children when the Bourgeois’s were away”. Although extremely relevant to Alfred Bourgeois’s case, Robin’s Uncle was never asked to appear in court, nor was he questioned by the Defense or Prosecution.
Accusation 4: Forcing his 2 year-old-daughter to sit on her potty for 23 hours per day
The Proof/Refutation:
Ja'karenn sat on her potty because it also converted to a toddler chair. Alfred Bourgeois NEVER "Forced" her to sit on it. Ja’karenn loved watching TV and the toddler chair happened to be the perfect height. After watching cartoons for hours, Mr. Bourgeois would chuckle, stating “That girl loves her dang cartoons." He’d then tell Ja'karenn to go play with her sister instead of being glued to the TV. Realizing that it can be difficult for people to visualize something they've never seen and put it into context, pictured below, is an example of Ja'Karenn's 2002 potty chair.
If a child was forced to remain seated for an extended amount of time each day, skin breakdown would be present on the buttocks. Ja’karenn’s autopsy showed “No signs of skin breakdown”.
During Mr. Bourgeois’s trial, his 6-year-old daughter Alfredesha, was forced to testify against him. She initially proclaimed her father’s innocence before changing her story after living with her mother for over 1 year following Mr. Bourgeois's arrest and ONLY speaking to the prosecution. Unintentionally, the 6-year-old announced 2 important facts.
1) Her 2-year-old sister, Ja’karenn, followed her EVERYWHERE. If Ja’karenn followed her sister everywhere, how could she be glued to a potty?
2) When being questioned during a moment of confusion, the 6-year-old witness stated "That was Mommy’s part to say", validating the exponential inculcation of the prosecution's influence.
Hypernatremia
Ja’karenn’s autopsy showed no signs of molestation or abuse, but what it did show was brain contusions caused by swallowing too much salt-water. A contusion {con·tu·sion} is a region of injured tissue or skin in which blood capillaries have been ruptured; a bruise. The doctors later identified this as Hypernatremia, explaining the contusions began to form approximately 7-10 days “BEFORE” Ja’karenn’s death.
When speaking to authorities, Mr. Bourgeois tried to explain that he & his family visited a beach in California, exactly 7-10 days ago, as Ja’karenn’s autopsy showed. Several photos showing Ja’karenn at the beach & throughout her travels were present, later confiscated by authorities, and never seen again. These photos were not used during Mr. Bourgeois’s trial.
More disturbing, there are 4 points of consideration according to the prosecution’s lead witness Robin, confirmed during trial testimony.
1. Robin made a statement during testimony that Ja’karenn was “too close” to the sand where people were running & that she was afraid Ja’karenn would get stepped on. This statement should have confirmed 2 things.
a.) Robin was watching Ja’karenn and her 1-year old infant on the beach during the California trip, while Alfred was with his 6 year old daughter, Alfredesha in the water.
b.) People saw Ja’karenn on the California beach, in a bathing suit, unharmed. Should someone have noticed a child with physical signs of abuse (Such as bite marks, whip marks, scars, or swelling to the head), they would have notified the authorities at that time.
2. When leaving the beach, Robin mentioned that Ja’karenn had difficulty walking & seemed disoriented. She also mentioned that Alfred Bourgeois and his 6-year-old daughter were walking far ahead of her, as she had to lag back with Ja’karenn. This again puts Ja’karenn in her stepmother’s care.
3. Throughout her testimony, Robin mentions Ja’karenn appeared dehydrated afterwards. She also mentions that both she & Alfred gave Ja’karenn fluids on multiple occasions, as any loving parent would- assuming Ja’karenn had minor dehydration. Little did they know that fluids would not be enough to fight the onset of Hypernatremia.
4. At 2 years old, Ja’karenn was not a talkative child, only speaking a few words during the 6 weeks of being in her father’s care. Thus, it would be difficult for her to voice any strange feelings or moments of discomfort.
Hypernatremia is a common electrolyte problem that is defined as a rise in serum sodium concentration. It involves dehydration, which can have many causes, including not drinking enough fluids, diarrhea, kidney dysfunction, and diuretics. Mainly, people are thirsty, and if hypernatremia worsens, they may become confused or have muscle twitches and seizures. Assuming Ja’karenn had minor dehydration, the Bourgeois’s gave her fluids thinking it would help. Tragically, those fluids did her more harm than good. When a person is presented with Hypernatremia, they should not be given fluids abruptly. Usually, fluids are given intravenously to “slowly” reduce the sodium level in the blood.
In a medical facility, blood tests are done to measure blood sodium levels. The symptoms of hypernatremia include:
-
Muscle weakness.
-
Restlessness.
-
Extreme thirst.
-
Confusion.
-
Lethargy.
-
Irritability.
-
Seizures.
-
Unconsciousness… All difficult to identify in a 2 year old.
If improperly treated, the most serious symptoms of hypernatremia result from brain dysfunction. Severe hypernatremia can lead to confusion, muscle twitching, seizures, coma, and death.
Thinking Ja’karenn would be better after resting, the Bourgeois family continued on their trek, delivering a trailer to the Corpus Christi naval base. Ja’karenn remained on the truck with her stepmother & her infant sister, as Mr. Bourgeois left the truck with his 6 year-old-daughter to unload. After feeling shaking coming from inside the bed of his truck, Mr. Bourgeois re-entered to see his 2 year-old daughter laying lifeless, as his wife screamed in panic.
A simple internet search would have alerted the Bourgeois family of the severity of Ja’karenn’s condition. However, in 2002, an internet search was not an option. During Ja’karenn’s autopsy, Dr. Rouse identified multiple contusions on her brain. Not knowing the nature of Hypernatremia at the time, Dr. Rouse inaccurately diagnosed the contusions to be that of blunt-force trauma. She later admitted she may have made an error & jumped to conclusions based on a lead witness’s testimony, instead of the actual evidence available, which showed no signs of blunt-force trauma.
