Proof of Evidence Tampering continued….
While it may be difficult to
believe that law enforcement officials would tamper with evidence in order to
wrongfully convict a person-it is a fact of life that can no longer be ignored
nor covered up. Every time you turn on the television and learn of yet another
person being released from prison after a wrongful conviction; remember that
man or woman was framed for a crime they did not commit. In 2015 this occurred
on an average of 3 a week. How many innocent people remain who will never prove
their innocence, or will languish in prison for decades until the right
attorney, advocate or organization takes up their cause? Americans have been
desensitized and come to expect stories and images of police beatings, murdering
and yes framing suspects. Before you discard my story of police misconduct,
reconsider.
The first 2 posts detailed the
problematic nature of samples #19 and Q4.1, along with corroborating documents.
This update will focus on crime scene hairs and laboratory microscope slides.
1.
Investigators testified when examining the
victim’s body they spotted several hairs that were collected by peeling them
off the body because they had dried in blood.
2.
A pair of panties was found next to the victim’s
body which the FBI described as “saturated in blood”.
3.
In 1999 all of the evidence in this case was
sent to the FBI in Washington D.C., including the victims’ underwear and hairs from
the underwear, placing them on small microscope slides. The slides were labeled as follows:
a)
Q4-Victims Panties
b)
Q20-Q21-Debris paper bags on hands
c)
Q22 #1-Victims torso
d)
Q22#2-Victims torso
e)
Q23-Victims left hand
f)
Q24-Victims right hand
4.
Former FBI trace Analyst Max Houck examined all
39 slides made in this case. Several contained hairs that were dissimilar to
Corey Parkers’ hair samples.
5. Of particular note, slide Q4 contained several
hairs, of which only one was not dyed an artificial color. This single hair had
a root attached that was tested for DNA in August 2000 (see previous post on
hair root Q4.1)
6. In February 2000, before I became suspect, the
FBI returned the microscope slides to the Jacksonville Beach Police Department.
7. On November 28, 2000, I was arrested based off
the DNA results from samples #19 and Q4.1 (see previous 2 posts)
8. In early 2002 my attorney had the Q4
slide sent to a defense laboratory, Microtrace, to compare my hair sample to
the one unidentified on the slide. Of importance, Microtrace noted the Q4 slide
held 14 hairs! This count became very important later in the case.
9. After nearly 3 years in jail the prosecutors
recognized the unreliable nature of the evidence against me. In early 2003, 5
years after Parkers’ murder, the state decided to reexamine the hair slides.
10.
Detective Billy Carlyle, accompanied by an FDLE
technician, my attorneys and a defense investigator came to the Duval County
Jail to collect a hair sample from me.
Detective Billy Carlyle refused to allow me or my attorneys to count, measure
or photograph the collected hairs and my lawyer stopped the collection.
11.
The next day the Judge assigned to the case
ordered Detective Billy Carlyle to permit my council to count, measure and
photograph the hairs collected.
12. In April 2003, Detective Billy Carlyle mailed my
hair samples and the original 39 FBI slides to Max Houck who left the FBI to
become the Director of Forensics at the University of West Virginia.
13. Upon reviewing the slides, Houck identified 4
hairs that he felt should be tested for mitochondrial DNA.
14.
Interestingly, Max Houck counted only 12
hairs on slide Q4, whereas Microtrace counted 14 hairs on it a year earlier. Also
Max Houck counted that slide Q22 #2 contained 5 hairs and slide Q24 held 3
hairs. Max Houck returned the slides to Detective Billy Carlyle.
15.
In January 2004, the slides were mailed to a
laboratory in Pennsylvania, called Mitotyping, so the 4 hairs identified by
Houck could be tested for mtDNA.
16.
Mitotyping received and testing one hair each
from slides Q4, Q22 #1, Q22 #2 and Q 24. On March 1, 2004, Mitotyping reported
that one hair each from slides Q4, Q22 #1 and Q24 matched my DNA.
17.
A review of Mytotypings’ notes revealed
that upon receipt of the slides, Q22 #2 contained 7 hairs, whereas it only had
5 hairs when examined by Max Houck. In addition, slide Q24 contained 5 hairs
rather than 3 hairs as counted by Max Houck.
18.
Mitotyping returned the evidence to the
Jacksonville Beach Police Department. Shortly after, defense council requested
that all original 39 slides be returned to Max Houck in West Virginia to
identify additional hairs for testing.
19.
Max Houck re-examined the slides and marked 12
more hairs for DNA testing. Most surprisingly is the fact that Houck marked a
second hair on slide Q4 for testing. However, during Houcks’ previous 2
examinations, he only noted 1 hair not artificially dyed/colored and dissimilar
to Corey Parkers’ hair. (Exhibit lettering out of order from this point on).
20.
Max Houck then sent the slides to a private lab
in North Carolina called LapCorp.
21.
LapCorp tested 12 hairs from various slides
which had been marked by Houck. Several matched Corey Parkers’ boyfriend. One
matched Corey Parker. 4 were unidentified, including one found in Coreys’ right
hand. Finally 3 hairs matched my mtDNA. One each from slides Q4, Q20 –Q21 and
Q24.
22.
In light of the new incriminating evidence, yet
questionable evidence, Max Houck was deposed and surprised everyone when he
admitted that none of the 6 hairs matching my DNA had blood on them when he
examined them under a microscope. Yet, had these hairs been collected from the
victims’ body or blood saturated panties, they should have been covered in
blood like all the other hairs collected.
23.
In all 16 hairs from various slides were tested
for mtDNA. Six of the hairs reportedly matched my DNA.
a)
2 from Q4-victims panties
b)
2 from Q24-victims right hand
c)
1 from Q20-Q21-paper bags, hands
d)
1 from Q22 #1-victims torso
24.
Each of the hairs matching my DNA were not
tested until nearly six years after the murder, and after my hairs were
collected, and after gross discrepancies in hair counts occurred.
25.
The Jacksonville Beach Police Department did not
maintain a complete chain of custody for the hair slides. Approximately 10
property logs exist (that I know of) for the slides when there should have been
one. Each of the 10 logs is different and not a single one is complete or 100%
accurate. Normally a chain of custody log would document each time a piece of
evidence comes or goes, who signed it in or out, and for what reason. That did not
happen here. E.T. Choate, however claimed at trial that all evidence was
properly tracked.
There can be only one explanation
for the absence of blood on hair, count discrepancies, and inadequate chain of
custody logs – evidence tampering. Is this the type of evidence we allow to
convict people?
*** Next Post – Zippo Lighter and
Blue Shirt
