Joining us again is Eugene Bickley, who has been incarcerated with the Missouri Department of Corrections for nearly 29 years following a St. Louis City conviction. In Part One, we explored procedural barriers and the concept of silence as an institutional strategy. Today, our focus remains strictly on matters within the public record court filings, post-conviction attempts, and documented events surrounding law enforcement accountability.

This conversation does not attempt to re-litigate Eugene’s case. Instead, we examine what happens when certain facts never receive full judicial examination and what that means for the integrity of the justice system.

Eugene shares that a detective connected to his case was later prosecuted under federal color-of-law violations and served time in federal prison. With that development, Eugene attempted to pursue legal mechanisms to have those findings reviewed in connection with his own conviction. However, he explains that each filing was dismissed procedurally often without substantive review or written opinion.

For listeners, that distinction matters. Procedural dismissal means courts may decline to examine the merits of new or emerging information. Eugene describes what he calls “rubber-stamp denials,” leaving him without meaningful judicial examination of claims tied to documented misconduct.

During our discussion, Eugene reflects on a 16-hour interrogation he says involved coercion and physical pressure. He explains that despite later developments regarding the detective’s conduct in other cases, his own claims have never been fully evaluated through an evidentiary hearing. Over time, multiple pro se filings and post-conviction motions were submitted, but the outcomes remained unchanged denied without opinion or dismissed on procedural grounds.

We also examine the broader question: when evidence exists in the public record but is never substantively reviewed, is that oversight or systemic protection? Eugene believes the issue extends beyond one case and reflects structural barriers faced by many incarcerated individuals seeking post-conviction relief.

He emphasizes the importance of documentation—certified mail, tracked submissions, and maintaining records—so incarcerated individuals can establish a verifiable timeline of their legal efforts. For those navigating post-conviction review, documentation becomes a form of protection.

As this episode concludes, Eugene prepares to submit a comprehensive review packet to the Conviction Integrity Unit for independent evaluation. Whether that submission results in review remains to be seen, but it represents another step in a process that has spanned decades.

If this conversation challenges you in any way, stay encouraged. Study the public record. Share responsibly. Continue asking questions about accountability and transparency within the system.