A Rape Case In Sweden

by Andrea Campbell

I am never surprised at the results that can be achieved with forensic science. It is comforting to know that as time moves on, so do improvements in evidence collection and evaluation. Today’s story illustrates these ideas and even though it happened in Sweden, we are happy to see a righteous outcome.

High-Intensity UV Lamps

Body fluids are an important part of a crime scene, in murder and especially with sexually-based crimes. Since body fluids have properties that make them fluoresce under alternate light, it makes sense to walk the scene carefully with the light in hand and mark all the stains with cones or markers that may prove to be clues later on. The light won’t tell you what you’re looking at, but after collection and examination, you may get DNA and other readings.

The Rape in Sweden

On a cold day in Sweden, crime scene investigator Birgitta Jansson, who is with the Karlstad, Sweden police technical division, walked through the snow. It was dawn at about 7:20 in the morning and the sun was waiting to rise over the horizon. An outdoor scene, the crime was committed in a residential area near the center of town, and not far from a school. The case was an alleged rape and it took place at the corner of a hockey rink in a snow drift.

The snow left behind some obvious impressions: the shape of a human figure—arms, legs and torso—that were clear enough. In addition to the visual evidence were some Swedish coins that had fallen from the perpetrator’s pockets that were lodged deep in the snow. Blood was also found near the coins, and all were subsequently collected as evidence.

Investigators then used a high-intensity ultraviolet light to illuminate the scene, just as the sun was beginning to rise. Three spots, thought to be semen, were found in a 4 x 4-inch area.

“The light made the semen fluoresce in the snow, to the extent that I never thought possible,” said Jansson. “Actually, I was amazed that it worked. I never thought you could distinguish semen from snow with the help of a high-intensity UV light. And there was no doubt—the fluorescence was incredibly strong and clear. I have never seen anything like it.”

Jansson examined the glowing pieces more closely and found that they were now frozen liquid laying separate from the snow. They secured and collected those lumps of ice and packed them into bio bags, stored them in the freezer in the police car, in the hopes of sending the frozen liquid to the laboratory.

Back at the Laboratory

Once the lab examined the frozen, cube-like evidence it was clear that there were both semen and vaginal secretions. The sperm produced DNA and was ultimately matched to the vaginal swabs taken from the victim. The rapist was subsequently tried, convicted and sentenced.

The Fluids That Fluoresce

Semen, vaginal secretions, urine, sweat and saliva are all bodily fluids that will fluoresce under UV light. Urine is the easiest to detect, followed by semen, and the others will too, only more often very faintly.

Rehn, Lisel, “Semen fluoresced in the snow solved a rape case in Sweden,” Evidence Technology Magazine, July-August 2011, pp 24-25.

DNA photo: US National Library of Medicine 
photo (right): jah~

Tweet

DNA Manipulation

by Andrea Campbell

When technology gets better, there will always be someone who wants to defeat the system. It’s comforting to know that progress is continually being made in order to stay ahead of the criminals.

We’ve talked a lot about biometrics and DNA. These are thought of as irrefutable biological characteristics that help to define and identify just who we are. That’s why when I saw the headline, “DNA Paternity Test Almost Fooled,” I had to know more.

Who’s Your Daddy?

Paternity tests use DNA to allow people to discover their origins, such as who are my mother and father? DNA has longed been used for this process and there are reasons that someone would not want to be found—mainly child support payments. In 2007, someone found a way to confuse the identification system temporarily and it has now prompted a new methodology because of this person’s brash moves.

Apparently the fraud attempt was predicated by a DNA paternity test.

The paternity test is done just as one would do for a crime suspect—samples of saliva cells are collected from the mouth. In this particular case, Dr. José Antonio Lorente Acosta, Director of the Laboratory of Genetic Identification at the University of Granada, carries out forensic tests just like these as commissioned by the court in cases of paternity, and for the identification of possible criminals, or else to contribute to DNA databases such as in the case of trying to locate missing relatives.

In this 2007 case, epithelial cells were collected from the interior of the mouth by a person undergoing a paternity test, which gave an incongruous result. The research team questioned their procedure and found they had not changed anything. The suspect washed his mouth and, “... after repeating the analysis, there was only one possible conclusion: In the mouth of that man there was DNA from two different persons,” says Dr. Acosta. They, of course, arranged to meet the subject again and found out that shortly before he took the test, he mixed his saliva with someone else’s that he had concealed on his person in a small container, hoping to mislead detectives. As it turns out, the test was repeated and he was found to be the biological father in that particular case of judicial investigation. This case prompted a modification of all future tests, as now it would be compulsory for the donor to wash his mouth out, but this time in the presence of a witness.

The Grim Sleeper Case

A Los Angeles' serial killer who was thought to have killed at least 10 people, was caught by detectives who used a familial DNA search and that, and new databases, has made somewhat of a breakthrough. Only Colorado and California currently have laws specifically allowing the use of familial DNA match. The practice has drawn criticism from privacy advocates who fear that innocent family members will be targeted if they have the misfortune of being related to a criminal.

The research policy, however, is restricted to major violent crimes, and only after all other investigative methods have failed. Apparently the majority of the Grim Sleeper’s killings were committed in the 1980s. Unfortunately the crimes restarted after a 13-year absence, with the latest one occurring in 2007. This prompted Los Angeles' police to look for a “similar” DNA profile. Hoping they might find a relative for leads, after running several tests, some DNA was identified as the suspect’s son. The after-effects of this case and use of familial DNA will surely set precedents for its future use, as well as new policies as other states adopt the process. First published in Forensic Magazine.

Take That Robbers: DNA Mist

This new technology is fairly genius and was discovered in the Netherlands. We’ve all seen in films where the bank puts explosive dye packs in the money bag in order to mark the criminal after it explodes. They open the bag to get the money and are showered with indelible ink. Now there is a DNA spray mist! The applicator is positioned on the door of a bank or other business that has funds. Every person who enters is misted with a DNA spray that has no odor and is completely unnoticeable. The synthetic DNA compound settles onto hair, clothing and skin without knowledge. Of course, somewhere on this person is a trail that has a fluorescent marker that can be detected using ultraviolet light. Not only that, but the DNA can be made unique to a particular location. Good thinking that.

All photos are Clipart.com

Tweet

Can You Get DNA from Bullshit?

by Laura James

(cross-posted; art via)

It's a clever business strategy, I'll give them that.

It goes like this:

One: In your dungeon laboratory, develop a way to fabricate forensic samples of DNA from a particular person -- a way to create a "fake" sample.

Two: Write a paper that explains precisely how anyone with a chemistry background can fake a DNA sample and publish it on the internet.

Three: Call into question the fundamental reliability of every DNA sample ever taken into evidence anywhere, because, after all, you've now proven they can theoretically be faked.

Four: Form a corporation to develop a patented method of detecting faked DNA evidence.

Five: Market your sorry-not-free "authentication assay" to every law enforcement agency on earth as "necessary for maintaining the high credibility of DNA evidence in the judiciary system."

Finally: Land a feature in the New York Times.

Alas, all this has already happened. The company is called Nucleix.

It is immoral, unethical, and offensive to me that these men have done this. But they have. One small group of misguided souls has actually managed to think up a way to undermine the best method of forensic science ever discovered. In doing so, they managed to craft whole new arguments for defense attorneys (and the occasional stupid prosecutor) to try on unsophisticated jurors. Already the ACLU is yapping about it.

I hope this fake DNA boondoggle is not taken seriously and gets no more media attention than it already has. I also hope others will call them out on this. That Andrew Pollack and the New York Times helped to promote this obscenity with no apparent regard for the ethics of doing so was in and of itself offensive to me and only confirms my low opinion of that newspaper. In this piece, the Times again proves itself a corporate tool.

If this company (Nucleix, not the Times) had an ounce of integrity, the cure it is marketing for the disease it invented would be as readily available on the Internet as the instructions for "faking" DNA results.

Tweet

CSI and Me

by Kathryn Casey

A few years back, I sat across a desk from Henrico Police Captain Jan Stem in his Richmond, VA, office, talking about the Piper Rountree case. Rountree (photo left), a Houston attorney, was charged with murdering her ex-husband, University of Richmond professor Fred Jablin (with Piper in photo right below). It was a particularly violent conclusion to a War-of-the-Roses-style divorce, two years of domestic warfare. Rountree hadn’t liked the outcome of the divorce; a self-envisioned super mom, she’d lost custody of the couple’s three kids. The police figured that she’d attempted to right what she perceived as a great wrong by ambushing Jablin in the family driveway while their kids slept upstairs in the house.

Yet another example of how motherly love can go tragically askew.

Talking with Stem that day, it was obvious that the evidence against Rountree relied heavily on such modern-day devices as cell phones and the Internet. It got me thinking about how many of the cases I now investigate rest on evidence unheard of when I started writing about crime fresh out of journalism school as a fledgling reporter for Houston City Magazine back in the eighties.

At the appropriate moment, I asked Stem, a middle-ager like myself, who’d been in the crime game for a couple of decades, to quantify for me how much the cop business had changed throughout his career. Stem ran a thick hand through his soft brown hair and frowned. Shrugging, he said, “Old fashioned police work is still important, but almost everything’s different these days.”

The case, the subject of my book Die, My Love (HarperCollins 2007) is fascinating, full of twists and turns and terror in the night. But that day in Stem’s office, another murder was on my mind as well, the first murder case I ever covered, the one we at Houston City called the “Piney Woods Love Triangle.” It happened in and around a small East Texas middle school, back in the mid-eighties. The victim, Bill Fleming, was a young football coach. The accused was none other than the principal, one Hurley Fontenot, a courtly man with an East Texas drawl. Both Fleming and Fontenot were married, and both had affairs with the school secretary, a pretty, dark-haired woman with a self-effacing manner, Laura Nugent.

There’s no doubt that the prosecution had a circumstantial case: Fontenot and Fleming had been feuding over Nugent for months. Testimony pegged the principal as the last one seen with the coach the afternoon he disappeared. But there was potential forensic evidence as well: Bill Fleming’s decomposing body found dumped in a deserted oil field, nearly a week after the murder, and human blood spray in the inside of the 4H camper Fontenot had on his pickup that weekend. The truck and camper were cleaned at a car wash the day after Fleming’s disappearance, but police found diluted human blood collected on the truck axle as well.

But remember, this was 1984, a lifetime ago in the CSI business.

I spent seven weeks in a Livingston, TX, courtroom as prosecutors and well-known Houston defense attorney Dick DeGuerin battled it out. Today it would be a simple matter. Even with a single bone or a wad of spit, DNA could be collected and mapped, compared to the blood in the trailer and on the axle. Back then, however, DNA was just a theory. At that time – and remember this is just a little over twenty years ago – police labs couldn’t even type blood from a corpse in an advanced state of decomposition. The bottom line: Prosecutors had no way to convincingly tie the blood inside the trailer and on Hurley Fontenot’s truck axle to Bill Fleming.

Still, we’re talking about human blood, not something normally found inside a trailer or sprayed inside a camper. And there must have been a considerable amount to mix with the car wash water and collect on the axle. How could the defense explain that? For much of the trial, I thought the blood evidence would be the prosecutors’ ace in the hole.

The defense attorney offered an alternate possibility. The blood didn’t belong to Bill Fleming at all, DeGuerin countered. Family-man Hurley regularly used the trailer and pickup to transport household garbage cans to the dump. Inside were plastic bags, some of which contained his wife’s menstrual pads. That wasn’t all. When DeGuerin asked Mrs. Fontenot some rather embarrassing questions, she explained that she was enduring what women today call menopause and which they then euphemistically referred to as “the change,” and that she was thus experiencing an unusually heavy flow.

Although I never quite understood how blood could have not only come off the pads, but leaked through garbage bags and the garbage cans, so much that it splattered inside the trailer and collected on the axle, I guess the jury did. The four men and eight women charged with deciding his fate acquitted Hurley Fontenot.

Hurley wasn’t a healthy man. He had heart problems, and not much later he died. No one else was ever prosecuted for Bill Fleming’s murder. Whenever questioned about the case, prosecutors said they believed they had the right man but simply lost in the courtroom. To this day, DeGuerin says he doesn’t believe Fontenot committed the murders. But, of course, we’ll never know. With Fontenot acquitted and deceased, there’s no reason to do DNA on Bill Fleming or the found blood, that is if any of the evidence even remains stored in a cold case box.

So, when I sit back and look at a case like Piper Rountree’s, as fascinating as it is, with all the advantages of modern police work, I can’t help but recall the decades-old murder of Bill Fleming. It reminds me how long I’ve been covering courtrooms, and how many safeguards science offers today to ensure that a jury’s decision is based on real evidence. When done correctly, modern science has the power to free the innocent and condemn the guilty.

Tweet

"I Used To Be Mad..."

by Katherine Scardino

That’s what Ernest Sonnier told the reporter who asked how he felt after spending 23 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Harris County, Texas, now has the distinction of having convicted six innocent people that we know of. They are the six fortunate individuals who could scream loud enough to get the Texas Innocence Project to look at their cases and demand action. I am on the board of the Texas Innocence Project; I learned last week it has more than a thousand cases to review to determine if there is even one more out there who should be freed. That's in Texas alone. Only a handful of workers are willing to labor that hard for so many hours and so little pay.

Mr. Sonnier spent his 23 years in prison knowing he was innocent. His family knew he was innocent; his mother says she knew because he was at home with her.

How often do prosecutors hear that alibi? Yeah, right, home with mom. The law says that until someone is convicted, he is presumed innocent. Why is that so damn hard for prosecutors and judges to remember and honor? Why have we all become so prejudiced against people accused of committing crimes that we assume they are guilty, no evidence required? Just ask someone accused of sexual abuse of a child whether they felt their jury looked at them fairly.

So, what happened to Mr. Sonnier? He was convicted in 1986 for the 1985 aggravated kidnapping and rape of a woman who lived in Alief, Texas. Two men grabbed her and raped her repeatedly in their car until they stopped at a store, giving her the chance to flee and call police. DNA evidence was handled poorly by the prosecutor and the Houston Police Department Crime Lab. The newspaper article about Mr. Sonnier’s release used the phrase “faulty forensics." Translate that to “HPD Crime Lab technicians lied.” There are only two ways you can get “faulty forensics” - falsifying results and lying in court, or contaminating evidence, knowingly or not.

It was not unusual several years ago for crime lab technicians to assume they worked for the prosecution and that their test results should help prosecutors. Such skewed results meant some innocent people, like Mr. Sonnier, wasted their lives in prison.

I cannot, in my wildest dreams, see how anyone could maintain their sanity and humanity while locked in prison for a crime they did not commit. I can't imagine the thoughts that would course through my mind -- about the hopelessness, helplessness and sheer futility of life, not to mention my seething anger.

The repercussions of losing most of the good years of your life? How about the aging of yourself and your family? Your children, nieces and nephews are all grown after 23 years. Your parents may be dead or in failing health. Your health has most lik ely deteriorated because of poor medical facilities in prison or the aging process we all endur e. But we endure it in freedom, with access to the best medical facilities available. Mr. Sonnier barely had a doctor or medication, let alone access to Texas Medical Center.

The problem is simple: Arrogant power controlled by small minds. The solution is not so simple. It would be a large step forward if our judges and prosecutors really believed in the presumption of innocence.

So, Mr. Sonnier, how do you feel today? Are you angry?

“No”, he says... "I used to be mad...”

Bless your heart, sir. Our best wishes for the rest of your life.

Tweet

The Supreme Court and DNA: I'm Embarrassed for Them

by Laura James

The United States has always been woefully behind when it comes to forensic science. The forensic techniques so critical to criminal justice today were all discovered in Europe.

From fingerprints to arsenic tests to DNA, European scientists and European courts have led the way for centuries. And in 2009, that continues to be true.

In June 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States, on a 5-4 vote, refused to help an inmate whose access to DNA evidence was blocked by the state. The Supreme Court refused to acknowledge a right to DNA testing. The opinion is an embarrassment to me as an American.

Even though the Chief Justice acknowledged, right up front, that DNA evidence "has an unparallelled ability both to exonerate the wrongfully convicted and to identify the guilty," the Supreme Court said it is comfortable leaving it up to individual states to decide how much access to grant for DNA testing. And if they don't allow it, well, that's too bad.

The stated reasons for this decision were federalism -- the idea that each state is a nation unto itself -- and "finality" -- the idea that judges are too lazy to hear umpteen appeals. How deplorable of a court to cite "finality" -- to my way of thinking, a case isn't "final" until the execution is held or the sentence served.

But in the opinion filed by Justice Alito, you see a hint of the truth. In reality, the justices just don't think all that much of DNA evidence. Justice Alito (page 31), claims that DNA "often fails" to provide clear proof. He quotes resources on the difficulty of collecting crime scene evidence. He doesn't believe in the science.

The bottom line is, until we get a Supreme Court with faith in science in America, a convicted man can have access to potentially exculpatory DNA evidence depending on where he lives.

In Kentucky, only death row inmates are permitted access to DNA evidence. So if you're serving forty years for rape, tough luck.

In Alaska, a prosecutor can block your request for exonerating DNA testing for no logical reason. Tough luck, folks.

In America, we ought to have more respect for DNA evidence. I can't help but wonder if the United States Supreme Court would think more of DNA evidence if the science had been developed in the United States to begin with. Meanwhile, my inner flag dips as I hope that other countries and other justice systems continue to look elsewhere for leadership in forensic science.

Tweet

Blocking Access to DNA Testing

by Diane Fanning

In Louisiana, Kenneth Reed sits in prison convicted of rape. He continues to claim his innocence and file appeals. A simple DNA test could confirm his guilt or throw his 1991 conviction into doubt. The prosecutor is blocking that testing as hard as he can even though though the state of Louisiana is one of forty-six states to give that right to inmates.

For the past three years, an Illinois state attorney has been obstructing DNA testing for Johnnie Lee Savory (right), convicted of a double homicide in 1977 when he was 14 years old, insisting that the jury didn't need DNA to convict. A ridiculous statement considering the fact that there have been 175 exonerations by DNA.

State after state, the story continues--prosecutors balking at the tests that could actually confirm the guilt of the inmate or point to possible innocence. Certainly, all claims of innocence are not valid just as DNA testing is not always the whole answer to every case. But even if it doesn't tell the whole story, it is a vital piece of the puzzle.

Hearing all these prosecutors battle against the revelation of all the facts and truth in a case makes you wonder if they understand the meaning of justice, have any concept of their mission, or remember they are representing us in the courtroom, not themselves. Too many of them have prioritized winning over truth and justice, making a mockery of the law they are sworn to uphold.

Fortunately, not all of the people’s representatives in the court of law have lost sight of the meaning behind their calling. One sterling example of a prosecutor with a clear vision of his mission is Craig Watkins (right) in Dallas County, Texas.

Watkins took office in January 2007 inheriting a staff that possessed a win-at-any-costs mentality embedded in the office culture by legendary Dallas County prosecutor Henry Wade. Wade actually bragged about obtaining convictions on innocent people--he said it proved his tremendous skill as a prosecutor.

In July 2007, Watkins established the Conviction Integrity Unit charged with the oversight of four hundred post-conviction reviews where DNA could provide answers. He staffed it with one assistant district attorney, one investigator and one legal assistant who work in conjunction with the Innocence Project of Texas. It is the first division of its kind in the United States.

Since its inception, the unit has called for testing in forty cases of claimed innocence. As a result, nineteen men were determined to be wrongfully convicted and ten innocent men have been set free from Texas prisons. Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project said: "Sometimes district attorneys are reluctant to admit that a mistake was made. What he proved is if the district attorney's office is not afraid to admit that a mistake was made and correct it, then juries will reward them for it. By doing justice, you establish credibility."

It's not all one-sided in Dallas County as a single viewing of Dallas DNA on the Investigation Discovery channel demonstrates. Many men requesting the genetic testing to clear their names are informed that, to the contrary, it confirmed their guilt. I imagine most of those inmates were just gambling that the science would fail and a mistake in the lab would set them free. A few had probably lied so long, they'd forgotten the truth. Either way, the jury verdict was confirmed as just and true.

There are those out there who are not moved by the thought of an innocent person in jail. They tend to think that those people probably committed another crime and just got away with it--so what difference does it make to keep them behind bars. This cynical attitude overlooks one very important problem--a complication that leaves all of us less safe, by exposing us to the predation of more rapists, killers and molesters.

Every time an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, there is a guilty person--perhaps a very violent person--who walks free able to re-offend. Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, analyzed 225 cases of DNA exoneration. In 98 of those cases, the new information led straight to the actual perpetrator allowing law enforcement to get the guilty man off of the streets.

Conviction at any cost is simply not in our best interests, even if we never end up in a courtroom on either side of the aisle. Self-preservation alone should prod all of us into demanding that prosecutors in our jurisdiction care more about justice than they do about winning. I don't expect perfection from the state's attorneys--they are human, there will be mistakes.

But I do expect prosecutors to care about these errors, to be willing to admit to them and to do everything possible to restore justice to wrongfully convicted inmates.

After all, as citizens, it is in their best interests, too.

Tweet

A New Year, A New Lease on Life (Minus 5 Years Lost in Prison)

by Katherine Scardino

In mid-December, a 51-year-old man was freed from prison after a conviction for sexual assault of a child. In 2002, Ricardo Rachell (pictured in plaid shirt) was convicted by a jury for sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy and sentenced to serve 40 years in prison. He supposedly had all the systemic safeguards to protect innocent citizens from being wrongfully convicted.

In this case, the term "innocent" means just that: Innocent. That term is used by me and other defense lawyers in trials and we define it to jurors as evidence that is "not proven." In Mr. Rachell’s case, he is actually innocent—as innocent as DNA can tell us.

Of course, he had a court-appointed defense lawyer; he had a judge who allegedly oversees the trial and rules without bias or prejudice; he had a jury of 12 people from the community in which he lived; and he had a prosecutor who took an oath to "see that justice is done." All failed Ricardo Rachell.

Back in 2002, there were a rash of sexual assaults of children in the neighborhood where Mr. Rachell lived. The modus operandi involved the assaulter riding a bicycle and approaching young boys with an offer to pay them if these boys would help him with some "chore"—such as delivering newspapers, removing trash, etc. The criminal would then lure these boys to a vacant house or some other spot and molest them. (Right: composite sketch of actual suspect.)

This was a terrible crime against our children and people were alarmed and frightened. Local politicians came to the neighborhood and spoke to the people; police officers were on the alert in the area; prosecutors were ready to prosecute.

Then a young child pointed the finger at Mr. Rachell, and within 24 hours his life turned into a living hell. He was arrested, thrown in jail, where he waited several months for his trial by a jury. DNA evidence was obtained from this child, given to the same officer who investigated Mr. Rachell’s case as well as other similar cases in the neighborhood, and the officer then delivered this critical evidence to Houston's infamous Crime Lab—where it sat . . . and sat . . . and sat. . . .

Mr. Rachell told his mother that he absolutely did not do this. He wrote letter after letter to his defense lawyer begging him to investigate other similar crimes in the neighborhood. He wrote letters to the judge; to the police; to the newspapers—all to no avail. We can only assume that he was simply saying "I did not commit this crime." Mr. Rachell was most likely unaware that DNA had been obtained from the complainant in his case—evidence that would ultimately exonerate him.

After Mr. Rachell’s arrest and while he was in jail, the attacks continued—still with a man on a bicycle . . . still with the request to the young boys to do some chores. The police officer who arrested Mr. Rachell was the same police officer who investigated other similar offenses while Mr. Rachell was cooling his heels in the county jail.

And did I mention that the complainant in Mr. Rachell’s case never said anything to anyone about a facial deformity when describing his attacker? Ten years before he was falsely accused of sexually assuaulting the 8-year-old boy, Mr. Rachell had been disfigured by a shotgun blast to the face after someone accused him of having been on their property.

Since his disfigurement, Mr. Rachell was known in the neighborhood as "Scary Man." His appearance likely contributed to the witch hunt against him. While the police were aware of the accused's facial abnormality, the complainant's failure to mention it did not seem to bother anyone.

It is incomprehensible to me that this situation could have occurred in my jurisdiction. How did this happen? Why would this police officer not say something like, "Hey, guys, do you think we should look at this case a bit closer?" What about the prosecutor? Surely he was aware of other similar offenses in the neighborhood occurring while Mr. Rachell was in jail.

But the worst failure was the defense lawyer. Why would he ignore the pleas of his innocent client? Do defense lawyers who take court-appointed cases hear too many clients proclaim their innocence—even in the face of obvious guilt—that they/we become inured to the truth when we hear it?

The news reports state that the defense lawyer claims to have had no knowledge of any DNA evidence. All the lawyer had to do was file a Discovery motion and in response to this motion, the prosecutor would have said he had the DNA evidence and he would have been required to produce the test results to the defense lawyer, or the prosecutor would have had to lie and say there was no such evidence. There is no indication if any of these things happened. Incredibly, the State never had the DNA evidence tested prior to trial. They had their witness.

As a result of this mass of errors, this innocent man spent nearly six years in prison. To the average person, it would be horrible to be in a prison, but can you imagine how horrible it would be to be locked up and be innocent? Worse, to have been wrongfully convicted of molesting a child. We all know how child molesters are treated in prison. Now imagine having a facial deformity on top of all that and you have some idea of what this man suffered while in confinement.

I want to leave Mr. Rachell’s case and jump to another real and recent case. I was hired to represent a young man about twenty-two years old. From his statements as well as from accounts given by his family and friends, my young client was a good dad who loved his baby girl more than anything in this world. He was with her as often as the mother allowed. He had recently finished a tumultuous relationship with a young woman who was the mother of this 3-year-old baby girl and a final order relating to visitation and child support had been signed and entered.

One recent Sunday, my client allowed his then-girlfriend (who knew the mother of the child) to return his daughter to her. It made the mother very angry that my client, the dad, did not personally return their child. Within 24 hours, this 3-year-old child had allegedly accused her daddy of touching her inappropriately.

Of course, Child Protective Services (CPS) gets involved and the police start investigating. My client hires an attorney. He gets arrested and goes to jail, all the while saying he did not do anything. He told me his story, and consequently, I made an appointment with the assistant district attorney who was assigned to handle his case so I could watch the video of the child.

It was apparent after viewing the video that the CPS interviewer of this 3-year-old child had manipulated the responses to her questions. There is no way I can explain how that is done—you would just have to see it. The child even named another perpetrator in her video—along with my client.

I discussed with the prosecutor the possibility of my client testifying in front of a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury is the filtering system for all felony indictments and at the state level is made up of 12 people who listen to the prosecutor discuss the cases. Defense lawyers are not allowed in the Grand Jury room. The Grand Jury then decides whether there is enough evidence to bind the case over for a jury trial. The Grand Jury either issues a "true bill"—meaning the case will be formally indicted and the defendant must defend himself in a courtroom—or a "no bill," meaning that the Grand Jury decided that there was not enough evidence.

In a few cases, the Grand Jury hears testimony from complainants, defendants, and witnesses, as it did in my client’s case. In the last 24 years, I have probably allowed three or four clients to testify in front of a Grand Jury. This is not a usual practice in defending clients, because defendants are Constitutionally protected against testifying against themselves and defense lawyers do not always have "innocent" clients.

My client testified in front of a Grand Jury, and he was "no billed." This means that his case will be dismissed. The system worked the way it was designed. My young male client dodged a very serious bullet. If he had been in a situation like Mr. Rachell's, he would have had to present his case to a 12-person jury—made up of people like you and me, citizens who abhor sexual assault of children and generally believe that if you are sitting in that "defendant’s chair" in the courtroom, there must be a reason. A conviction and a sentence of many years is more likely than not.

I compare these two cases to show that one was very lucky and the other was very unlucky. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Rachell’s case were even stronger for doubt or even innocence than they were in my client’s case.

Unfortunately, every person that Mr. Rachell looked to for assistance turned a deaf ear. One mistake piled on top of another. How many more of these cases are we going to hear about—years later? How many more people will have their lives torn apart with false allegations? Does the public understand how easy it is for a citizen to be indicted for a case of sexual assault based solely on the statement of one person? These cases are not unlike the Salem Witch Trials in the 1600s. All it takes is one person pointing a finger at you—then you may find yourself in Mr. Rachell’s living hell. Be aware.

At least Mr. Rachell is now free. And he's starting out the new year right. This week, he went for his first "free world" haircut in several years (pictured right). And a Houston plastic surgeon has volunteered his services to reconstruct Mr. Rachell's face. The doctor was contacted by U. S. Representative Al Green, whose district includes the neighborhood where Mr. Rachell lives with his stepfather. "The guy needs help," said Dr. Joseph Agris. "That is what we do. We will take care of this gentleman and there will be no charge."

Dr. Agris is no stranger to performing surgery out of charity. Four years ago, he offered his services to several amputees who'd lost their right hands under Saddam Hussein's regime. Today those men can shake the doctor's hand.

Now Dr. Agris has extended a helping hand to Ricardo Rachell. In his first physician-patient consultation, Agris clutched Rachell's hand with his own, according to yesterday's Houston Chronicle. "I can tell you from my experience, it won't be a one-time operation," Agris said. "Don't look at trying to pay anything. We are going to get through this."

Soon Mr. Rachell will finally face the world as the man he really is, not as the Scary Man the State put away.

Tweet

Breaking News: Caylee's Remains Identified

ORLANDO, Fla. - This just moments ago: Authorities announced today, Friday, that DNA tests confirm skeletal remains found in the woods near the Anthony home are those of two-year-old Caylee, who has been missing since June.

Dr. Jan Garavaglia, Chief Examiner for the District 9 Medical Examiner's Office in Florida, said at a news conference that the remains discovered last week by a meter reader match Caylee’s DNA profile. The death is considered a homicide.

How does this impact murder charges pending against the toddler's mother, Casey Anthony? Should prosecutors now go for the death penalty?

Tweet

DNA Technology

by Connie Park

The days of “good old-fashion” detective work just got better! The advancement of technology in DNA testing has proven to be a powerful investigative tool for law enforcement and it has become an established part of criminal justice procedure. DNA testing has been utilized in identifying suspects of violent crimes, missing persons, and to exonerate innocent people who have been falsely convicted. There were more than 17,000 cases involving DNA evidence last year in the United States. DNA test results are common today in courtrooms due to reliability of the tests.

DNA testing allows the application of science to law. DNA is the chemical deoxyribonucleic acid, which stores the genetic code of each individual person. With the exception of identical twins, each person’s DNA sequence is unique. In addition to blood and semen, substances such as saliva, teeth, and bones can be sources of DNA. The listed biological evidence contains white blood cells where DNA is found. It allows us to analyze “invisible” evidence collected at crime scenes such as perspiration on a suspect’s clothing, skin cells on a ligature, saliva on a drinking glass or cigarette butts.

After a DNA profile has been developed, the profile is entered into the CODIS system (Combined DNA Index System), which is a national databank. CODIS is a computer network that connects forensic DNA labs at the local, state, and national levels. CODIS will alert the system whether or not there is a match of that DNA profile in the databank. In 2000, the DNA Backlog Elimination Act required the majority of all States to collect and test DNA of defendants convicted of homicide and sexual assaults.

DNA testing has transformed the way we solve crime and handle criminal investigations, but just as importantly, it allows no room for any errors. It has helped in solving many difficult cases and has discredited eyewitnesses' statements and physical evidence recovered at crime scenes. Through the use of DNA technology and DNA databanks, homicide cases from more than 25 years ago have been cleared. Investigators are able to request DNA testing on biological evidence where testing was not performed or was unsuccessful in years passed. In addition, DNA technology allows to test old, unpreserved, and microscopic bits of substance that could result in an accurate DNA reading.

In 1984, a 14-year-old female was found in an abandoned building sexually assaulted, strangled, and bound. A suspect was developed during the investigation but investigators were not able to file charges. In addition to an eyewitess's statements, the complainant was last seen alive with the suspect. Due to DNA technological advancements, biological evidence was tested and a suspect was identified and charged. Frederick Johnson was charged with capital murder and is awaiting trial.

Kerry Max Cook, author of Chasing Justice and a guest contributor at Women In Crime Ink, was charged with sexually assaulting and murdering Linda Jo Edwards. After 22 years in prison falsely convicted, Kerry was exonerated by DNA testing that identified James Mayfield as the real killer.

DNA technology couldn't have come soon enough.

Tweet

Does Being Gay Make A Murderer?

by Stacy Dittrich

Rarely, you will come across a post where I question the guilt of someone; specifically, one who commits murder. On that note, I have been hacking away at my true-crime book that debuts next year, tentatively titled Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill. While researching the fifteen or so cases of police officers who have committed murder, I came across one in particular that made me sit back and say, "huh?" It's the case of convicted murderer, and former Columbia, Missouri police officer, Steven Rios.

On May 23, 2005, Rios was convicted in the murder of 23-year-old college student, Jesse Valencia (pictured left). Valencia was Rios' secret gay lover. Rios, married, with a six-month old baby, was an upstanding and well-liked police officer at the Columbia Police Department. In the early days of the case, the bizarre turn of events continued to bewilder the residents of Columbia, along with the friends and family of Steven Rios.

Jesse Valencia's body was found in a yard less than a block from his campus apartment, on June 5, 2004. With his throat slashed to the brink of decapitation, and his body severely beaten, rumors began to run rampant throughout Columbia's gay community that Jesse was secretly involved in an intimate relationship with a local police officer. Steven Rios, on his scheduled days off, drives to a police substation where he logs on to the dispatcher's computer, before arriving at the crime scene. There, he offers his assistance in identifying the body.

Rios had previously arrested Jesse the prior April for interfering with police officers at a bust-up of a college party. This was Rios' excuse for knowing Jesse and, of course, failed to add that the arrest led to an immediate sexual relationship between the two. Several days later, when the rumors of the cop relationship hit the 144 manned department, Rios went to detectives to tell them that "I'm not the gay cop." He also proceeded to provide two other officer's names as suspects. By then, it was too late. Investigators already had several witness statements providing detailed and intimate, information regarding the relationship between Rios and Jesse.

After being confronted by investigators and admitting to the relationship, Rios took a leave of absence from the department. It was only two days later that Rios' name was exposed by the media, labeling him as the gay lover of the murder victim. Humiliated over being exposed to his family, friends, and the community he worked in, Rios drove to nearby Kansas City with a shotgun in his car, threatening suicide. After detectives coerced him back to Columbia, Rios was placed in protective custody at a local mental health facility. All the while, the Columbia Police Department continued to deny that he was a suspect in the murder.

The day after the first suicide incident, Rios escaped the mental health facility and threatened to jump off a fifth floor parking garage, which resulted in a two-hour stand-off between him and the police. Taken into custody again, Rios was placed in a more secure mental health facility.

Now, the question poses itself: Are the actions of Steven Rios a silent confession to murder, or are they merely the fallout of being exposed as a homosexual male? Most importantly, is it enough to convict him of murder?

Of course, there's more-the DNA. On July 1, 2004, formal murder charges were filed against Steven Rios after DNA confirmed that 3 hairs found on the victim's chest, and DNA under the fingernails belonged to Steven. However, Steven's DNA was not the only one found. There was massive DNA all over Jesse, and inside his apartment, that matched a male named Edward McDevitt.

Jesse had met McDevitt two days prior to the murder at a local gay nightclub. The two had engaged in sexual relations and McDevitt was the last person to see Jesse alive. A DNA expert who was put on the witness stand by the prosecution during Rios' trial, acknowledged that Rios' DNA could have easily come from Jesse's bedsheets. Rios had been intimate with Jesse five days before the murder. So, what exactly was the motive presented by the prosecution? A conversation between Jesse and his best friend, Joan Sheridan. Joan testified that Jesse told her that if Rios didn't throw out the criminal charge filed when he arrested him, Jesse was going to tell the police chief that Rios was gay.

Here are the facts:

1. After his shift ended at 3am on June 5th, Rios went to the roof of the police department and drank beer with other officers--a common practice. Rios contends he left the party at approximately 4:45am, and arrived home between 5:15-5:30am where his wife, Libby, was awake feeding the baby. This timetable was not disputed.

2. Between 3:00-3:30am on June 5th, Jesse Valencia's neighbor reported hearing a loud commotion in Jesse's apartment. He heard someone yelling, "stop!"

3. Five officers testified that Steven Rios owned a 4-inch serrated knife. Steven denies this, saying that any knife he was seen with was another officers or a knife he had confiscated from a suspect. Libby Rios testified that Steven asked for a knife the prior Christmas, but she didn't get him one because they couldn't afford it. The murder weapon was never found, but the coroner determined the wound was caused by a serrated-edged knife.

4. Prosecutors affirmed that Steven could have driven to Jesse's apartment within half an hour to forty-five minutes, killed Jesse, and made it home. However, the defense asked if they took into account stop lights, stop signs, and a shorter/longer route-the prosecution said no.

5. Steven Rios had no bruising/injuries to his hands or body. Rios, a wiry, gawky, man would have surely had some considering the beating Jesse took, which included a large hemorrage to his chest.

6. Jesse's new lover, Edward McDevitt lived with a man named Eric Thurmont--a known criminal. Thurmont testified he left his apartment at 3:30am with a male friend, and stayed at the friend's apartment until 10:30am. The friend concurred this story. McDevitt claimed to be at home alone.

7. Rios testified that his bizarre actions following the murder were a direct result of the fear of being exposed as a homosexual. He stated he was going to immediately inform investigators of the relationship until he heard "horribly brutal" gay jokes by other officers at the murder scene.

The jury ignored the fact that the DNA could have come from the bedsheets, they never questioned testimony from a known criminal or the man that gave him an alibi, and they never questioned the whereabouts of Ed McDevitt at the time of the murder-a man whose DNA was all over the victim and his apartment. They also ignored the descrepancy between the testimony of the neighbor who heard the commotion between 3-3:30am, while Steven Rios didn't leave the party until 4:45am. While deliberating, some jurors claimed to have doubts. The alleged ringleader of the jury, Jared Buchan, admittedly told them, "He's a cop, he can get away with anything," until they were ultimately convinced. They also didn't like Rios' own testimony and deemed him "unbelievable."Additionally, Joan Sheridan gave them the perfect motive.

Rios was handed a life sentence with no parole.

Astonishingly, on April 27, 2008, the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned and threw out Rios' conviction, based on the fact that Joan Sheridan's testimony was hearsay. There was no proof that Jesse ever confronted Rios about exposing him, and Sheridan's testimony should have never been admitted.

Steven Rios' retrial begins August 18, 2008. Is this a case of a man being persecuted based on the humiliation he felt after being exposed as a homosexual, or is he truly a heartless murderer?At this point, I'm not convinced of either. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that weren't asked of Rios, and further investigating to be done.

I do know one thing. If Rios is found not guilty . . . I'm out of a chapter.

Tweet

A Touch of DNA

by Pat Brown

A "bombshell" piece of DNA evidence has emerged in the long unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey and cleared John and Patsy of any involvement in the death of their daughter, according to District Attorney Mary Lacy, who has written a long letter of apology to the family.

Touch DNA, a new technology developed by Bode Laboratories near Washington DC, has discovered nonfamilial DNA on the sides of JonBenét's long johns. "Touch" DNA is a process which allows analysts to scrape targeted areas of clothing for DNA that might have been left by the perpetrator of a crime.

In JonBenét's case, it was surmised her killer might have pulled down her long johns to commit a sexual assault upon her, thereby leaving microscopic skin cells that the new Touch DNA technology could identify.

A knife was scraped along the waistband and sides of the long johns and previously undiscovered genetic material was found. Tests proved the DNA to be from a male unrelated to the Ramseys. This new DNA supposedly matches some other unidentified DNA found on JonBenét's panties years ago.

Quite convincing stuff until I realized what was missing from this picture: Patsy Ramsey's Touch DNA, and JonBenét's Touch DNA. When I further considered how easily this Touch DNA might have transfered off of any other person to the hands of Patsy or JonBenét—and then onto the little girl's long johns and panties—my confidence in this new evidence waned.

JonBenét had had an exciting and busy day, this last day of her life. She had gone to a party with her parents and enjoyed the company of a number of other adults and children. She then fell asleep on the way home. John carried her into the house and to her room. He laid her down on the bed and took off her coat and shoes. Then Patsy removed her pants and replaced them with the long johns.

Reviewing who might have touched what—and when and where they might have done so—we can see John would have had the least opportunity to touch JonBenét's underwear (if he were not involved in the crime) as while he was carrying her, the underwear was still covered by her outer clothing. Patsy, on the other hand, certainly must have handled her undergarments. Where then is her Touch DNA on the long johns that she forced onto the sleeping child? This is not an easy task and I would bet she had to get a good grip on the waist band to pull them on properly. Surely, she touched the sides of the long johns as well.

And what of JonBenét? Isn't it likely that her own Touch DNA is on her panties (as she would have pulled them up and down to go to the bathroom)? Wouldn't her Touch DNA also be on the long johns since even sleeping children's hands may come in contact with their clothes as they toss and move about?

Furthermore, skin cells pass easily from one human to another, so that Touch DNA on JonBenét's clothing may have come from someone she touched before she touched herself. Touch DNA, therefore, is better as a test of inclusion rather than exclusion. If some 40-year-old sex offender ends up matching the DNA on JonBenét's underwear, well then, he would have a lot of explaining to do. However, if the match is an eighteen year old—someone who was but six years old at the time of JonBenét's murder—then John and Patsy are hardly off the hook.

We have also, at this point, only the DA's word that the tests were done properly and that they yielded those particular results. The DNA evidence has not been made public nor has it been examined in a court of law for its validity.

Lastly, let's say we accept that the DNA evidence came from a third party. It would seem likely that there should be more of that DNA at the scene. Where is it? If the perpetrator was careless enough to not wear gloves while sexually assaulting JonBenét, should we not find many more of those skin cells on her shirt, on the blanket, on the ransom note, etc.?

While no one is guilty until proven guilty in a court of law, the presence of DNA from an unknown source doesn't necessarily prove a one-time suspect innocent either. Of all people, the DA should know this and that letter of apology should have been kept in reserve until enough evidence surfaces to effect the arrest and prosecution of the actual killer of JonBenét Ramsey.

Tweet

It's Been a Long Week of Asking, "Why?"

by Stacy Dittrich

"It's been a long night of wondering, Why? - Why would somebody do this?"

This was the question asked by Stanislaus County Sheriff's Deputy Royjindar Singh in Turlock, California on Saturday, June 14th after a man, 27-year-old Sergio Casian Aguilar, stomped and kicked his two-year-old son to death on a remote country road. What makes this story even more horrific is that several passersby stopped and attempted to save the child.

The man responsible for the toddler's murder had stopped his truck in the middle of the road and had drug the toddler behind it to commence a fatal beating. The man was so enraged and focused in this beating that anyone who tried to physically stop him from furthering the assault was promptly thrown onto the ground before the man went back to beating the baby. According to the witnesses, the man was screaming, "Demons are in him!"

A sheriff's department helicopter carrying a deputy landed at the scene where the man was fatally shot after refusing commands to stop beating the child. It was entirely too late for the toddler. His beating was so severe he would only be able to be identified through DNA and dental records. Everyone, including the deputy, who was subjected to this barbaric act will no doubt have a lengthy period of trauma ahead.

This is the second time in one week we are asking, Why?

As if the above, stomach-churning ordeal wasn't enough, we have been updated everyday on the two Oklahoma children who were shot to death six days prior to the toddler's beating.

Last Sunday, Taylor Paschal-Placker, 13, and Skyla Whitaker, 11, decided to take an afternoon walk along a county road in an unassuming small town in Oklahoma. Less than twenty minutes later, the girls (pictured below) were shot to death, their small bodies found lying on the road.

Though this act has incensed and frightened parents across the nation, no one has been arrested and little evidence was left at the scene. What animal, monster, or sub-human creature could possibly shoot multiple rounds into two innocent children?

Theories vary. Some officials believe that Taylor and Skyla walked into a "crime in progress." I have been following this story from day one and have expressed my own theory. I believe it to be a strong possibility that this was an abduction gone bad. The excessive amount of rounds shot into the girls leads me to assume "panic."

Maybe the girls did what they were supposed to do when approached by a stranger. It's what we all teach our children about "stranger dangers": run, scream, kick, bite, and fight if you have to. Maybe the suspect panicked as one of the girls grabbed her cellphone while he held onto the other. Maybe.

Recently released information revealed that two guns were used in the brutal slaying, indicating to some that there were two suspects. Possible, but not absolute. A single-shot shotgun, which can be loaded very quickly, only holds one round--one for each girl.

In this scenario, I envision the suspect throwing the shotgun to the side, and picking up his handgun and unloading the magazine into each of the girls, angry and panic-stricken that he came so close to getting caught. Again, just maybe.

The last theory clearly concerns and terrifies residents in the area: That this was a random act of violence; that the suspect/s blatantly and without reservation drove by and shot the innocent girls for no reason. If this proves to be the correct theory, I strongly advise the people in the community to lock all doors and windows, and hold your children tight. Whoever is responsible will undeniably strike again.

Several witnesses in the area reported seeing a man (composite at right). This man was described as an American Indian, possibly half-Caucasian, around 35 years old and standing six feet tall, his black hair pulled into a ponytail. Witnesses described him in or near a white single-cab pickup with chrome striping and Oklahoma tags.

The reward for information on this violent atrocity is now up to $40,000. I urge anyone with information to come forward. If you believe this man to be a family member please know that all will be done to protect your identity, but the families of the victims need closure, and a town needs to be at peace.

It seems that we have embarked on unfamiliar territory in society as parents or just as human beings. Whether the news coverage of these horror stories is becoming more prevalent or the vicious acts themselves are on the rise, we can always count on that one question coming to mind:

Why?

If you have information on the Oklahoma murders, call (800)522-8017

Tweet

What is the FBI Hiding?

by Diane Fanning

It makes a lot of sense when the FBI or any law enforcement agency withholds information when they are trying to build a case against a perpetrator still on the loose. But when the suspect in question is dead and the crimes are more than a decade old, what’s the point?

For months, the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star has struggled with the FBI over the seemingly simple matter of forensic testing. At one point, the FBI promised to process in evidence. But last month, the FBI told the newspaper that they were not going to perform additional tests out of deference to the families of the victims.

Funny thing, though, family members tell the newspaper that they want the testing done. They want answers.

In question are the abduction and murder of Alicia Showalter Reynolds on Route 29 in Virginia and the double homicide of Julianne Williams and Laura “Lollie” Winans (pictured above) in the Shenandoah National Park—all in 1996. The FBI vigorously pursued Darrell Rice as a suspect in the death of Alicia and charged him with the slaying of Julianne and Lollie. That case was thrown out by the court, in part, because preliminary results of DNA tests on two head hairs found at the crime scene of the double murder did not match Rice.

Those same results, however, could not eliminate another predator operating in the area at that time, Richard Marc Evonitz. In 2002 and 2003, I researched and wrote a book about this serial killer. I noted the possible connection to those three murders.

The book’s focus, though, was on three other deaths in Spotsylvania that authorities tied to Evonitz: the murder of Sofia Silva in 1996, and the double homicide of sisters Kati and Kristin Lisk in 1997. He was never arrested or charged in those crimes because when he was cornered in a coastal community after a high speed chase, he put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.

But the FBI was secretive even then.

I filed a Freedom of Information Act request. It was denied—the office claimed an ongoing investigation. It made no sense. The perpetrator was dead. No evidence needed to be protected before a trial.

I appealed to the Attorney General. I won that appeal. The FBI was ordered to release documents to me. Following that decision, I contacted the local office, in the spring of 2003. I was informed that it normally takes two to three years to process and provide material. So I waited.

Sure enough, I received a letter in 2006 informing me that I needed to pay thousands of dollars to obtain a complete copy of the file. As offered in the correspondence, I wrote requesting someone to assist me in narrowing down the file to pertinent documents. I am still waiting for that assistance.

The veil of secrecy from the lack of cooperation shown to me to the indifference to finding answers to the murders of Alicia, Julianne, and Lollie, casts doubt on the FBI’s conclusions in the deaths of Kati, Kristin, and Sofia. Does the FBI fear that transparency would reveal problems in the Lisk-Silva investigation or more generically with the FBI lab itself? What secret is the FBI hiding?

Tweet