Michael Goodwin, The Godfather of Stadium Motorsports Dan J. Harkey

Michael Goodwin, The Godfather of Stadium Motorsports

Overview of the case and the controversy surrounding Michael Goodwin, often called the “Godfather of Stadium Motorsports,” and his conviction for orchestrating the murders of Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy:

Please read my article:

https://danharkey.com/post/wrongful-convictions-in-the-us-criminal-justice-system

My closing paragraph of this article: Background and facts included.

· The Prosecution of Michael Goodwin, a promotional genius, was based on circumstantial evidence, politically motivated, and was one of the largest travesties in the legal community of California. The alleged prosecutorial misconduct, including the suppression of evidence and the introduction of a fabricated narrative, significantly impacted the case’s outcome. In the meantime, Michael lives his life out in a California prison.

Estimated Innocent Prisoners

Between 2% and 10% of convicted individuals in U.S. prisons may be innocent. With over 2.3 million incarcerated, this suggests 46,000 to 230,000 innocent people may currently be imprisoned.

Background

Michael Goodwin, a former rock concert promoter, is credited with creating the concept of motocross stadium racing. His groundbreaking event, the ‘Superbowl of Motocross, launched in 1972 at the Los Angeles Coliseum, evolved into what we now know as Supercross. This evolution solidified Goodwin’s position as a significant figure in motorsports promotion.
In the mid-1980s, Goodwin formed a Partnership's's with racing legend Mickey Thompson, known for breaking land-speed records and pioneering off-road racing. However, their Partnership's's quickly soured, leading to a series of lawsuits and a judgment of over $700,000 against Goodwin. This financial strain, coupled with the dissolution of their Partnership's's, forced Goodwin out of the sport by 1987.

The Murders

On 16 March 1988, Mickey and Trudy Thompson were shot execution-style in the driveway of their Bradbury, California home. Two assailants fled on bicycles. Despite witnesses, the gunmen were never identified or caught.
Initially thought to be a robbery, investigators later concluded it was a targeted killing. Nothing of value was stolen, and evidence suggested premeditation.

Goodwin’s Conviction

Goodwin was arrested in 2001 and convicted in January 2007 of orchestrating the murders. Prosecutors argued he hired hitmen as revenge for the failed business deal and judgment against him. He received two life sentences without parole.
The prosecution’s case against Goodwin relied heavily on circumstantial evidence. This included alleged threats Goodwin made, such as ‘I’ll kill him… I can get it done for 50 grand,’ and financial moves like wiring $400,000 offshore before the murders. These actions were interpreted as evidence of premeditation and a motive for the crime.

The Criminal Justice System was the criminal, not the accused.

· Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy, were murdered on 16 March 1988 at their home in Bradbury, California.

· Michael Goodwin, Thompson’s former business partner, was arrested in 2001 and later convicted on 4 January 2007 for orchestrating the murders.

· So, Goodwin was prosecuted and convicted about 19 years after the murders.

Claims of a Sham Trial

Critics and advocacy groups argue that Goodwin’s conviction was wrongful, a stark injustice, based on:

No direct evidence linking Goodwin to the shooters or the crime scene.
Jurisdictional irregularities: The case was dismissed in Orange County, then refiled in Los Angeles without proper transfer hearings.
Fabricated narrative: Eyewitnesses initially described a white shooter, but investigators later promoted a theory of two Black gunmen—never found—allegedly to fit a revenge-for-hire scenario.
Political influence: Mickey Thompson’s sister, Collene Campbell, a former mayor with strong political ties, pushed authorities for decades, offering a $1 million reward (never paid) and leveraging media like America’s Most Wanted to spotlight Goodwin as the prime suspect.
Suppressed evidence: Defense advocates claim key exculpatory evidence was withheld and that the trial was driven by passion and public pressure rather than hard proof.

Current Status

Goodwin remains incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. He continues to maintain his innocence and pursue appeals, alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Here are the key pieces of evidence and arguments cited by advocates and legal filings that support Michael Goodwin’s claim of innocence:

1. No Direct Evidence Linking Goodwin to the Murders

There was no physical, forensic, eyewitness, or confession evidence connecting Goodwin to the crime scene or the shooters. The case was entirely circumstantial.

2. Witness Descriptions Contradict Prosecution Theory

All original crime scene witnesses reported a White shooter, not two Black men as prosecutors later claimed. The “Black shooters on bicycles” narrative was introduced nine years after the murders by the lead detective and widely publicized with reward posters, despite zero supporting evidence.
The 911 call and ballistics evidence indicated the same gun killed both victims, consistent with a single shooter scenario, not two hired killers.

3. Motive Was Fabricated

Prosecutors argued Goodwin killed Thompson to avoid paying a $794,000 judgment. However, bankruptcy records show Goodwin’s trustee paid $931,000—more than the judgment—months before the murders. He had no financial motive to kill Thompson.

4. Other Suspects Were Ignored

Multiple other suspects existed, including one who confessed to being a lookout and another who admitted to the crime but failed lie detector tests. These leads were never presented to the jury. The prosecution relied on the argument: “If not Goodwin, then who?”.

5. Alleged Flight Was False

Prosecutors claimed Goodwin fled to Guatemala for three years after the murders. Police records show he remained in the U.S. most of that time and even met with investigators a week after the killings, when he was told he was only a witness.

6. Jurisdictional Manipulation

The case was dismissed in Orange County for lack of evidence in 2004, yet refiled in Los Angeles without new evidence, a precise manipulation of jurisdiction. The original dismissal included a strong rebuke of the Orange County DA for pursuing a baseless case.

7. Evidence Suppression and Misconduct

Advocates claim prosecutors engaged in massive evidence suppression, introduced false testimony, and relied on witnesses motivated by a $1 million reward that was never paid. Defense attorneys allege malicious prosecution and the fabrication of evidence.

8. Jury Instructions and Bias

The trial judge allegedly gave instructions that allowed a conviction without requiring proof of Goodwin’s connection to the killers. The jury foreman later admitted the reasoning was: “If not Goodwin, then who else?”.

9. Political Influence

Collene Campbell (Thompson’s sister), a former mayor with powerful political ties, pushed the case for decades, influencing investigators and prosecutors, with a significant Impact of political influence. Goodwin’s arrest occurred five days after he initiated litigation against Campbell, which could have exposed financial misconduct related to Thompson’s estate.

Here are the significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in testimony during Michael Goodwin’s trial for the Mickey Thompson murders:

1. Shooter Descriptions Contradicted Prosecution Theory

Original eyewitness accounts (including the 911 caller) described a White man at the crime scene.
Prosecutors claimed two Black men were the shooters—a theory introduced 13 years later by the lead detective.
None of the five eyewitnesses interviewed ever saw Black men, yet the jury was told the strongest witnesses confirmed this false narrative.

2. Reward Influence and Witness Motivation

Witnesses who testified against Goodwin were allegedly motivated by a $1 million reward offered by Mickey Thompson’s sister, Collene Campbell.
This reward was never paid, but its existence created a strong incentive for testimony aligning with the prosecution’s theory.

3. Fabricated Motive and False Statements

Prosecutors told the jury that Goodwin killed Thompson to avoid paying a $794,000 judgment.
In reality, bankruptcy records show $931,000 was paid months before the murders, disproving the alleged motive.
Defense counsel incorrectly stated that Goodwin paid only $4,000, further confusing the jury.

4. False Allegation of Flight

Prosecutors claimed Goodwin fled to Guatemala for three years after the murders.
Police records show he remained in the U.S. most of that time and even met with investigators a week after the killings, when he was told he was only a witness.

5. Suppressed Testimony About Other Suspects

At least two individuals confessed—one to being a lookout, another to the murders—and failed polygraph tests.
Seven witnesses identified another suspect, who was in custody but released when no link to Goodwin was found.
Prosecutors fought to keep this evidence out of the trial, and the judge ruled it “irrelevant”.

6. Jury Instructions Encouraged Conviction Without a Direct Link

The judge gave instructions that allowed a conviction without requiring proof of Goodwin’s connection to the shooters.
The jury foreman later admitted their reasoning was: “If not Goodwin, then who else?”—a direct result of suppressed evidence about other suspects.

7. Perjury and Contradictions

Goodwin claims to have documented hundreds of instances of perjury by witnesses and Law enforcement, including false statements about the shooter’s identity and Goodwin’s alleged flight.
These contradictions were never fully addressed during the trial.

The official case files and advocacy reports indicate that two individuals allegedly confessed to involvement in the Mickey and Trudy Thompson murders. Still, their names were never widely publicized in mainstream media.

Here’s what is documented:

Confessed Individuals

· Unnamed Suspect #1

o Confessed to being a lookout on the morning of the murders.

o Was reportedly in custody in 1988 but was mysteriously released.

o This confession was documented in investigative files but excluded from trial evidence.

· Unnamed Suspect #2

o Confessed to committing the murders but failed polygraph tests.

o Despite the confession, prosecutors argued it was “irrelevant,” and the judge barred the defense from presenting it to the jury.

Why Names Are Missing

These individuals were never formally charged, and their identities were kept confidential in court filings and advocacy documents.
The prosecution’s strategy focused on Michael Goodwin as the sole conspirator, and evidence of other suspects was suppressed under rulings that deemed it “irrelevant” to the case.

Here’s what is known about evidence linking the confessed individuals to the Mickey and Trudy Thompson murders:

1. Suspect Who Claimed to Be the Shooter

Confession: One individual reportedly confessed to committing the murders.
Polygraph Results: This suspect failed three lie detector tests, raising credibility concerns but still indicating possible involvement.
Custody Status: He was in custody in 1988 but was mysteriously released without charges.
Connection to Goodwin: No documented ties to Michael Goodwin were found, which undermined the prosecution’s theory of a hired hit.

2. Suspect Who Claimed to Be a Lookout

Confession: Another person admitted to being a lookout during the murders.
Investigative Notes: This confession was recorded in police files but never presented to the jury.
Status: Like the first suspect, this individual was never charged, and details of corroborating evidence were suppressed during trial.

3. Corroborating Circumstantial Evidence

Timing & Location: Both confessed individuals reportedly provided details consistent with the crime scene (e.g., early morning timing, driveway ambush).
Investigative Leads: Police conducted hundreds of interviews and had multiple suspects during the initial investigation, but these leads were buried when the case shifted to focus solely on Goodwin.

Why Was This Evidence Excluded?

The judge ruled these confessions “irrelevant” because prosecutors argued they did not directly exonerate Goodwin.
The defense was barred from presenting these alternative suspect confessions, leaving the jury with the narrative: “If not Goodwin, then who?”.

Summary of Key Evidence Issues

No Direct Evidence: No forensic, eyewitness, or physical link tied Goodwin to the crime scene or the shooters.
Contradictory Witness Accounts: Original witnesses described a White shooter, yet prosecutors pushed a theory of two Black hitmen introduced years later.
Suppressed Confessions: At least two individuals confessed—one as a lookout, another as the shooter—but their statements were excluded from trial.
Fabricated Motive: Prosecutors claimed Goodwin killed Thompson to avoid paying a $794,000 judgment, even though bankruptcy records show the debt was settled months before the murders.
Ignored Alternative Suspects: Multiple suspects were investigated early on, including one in custody, but evidence pointing to them was buried.
Jurisdictional Manipulation: The case was dismissed in Orange County for lack of evidence, then refiled in Los Angeles without new proof.
Reward Influence: Witnesses were motivated by a $1 million reward offered by Thompson’s sister, which was never paid.
False Flight Narrative: Prosecutors claimed Goodwin fled to Guatemala for three years, but records show he remained in the U.S. and met with investigators days after the murders.

Conclusion: A Trial That Raised More Questions Than It Answered

The conviction of Michael Goodwin for the murders of Mickey and Trudy Thompson remains one of the most controversial cases in California’s legal History. What began as a high-profile investigation into the brutal killing of a racing icon evolved into a decades-long pursuit of a single suspect—despite glaring gaps in evidence and alternative leads that were never fully explored. The trial was built on circumstantial evidence, speculative motive, and testimony riddled with inconsistencies. Key confessions from other individuals, eyewitness contradictions, and suppressed investigative files were kept from the jury, leaving them with a false binary: “If not Goodwin, then who?”

The Prosecution of Michael Goodwin, a promotional genius, was based on circumstantial evidence, was politically motivated, and was one of the largest travesties in the legal community of California. In the meantime, Michael lives his life out in a California prison.