Attempted robbery of Ann Arbor bagel shop solved 3 years later due to DNA evidence, police say
A gunman who Ann Arbor police say tried to rob a bagel store on the city’s west side in 2007 — but was thwarted by a daring victim — is finally expected in court this month.
Police say DNA was the key to cracking the case.
Jakives Gulley, 20, is charged with armed robbery, assault and weapons offenses for the December 2007 attempted heist at Barry Bagels, 2515 Jackson Ave., court records show.
Jakives Gulley
Ann Arbor police Detective Bill Stanford said he obtained an arrest warrant after a second round of DNA tests pointed to Gulley as the perpetrator. Gulley is scheduled for arraignment Feb. 15.
Gulley is currently serving 10 to 20 years in prison on armed robbery and home invasion convictions for crimes in August 2008, prison records show. He was also sentenced to one to four years in prison for a larceny that occurred three months later. The sentences are concurrent.
Stanford said police identified Gulley as the prime suspect after initial DNA tests from evidence left at the scene came back from the Michigan State Police crime lab last year. More precise testing was conducted by an out-of-state laboratory in the fall.
Police said Gulley entered the business in December 2007 through the back door that was propped open after closing hours for a delivery and put a gun to the head of the caterer. He forced him inside and cocked the handgun while demanding money from employees in the office, police said. But when the masked robber cocked the gun, a bullet fell out of the chamber to the floor.
The caterer kicked the gunman in the chest as he tried to pick the bullet up, forcing him back. Gulley allegedly struck the 52-year-old Dundee man with the pistol and ran off, leaving the cash and a ski mask behind, police said. A police tracking dog led officers across Jackson Avenue, but didn't find the robber.
The caterer suffered a black eye but declined medical attention at the scene.
“Other than a vague description we had no leads, no nothing,” Stanford said. “The DNA brought this case back.”
A judicial order for transportation to Washtenaw County was signed last week. Gulley is not currently represented by an attorney, and one will likely be appointed at his arraignment.
Officials with the long-time Ann Arbor business said news of the case moving forward was a positive step after such a long delay.
“It’s taken a while, but I’m glad to see the process moving,” said Laura Wyraz, who operates the Ohio-based chain’s Ann Arbor store. “This prompted us to take a lot of extra security measures, and we really take what happened very seriously.”
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
ezbngreen
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:16 a.m.
Good to hear another habitual offender off the streets and hopefully for a very long time.
Tom Teague
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
@Craig - First of all, I agree that it's misleading to use the term "solved," in the headline when what the police did was identify a suspect. Without defending the headline or the decision to close the other discussion, though, there's a long-standing and over-nuanced journalistic convention at work here: The police solve crimes; courts adjudicate guilt or innocence. Leaving out the number of times that people are charged with a crime and then released for one of several reasons, police solve a crime by naming and arresting or charging suspects. Exceptions abound - too many to list -- but that's why newspapers say "solved," and expect us to interpret it as "police identified / charged / arrested a suspect who they believe committed the crime." However, my journalism 101 class taught me never to say a suspect was guilty until that had been established in a court of law by a judge, jury or an entered plea. That's the reason news outlets use "police said," and "allegedly" in reporting about a crime. Although, once it's at trial, reporters will switch to the meatier "testified" or -- a favorite of mine -- "stated in sworn testimony." Even a confession to the police doesn't allow the newspapers to proclaim someone guilty - that's done in court and I'm sure there are plenty of instances of people recanting their confessions and pleading "not guilty." I saw that on "Law and Order SVU" recently, so it must be true.
DBH
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
All in all, I agree with the substance of the last two replies to the comment, though I remain convinced that presumption of innocence should be maintained by the news media and commenters so as to minimize the tainting of the potential jury pool. Personally, I think the principal objection I have in such cases is the inappropriate characterization by the police or prosecutor's office of any evidence as having "proved" anything at all. That is not their determination to make. Nonetheless, if the reporter reports police statements as such, I think the negativity should be directed at the police or prosecutor's office, not the reporter. Let's not kill (or otherwise harm) the messenger. I agree with the 3 alternative headlines proposed by the two of you. They would have been accurate and virtually free of the possibility of misinterpretation. I hope AnnArbor.com (and Mr. Aisner in particular) learn from this.
Tom Teague
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
I agree with both of you. And I have a confession which I promise not to repudiate at trial. DBH - you're correct that annarbor.com is reporting what the police said and didn't concoct a solution where none existed. The headline writers passed the hypocrisy test. Here's my confession: I didn't read the headline well and completely overlooked the "police say" at the end when I wrote my comment. When I saw it, I wanted to reach into the computer and grab my comment back. But Craig, that's why I agree with you that it's not a good headline. "Solved" is a weighty word. It lends itself to an interpretation that this case is closed and overpowers other words in the headline. Based on the row last night over the comments on the other story, it's ill-timed even if it's technically correct. As my beloved and sainted J-101 teacher would say: "Write around the problem!" and I think annarbor.com should take a minute to do that. It's been a long time since I've counted headline spaces, but I think "DNA helps Ann Arbor police identify suspect in three-year-old bagel shop robbery," might fit. Either way, I should have said this: Kudos to the police for following up and finding a suspect.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
Let me suggest that the presumption of innocence at its core only applies to the 14-15 people chosen to hear the case as a jury. We can assume the police and prosecutor's have no such assumption of innocence. They think he is guilty or they wouldn't arrest him, charge him and prosecute him. Ann Arbor.com is more than willing to print these presumptions of guilt when they come from the police and prosecutor in the name of news. But they will delete these opinions when a citizen concurs with the police. It seems like whether the 1st amendment trumps the 5th and 6th amendment depends on who you are. My whole beef with the headline and the "case cracked" line is that neither line was in quotes as a direct statement from police. So Ann Arbor.com wrote them based on police assumptions of guilt. Since they are not direct quotes, they were created by Ann Arbor.com they could have worded them to the effect that "DNA evidence has led to an arrest" , "a suspect is being charged" .
DBH
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Teague, thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I agree with you that the use of the word "solved" is misleading. However, if that is what the police stated, the mislead is on the part of the police, not the reporter (not that you said otherwise). My point has been that AnnArbor.com is not behaving in a "do as I say, not as I do" manner, as has been claimed here and elsewhere (though they have been negligent of this in the past). The reporter (presumably) is reporting what the police stated, not what his opinion might be, or misstating what the facts are in such a way as to deprive the accused of the presumption of innocence. If this is what the police said, then that is what they said. I would prefer that such reporting be expanded by the reporter to include answers from the police to questions by the reporter about how they can claim that the case has been "solved" when, in fact, it seems as if they only have some new apparent evidence in the case, the validity and relevance of which is up to a judge and/or jury to decide.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
Thanks for the response Tom, it is indeed food for thought.
RJA
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
Great Job by all in this case! The KEY opened the door!
DBH
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.
Mr. Lounsbury, I am as interested in preserving a defendant's presumption of innocence as anyone. Although the reporters and moderators on AnnArbor.com can certainly speak for themselves, I think the distinction between comments that are deleted because of their supposed violations of an accused's presumption of innocence, and the reporting such as found in this story, is that the reporter is reporting what the POLICE are claiming happened and, therefore, the reason for his arrest/arraignment/etc. If the police arrest someone, they are obligated to provide a reason (at least in the United States), fortunately. From my reading of this story, I think that is what Mr. Aisner is doing. He is reporting what the police claim to be the case; he himself is not stating anything about the defendant himself that is not qualified as accusations by the police. We need to read these stories with this in mind. Police and prosecutors, in our adversarial legal system, claim someone did something wrong; reporters report those claims, as they should. It would be a mistake to take the claims of police and prosecutors as the truth, adjudicated or otherwise, prior to some legal resolution of the situation, whether it be a verdict at trial, a plea agreement, or a dropping of charges.
DBH
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
I saw the headline. You are leaving out the last two words, "...police say" That is my whole point. This is what the POLICE claim, NOT Mr. Aisner. His reporting of what the police say is accurate (I presume); their claims may or may not be. The distinction is essential.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
I respectfully disagree. The case is NOT solved as the headline implies until a conviction. We can argue what "cracking the case" means but to most I would say it means the case has been "solved"...see the headline.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 4:36 p.m.
In the now closed Ypsilanti stabbing story the Ann Arbor.com staff stated the following: "To re-state the commenting guideline that relates to the majority of the comments removed from this thread: We do not allow anyone to presume a person's guilt in stories involving crimes or tragic incidents. Others have been removed because they contain personal attacks." Yet in this story your headline says "Attempted robbery of Ann Arbor bagel shop solved ..." In the body of the story you state "Police say DNA was the key to cracking the case." Does not "case cracked" and "robbery...solved" presume guilt? If you chastise your posters and delete comments for presuming guilt yet do it yourselves does that not seem hypocritical? Is this a case of "do as we say, not as we do"?
ViSHa
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
i guess you can always go comment on one of their snooze stories about kids or pets ;)
Bertha Venation
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
Dan, I totally agree. Yet another fine upstanding example of citizenry at its finest for your younger generation to look up to.
cholak
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.
Isn't Bill Stanford just the greatest.........
Dan Pepper
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
Is it me or does Mr. Gulley (the alleged perpetrator) look like he was ready for his close-up in the picture? He seems to be smiling.
Barb
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
I would imagine it was the ski mask since only that and the cash were left behind. Since they never mentioned recovering the gun, that seems far-fetched.
Judster
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
Thanks for asking the question Andy. The entire article is about how DNA testing solved the case, 3 years later. You'd think there would at least be a mention of what DNA evidence there was.
Soothslayer
Fri, Feb 4, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
What evidence? DNA from the ski mask or they recovered the gun that he used to hit the employee?