Friday, July 27, 2012

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Brain Teaser #5

Here's a quick one for zero points:  What the hell did I do with Brain Teaser #3?

Now Brain Teaser #5, for 10 points.

In The Searchers, I state with confidence that there were no visible blood stains or droplets on any of Preston's clothing. None. I claim also that the police, the crime lab, and (possibly) the prosecutor knew that to be so.

You win the 10 nugatory Skeptical Juror points by being the first to provide a compelling explanation of either:

1. Why I am incorrect, or

2. Why I am correct.

Go.

ADDENDUM (29 July 2012):
Ten nugatory points to Oscar Anon. Allow me to summarize the points he made and add some of my own.

We can be confident that there was no visible blood on the clothing for the following reasons:

1. The jeans, shoes, and socks are either white or pale enough that any blood stain would be obvious. There is no blood visible in any of the photos. It would be statistically unlikely if in each case substantial blood was apparent only on the portions not visible in the photos.

2. The clothing was not tested until three days before the trial. If they State believed there was visible blood stains of any size on the clothing, they would have tested it sooner.

4. The HPD didn't (at least initially) test individual stains to unambiguously determine if they were blood. The HPD treated large areas of the clothing with a Luminol like substance. Luminol, and the similar substances, are used to detect blood that is otherwise invisible. The testing was designed to give them some idea which areas they might subject to definitive blood tests. Luminol type testing, at best, can indicate only possible areas of blood. The test returns false positives for many ingredients, and is therefore never to be used as the sole determinant for the presence of blood.

5. No blood was found during the subsequent, more definitive testing. The State attempted to leave the impression that the follow-on testing was unable to discriminate between between human blood and animal blood because there insufficient blood remaining to test after the initial Luminol type testing. That's a generous interpretation. The more straightforward interpretation is that there was no blood identified by the more definitive testing.

6. The State did not show the jury those portions of the clothing on which the testing was conducted. That would have made it clear to the jury that there were no visible blood stains on the clothing. Instead, the State showed the jury only those areas of the clothing where even they conceded were no visible signs of blood. They showed the clothing with the samples removed, but did not show the samples.

In summary, there was no visible signs of blood, nor was any detected during any non-ambiguous testing. The State nonetheless left the jury with the impression that substantial amounts of blood had been discovered on multiple areas of the jeans and shirt.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tsj, no blood was visible as the prosecution on sent items for testing around april 24 & the trial was to start may 1st. Prestons shoes were white so blood would have been visible obvious. The lab rat had to circle places on an item that indicated the presence to blood under lighting with a magic marker because it was not visible to the naked eye. As you correctly pointed out- many substance react to that light including washing detergents like biozet & oxyaction detergents. 

As of March 2007  all that remains of the evidence is a box "CONTAINING (1) EMPTY "BUSCH" BEER CAN ENVELOPE CONTAINING (1) WHITE STRAP
ENVELOPE CONTAINING (1) WHITE PLASTIC BAG PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING (1) WHITE ADIDAS T-SHOE PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING (1) MAROON CLOTH BELT
SGT WOOD SEALED THE BOX CONTAINING THE LISTED ITEMS AND MAINTAINED CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE BOX UNTIL TAGGED INTO THE HPD PROPERTY ROOM.
SGT WOOD DID NOT LOCATE, OBSERVE OR RECEIVE ANY OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.CASE." 

I am not convinced that Hughes is innocent nor am I certain of his guilt.
I have been following you for a while- and like you am v skeptical and question everything. 
You have proposed and supported some possible scenarios , would make a great book however, there is not enough information avail on the internet, especially the lack of court transcripts,to make a real case or to attract the attention of the media.
Hughes has posted bits and pieces which are of course favorable to him, but it's not the entire picture. Which begs the question- why not put it all out there.

Agreed all the evidence is circumstantial. Perhaps hpd did plant the glasses and the weed. And it seems unfathomable that there is NO blood evidence anywhere to be found- given the injuries.  I  am concerned about his 2 previous charges of sexual assault and perhaps a 3rd on "Linda" whose brothers Preston stated he feared. Also has been reported that Preston admitted in a confession that she was too scared to go home because she was going to get her ass whopped by her (moms?) husband. 

But it seems that PH attorney made that clear at the trial- there was no blood evidence. 
I have to credit a jury of 12 citizens with more intelligence than that.
What part of the story isn't being told about PH guilt? 

I have spent too many hours looking into this. 
Preston said he walked or ran his dog up and down the car park a few times- not that he walked his dog in there -given the frakenmap and the time of night- why would he walk his dog down the dark path? 

Would like to hear more  from the worker from Fudruckers who discovered Shandra (was it jamie?) on his way HOME from work. He was apparently putting rubbish in the trash when police arrived on the scene. while his manager was on the phone to police. He pointed out to police where Shandra was. 
That seems odd. If he had come upon her and she was alive- one would think he would go call for help and then return to assist her, comfort her or something. Not just return to work and take the trash out. 
Maybe she was already dead. 
Oscar Anon

rene van den berg said...

they knew because he was framed,so there couldnt

be any blood

rene vd berg

Post a Comment