The Case of Preston Hughes III: Miscellany

We have pretty much completed our investigation of the crime scene and surrounding area, our evaluation of the victim's wounds, and our consideration of witness testimony. It is nearly time to examine Preston's apartment and the evidence secured therefrom. We will do that soon in a sub-series of posts. Now is a good time to catch up on some miscellaneous issues, none of which is probably worthy of its own posts.

Afro
Barbara Szekely reported that the shadowy figure that watched / stalked / pursued her had an "afro type haircut". One reader asked if Preston wore his hair in an afro. According to Preston's mother, Preston did not. Also according to Preston's mother, Douglas Swanson did not, at that time, wear his hair in an afro.

Time of Death
In Prelude to Murder, Act III, I approximated the time Drew Hartley heard a woman scream to be 9:42 PM. I suggested also that he may have then witnessed a woman being dragged into the field by two black males, and that the woman may have been Shandra Charles. At least one reader argued Shandra Charles could not have been dragged into the field at 9:42 because Shandra Charles died closer to 11:30 PM.

That argument requires a reasonable, logical leap that I declined to make. The argument assumes that Shandra was killed soon after she was abducted around 9:42, or that Hartley saw a different woman abducted, or that Hartley saw no one abducted.

In any case, I did not claim or assume Shandra was killed immediately after she was abducted. It is time, however, for for me to make a shocking admission.

I know Shandra's time-of-death within a minute or two.

I know her time-of-death much more accurately than I know when Drew Hartley heard a woman scream. I know her time-of-death much more accurately than I know when Drew Hartley saw a woman (whom he believed to be his wife) being dragged in to the field by two black males.

I know, with high confidence, that Shandra Charles died 90 seconds after her carotid artery was severed.

What I don't know with any great accuracy is when Shandra Charles was stabbed in the neck. While it is not unreasonable to suspect that she may have been stabbed immediately after being abducted, I am not yet ready to make that assumption.

Preston's Walk Home

Also in response to Prelude to Murder, Act III, one reader suggested I had gone a long way to proving Preston's guilt. That reader felt that 9:42 PM was suspiciously close the time Preston Hughes usually walked from the bus stop to his apartment via Shandra's trail. (Note the multiple questionable assumptions, which I'll let pass.) Given that Hughes claimed to have missed the bus on the very same day that two young people were killed at the very same time and place Hughes would normally be walking, the reader felt it was all too coincidental.

There are numerous problems with this hypothesized coincidence, but I will mention just one. After sleeping through his bus stop the first time, Preston called a cab. The cab dropped him off at his apartment complex. The details of a cab ride could have been (and certainly should have been) checked by the police.

Guest Blogger Al mentioned the cab ride in the very first post in this series, in Part I of his two-part summary. From that guest post:

Hughes has no alibi. He had been drinking that night with his friends after work from 6:30 to 8pm. He then caught a bus and a cab to get home, and though there is no documentation in the police report, it's likely he arrive at his apartment near 10.30pm that night.

The cab ride was also mentioned in the HPD Police Reports, to which I have linked many times. The police accepted Preston's cab ride as true. From Sgt. Gafford's report.

Hughes rode fell [sic] alseep [sic] on the bus and ended up at end [sic] of the route at Hwy 6 and Westheimer. Hughes called a cab and was taken home to the Lakehurst Apts. He stated that he went into the apt and checked the football game score and after that he went to bed.

Hughes provided the most detailed telling of that incident in his first confession. I have not yet included his entire confession in any post, so I'll include the relevant portion here. From his first confession:

I was feeling good and fell asleep on the bus and then didn't wake up until the end of the route at Westheimer and Hwy 6. I walked a couple of blocks to a circle K at 14244 Westheimer and called for a cab. A yellow cab took me to my apartment complex, right in the parking lot behind my apartment. I got home about 10:30 or so, and went to my apartment and turned the T.V. on to check the game.

Holy alibi, Batman.

Preston Hughes might indeed have an alibi. If Hartley did hear Shandra scream and/or if he did see Shandra abducted, and if my time estimate is correct or approximately so, then Hughes was on a bus, or walking to call a cab after missing his bus stop, or in a cab when Shandra screamed as she was being dragged into the field.

Maybe that's why the police were so quick to dismiss Hartley's eyewitness / earwitness account, and why they seemingly failed to check the cab company records.

Hartley's Trail

My post Prelude to Murder, Act III also generated comments renewing speculation that Shandra was walking to Fuddrucker's when she was attacked. The reader seemed to realize that Shandra had no loose change in her pocket and therefore was not returning from Fuddrucker's. The reader also seemed to recognize that Fuddrucker's probably closed at 10 and Shandra would not have had much time to order and eat before closing. The reader therefore suggested that Shandra had called in an order and was merely walking along the dark, lightly-traveled pathway to pick up the order before closing. 

I'll try once again to dispel the thought that Shandra was in that field for anything as innocent as purchasing a hamburger walking from (or to) a family oriented hamburger joint. Shandra Charles and Evelyn Brown had been visiting "friends" in the Lakewood Village Apartments. That's the Lakewood Village Apartments, the more southern complex. That is not the Lakehurst Apartments, the more northern complex, where Hughes lived.

Evelyn Brown left Shandra at their friends' apartment around 9:30 PM. Based on Drew's story and my time estimate, Drew heard a woman scream at 9:42 PM, just as he was taking the shortcut through the field from the southern complex to the northern complex.

Earlier, when Drew and Barbara began their walk to the Stop N Go (or wherever they really intended to go), they too left from a friend's apartment in the Lakewood Village complex. According to their reports, they took the southern route, which I will now refer to as Hartley's trail.

If you were to (back then) enter the field from the Lakewood Village complex, and you were heading to Fuddrucker's or the Stop N Go, the natural route was the southern trail, Hartley's Trail. It was more heavily traveled, it was wider, it was less covered, it would have be better lit by whatever moonlight there was, AND ... it would have been shorter. Consider two Frankenmap shots from Prelude to Murder, Act I.

Shandra's Trail (north) and Hartley's Trail (south)

Drew's Trail Highlighted

Given that Shandra left from the Lakewood Village Apartments, why would she eschew the southern trail?

So I ask once again, what as Shandra doing in the field that night?

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

Hank Skinner: Letter From and To

Hank,

After reading (with considerable interest) your letter of February 27, I put it aside with the intention of responding quickly. Now it is July 12, and I am just now writing the reply. I apologize for the extreme delay. As this terribly belated letter unfolds, you will understand at least some of the reason for the delay.

I intend to post your letter on my blog for all to share. I will redact at least one segment because I feel it might be a bit to private for me to share without your explicit permission. I intend to respond to your letter on a paragraph by paragraph basis. I'll preface each paragraph with the author, either you or me. I don't have many formatting options when writing via JPay.

If you forgive me the convenience, most of my reply will be as I just described. On the plus side, it will allow you to see what I posted about you and your letter, and it will remind you of what you wrote so long ago.

---

Skinner: Dear John,

Skinner: Hey man, it seems like we'd sort of lost contact for a minute. I am writing in reference to the book you sent me out of the Skeptical Juror series. That has to to be one of the most well researched, logically analyzed reviews of a criminal case I've ever read.

Allen: I don't actually recall which of the three I sent you, but thank you for the compliment.

Skinner: And yet, knowing what I do about criminal law, forensic disciplines & human behavior, I was able to instantly spot the flaws in it or, potential areas of error.

Allen: I hope you mean that you were able to spot the flaws and potential areas of error in the trial itself, rather than in my analysis of the trial. Either way, I have no doubt you are capable of doing so.

Skinner: I remember a little about you, I think I once teased you about being a rocket scientist? Seems your neice mentioned to me you were an aerospace engineer? I know, from my limited contact/involvement w/you that you are definitely an exceedingly brilliant man.

Allen: I was indeed an aerospace engineer, but I worked on the design of commerical aircraft rather than rockets. My job classification did include both the words engineer and scientist, but probably because the company was not clear on the distinction. Nonetheless, I guess that makes me officially a scientist.

Allen: I abandoned aerospace more than a decade ago out of frustration that the industry is glacially slow to pursue new, innovative designs. I now describe myself as a recovering engineer. The Skeptical Spouse assures me I will never recover. I'm geeked out for life.

Allen: Regarding your second (overly-kind) compliment, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary. I will accept, however, that I can be pretty darn persistent. That frequently annoying trait can easily be misinterpreted as either stupid or brilliant when it fact it only implies stubbornness.

Skinner: I think we have some similar goals/interests in the legal field, aside from my case. I'm very interested in discussing that w/ you, if you're amenable to it?

Allen: I'm amenable as all get out, Hank. If you should write again, I'll make a good faith effort to be prompt with my reply.

Skinner: I'm sorry that we didn't get the book wrote about my case but it ended up that you were working w/ a too compressed time schedule & the time wasn't in the best interest of the defense goals, while we had this thing in the U.S. Supreme Court & immediately afterward. This crazy D.A. was still trying to get me killed. I don't know if you're still keeping up w/ what's going on w/ me but I've just barely survived another execution date where I came w/in two days of dying 11.09.11. At least I got to see Sandrine.

Allen: I offered to write of your case only if you and your attorneys thought it would help. I absolutely understand that my writing could have aggravated rather than helped your case. I'm working on several cases behind the scenes that I choose not to write about. I hope I understand the value of discretion. That's why I gave you guys a pocket veto option.

Allen: I have indeed been keeping up with your case. In fact, I broke an oath so that I could write about you winning the right to have the DNA tested. I had previously told my readers that I would not write about anything other than impending executions (each of which I review) and the case of Preston Hughes III. I have yet to break that oath on any other occasion, though I have been sorely tempted.  More about Preston Hughes in a bit.

Allen: I guess I'll be breaking the oath again just to post this letter. I'll make up a lame excuse.

Skinner: In June of last year at the end of the legislative session they changed the DNA law & took out the "no fault" provision that the CCA had used to deny me in Sept 2009. We filed a new Ch 64 DNA motion on Sept 06th, 2011 five days after the new law took effect Sept 01st. The trial judge, Schmemmert (that's a combo of Schmuck/Emmert) sat on it for 6 wks & summarily denied it, no reason given. The CCA issued a stay at the last minute, copy enclosed.

Allen: So that the readers know, the judge's actual name is Steven Emmert. This raises an issue. I literally (and thankfully) cannot imagine how terrible it would be to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced for a crime I did not commit. I find it even more difficult to imagine a death sentence and decades on death row and coming within minutes of being executed. I suspect that I would be exceptionally angry, bitter, and spiteful. (Alternatively, I might go insane, as has apparently Cesar Fierro.)

Allen: I therefore border on being completely out-of-line here to suggest that your spite is not your most endearing quality. (Emoticon smile. I worked for a long time trying to phrase that criticism so discreetly.) Your writing is on occasion touched with invective. I recall specifically your public writing of DA Lynn Switzer and your New Hell Hole News #28. I note that most exonerees seem to be not angry, not bitter, not spiteful. I find that amazing and impressive. Though it is not their intent, it makes them seem (to the viewer) that they are bigger than the system that treated them so terribly.

Allen: Assuming the DNA testing in your case comes out as expected, as I certainly hope it does, you may soon join the ranks of the exonerees. I fear that I would not have their composure and grace. I fear that I would not have it within me to be gracious (or at least silent) to everyone who had rained down injustice, privation, and sorrow upon me. I suspect, however, that you do have it within you. Perhaps you might put some thought into such issues.

Skinner: The trial judge Schmemmert was ordered to go back & make findings on his denial - the reason for it. So he just said I failed to prove the evidence I want to test, even if it provided exculpatory results, woudn't mee the standard of 64.03 - that there's a reasonable probability I wouldn't have been tried or convicted. He also "found" that I was filing the motion only for purposes of delay or thwarting the adminstration of justice or whatever. That was really crazy in light of the language used in the CCA stay order (enclosed).

Skinner: In other events, you keep up with the movie business at all? As you probably know, my wife is in such Biz. You ever hear of Werner Herzog? Check him out on the internet. I couldn't have found a bettter friend or person to produce/direct a documentary w/ me in it. Thank God I'm not the only one in it.

Allen: Your wife is an amazing woman. In that regard, you are blessed.

Allen: I do know of Werner Herzog. A while ago, I watched Fitzcarraldo. Good movie. Wikipedia provides this summary.

Wikipedia: Fitzcarraldo is a 1982 film written and directed by Werner Herzog and starring Klaus Kinski as the title character. It portrays would-be rubber baron Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald, an Irishman known as Fitzcarraldo in Peru, who has to pull a steamship over a steep hill in order to access a rich rubber territory. The film is derived from the real-life story of Peruvian rubber baron Carlos Fitzcarrald.

Allen: Herzog also co-wrote "Incident at Loch Ness", which seemed normal at first, then a bit strange, then very strange, then hilarious.

Skinner: So ... the movie is called "Gazing into the Abyss: Tales of Death, Tales of life." There's a lot of press converage you can check out on the internet, if you want.

Allen: "Gazing into the Abyss: Tales of Death, Tales of Life" was transformed into "On Death Row" and aired earlier this year on the Investigation Discovery channel. I watched all the segments, including yours. I haven't seen you smile as much as you did while you were being interviewed by Herzog, and I've never seen you laugh other than during those interviews

Skinner: That catches you up w/ what's been happening w/ me an my saga. Some of the sad part is that I've probably inadvertantly & unintentionally sabotaged some of my own stuff by not being more careful who I talk shit about &/or piss off. My problem there was two-fold: 1.) I got very discouraged and despressed in early 2008 & most of that year; I can't go into a detailed explanation of it but I thought I wanted to die just to get an end to my suffering. I won't say I consciously thought that but I was aware of the potential consequences & ignored them willfully. 2.) << Redacted >>

Skinner: So, if you will, tell me what's been up with you?

Allen: We are all doing fine here. Our database design business is stuggling due in part due to the economy and in part due to my waning attention to it. I'm busy writing about wrongful convictions in general, and I am working hard on three cases in particular. I still work to free Byron Case, the subject of my first book. We're making progress, but other than that I feel it unwise to discuss his case.

Allen: I more recently (assuming two years ago can be considered in way recent) I took on the case of Michael Ledford. Michael was convicted of killing his one-year old son via arson. He confessed to it, at least briefly. The problem is two-fold. First, His confession is wildly inconsistent with the crime scene evidence. Second, the fire was not caused by arson, but by an electrical failure common to several units in the complex. Once again, I feel it unwise to casually discuss his case, at least for now.

Allen: I even more recently unilaterally [meaning without Preston's knowledge -- tsj] took on the case of Preston Hughes III, who is sharing Texas death row with you. The evidence against him is superficially overwhelming, but in reality little more than a poorly manufactured house of cards. Because he may be soon given an execution date, I have been spending long hours analyzing the case documents and presenting my results publicly. Though I have been doing this since Janurary or so, I still have a long way to go. I have written 35 or so extended posts already, and I believe I will end up with over 50 before I am through. Preston and I have only recently started communicating.

Allen; These three cases go a long way to explaining my delay in responding to your letter. You, Hank Skinner, have some of the best legal minds in the world working to free you. In that regard also, you are blessed. The three people I am trying to free have little more than their families and me. Byron Case has no attorney whatsoever. Michael Ledford has an attorney only for mundane, day-to-day purposes. Preston Hughes believes his court-appointed attorney is acting contrary to Preston's best interests and clearly-stated desires. You must certainly realize, Hank, that if you did not have such generous help from such highly-skilled, assertive counsel, you would be long gone.

Skinner: Incidentally, how would you feel about writing the book still, but waiting until I get out of here (if that happens) & us doing it together? Of course, if they kill me I guess you can do whatever you want do do, by yourself. Ha/ha.

Allen: That's certainly a generous offer, and it looks as if you might indeed be getting out of there. You've been quoted seemingly everywhere as saying your long nightmare may soon be over. That said, the chance that two personalities such as yours and mine could collaborate on a book is exceptionally unlikely. Anyway, my next book is already long overdue. It will be about the rate of wrongful conviction. (More and more evidence is coming to light that the rate is around 10%.) If, after that book I write about a specific case, I suspect I will write about Michael Ledford. When you walk free, Michael Ledford will still be on the inside.

Skinner: I would really like to meet The Skeptical Niece and The Skeptical Spouse too. So would Sandrine.

Allen: I'm not a particularly public person, but it would certainly be nice to meet the two of you when you are not under the limelight.

Skinner: In reality, I doubt seriously that I will ever get out of here - but one has to hope for something, huh. I should've been home & drinking a cold beer 13 years ago. "Justice" is certainly not what it's cracked up to be.

Allen: Things have really changed since you wrote these words.

Skinner: I'm interested in semiotics. You ever hear of Umberto Eco? He is a professor of semiotics in Milan, Italy. I've read several of his books. His methodoogy of communicating via a story is very singlular, to say the least. It's actually about 10 different stories at once, epending on your ability to comprehend what he's actually saying - his references & symbolisms are amazing. I just happened to be familiar w/a lot of the arcana etc he used in one of his most recent books, "The Prague Cemetery" & I caught up in it sorta by accident. So I thought about it & I let it stew, I went back & I reread it, it was like a flower unfolding. It reminds me of what Katherine Neville said about one of her books, "The Eight" -- "What you get out of it totally depends on what you bring into it. I had a similar but different experience with it.

Allen: I have indeed heard of Umberto Eco. The Name of the Rose is one of my favorite books. I like that book so much I tried several times to read another of his books, Foucault's Pendulum, but I couldn't force myself to finish it. He's not an easy read. I guess I don't bring enough to his books. My bad.

Skinner: I take it you're mainly concerned w/ the branches / disciplines of semiotics dealing w/ pragmatics & semantics, not syntactics.

Allen: So that the readers know, you are referring to our company's name of Allen & Allen Semiotics, Inc.  Again for the readers, I note that semiotics is the theory and study of signs and symbols, especially as elements of language or other systems of communication. The Skeptical Spouse has a degree in semiotics. I have a degree in engineering. I'll ask her which of the three we are mainly concerned with.

Skinner: I'll be hoping to hear from you soon. Pls tell the Skeptical Niece I'd like to hear from her too if she'd care to write.

Skinner: Best Regards

Skinner: Hank.

Allen: And best regards to you too, Hank.

Allen: John

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Brain Teaser #4

Barbara Lunsford has graciously shared with me all the case documents and photos which she acquired on her own initiative and her own dime. (Thousands of dimes, actually.) One set of photos was described as Preston's Apartment. That collection consisted of 14 interior and 2 exterior shots. For now, I offer only the 2 exterior shots.

Consider the photos carefully. There is exculpatory evidence here, and there is mystery.

I offer 10 points for the first person to explain why they photos are exculpatory. I offer 10 points for the first person to identify the mystery. I offer 50 points for the first person to explain (to my satisfaction) why the HPD took these photos.

This is an open book brain teaser. Feel free to search the HPD police reports, any of my previous posts, the interior photos Barbara has already posted online, Google, Bing, etc.

ADDENDUM (10 July 2010):
I award Matt (from California) the 10 Skeptical Juror points for being the first to mention the photos were taken at night (or very early morning) though the police photographer claimed he got the call at 8:30 AM.

Hale's police report indicates to me that he received the call to head over to Preston's apartment at about 8:30 AM. Whether he is off by a little bit or not, there can be no denying at that time of year that the sun would have been up for some time. But the pictures of the stairs leading up to his apartment and of his front door were both taken well before sunup. Seems like the times do not add up at all.

The darkness is exculpatory because it impeaches the HPD claim about their search of Preston's apartment, particularly when coupled with the 2:42 AM log in time for the evidence collected from his apartment.

Preston claims the HPD planted Shandra's glasses in his apartment, then faked the Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure form. He was certainly right about the form being manufactured. (See Documents Gone Wild.)  The HPD, on the other hand, now seems to have lied (one again) about when they searched Preston's apartment. 

Advantage Preston.

(Except for the small issue of Preston facing execution while the HPD guys go on about their lives as if they did nothing wrong.)

ADDENDUM (11 July 2010):
I award Rene vd Berg (from the Netherlands) the 10 Skeptical Juror points for being the first to recognize that the two photos were of different buildings.

first photo is from a different house taken at night for the reason stated above,staircase is wooden.second photo is taken bij daylight,light is unlit en must be taken at the actual search.later was not possible because of the police sealing of the house, which must be visible after the search,the stickers ribbon etc.

Not only are the two staircases different, the two buildings have different siding material. I disagree with Rene, however, on the timing of the photo. Though it is not as obviously taken in the dark as is the first photo, I believe nonetheless that it was. Consider the shadows cast by the right hand railing. They are crisp and dark, as if the railing was being illuminated by bright direct lighting such as a flash or a spotlight. The shadows are not faint and indistinct as they would be if illuminated by early morning, post sunrise, diffuse lighting. Consider also the darkness underneath landing at the lower right of the photo.

The fact that the photos are of two different buildings poses a mystery in three parts.

1. Given that only the second photograph is of Preston's apartment (as per the address), what building was captured in the first photograph?

2. Why was the building photographed?

3. Why was the photograph included in response to Barbara Lunsford's request for all the photos associated with the case of Preston Hughes III?

Fifty points still remain to be awarded to the first person to solve the mystery. I can (and will eventually) provide a specific answer to the first question, but I can only speculate regarding the second two. I will therefore award the fifty points to anyone who provides the correct answer to part 1 of the mystery, and 100 bonus points to anyone who can provide a definitive answer to parts 2 and/or 3.

ADDENDUM #3 (12 July 2010)
I hereby award Rene vd Berg (from the Netherlands) the fifty points for properly identifying the building in the first photograph.

i think that the first photo has been taken from the north west corner of the lakewood complex looking south east.the object just left looks like the garbagedisposel which is stil in place today ( goolemaps).the roofline corresponce ,with notch, also look at the vert.lines, bricks wood. the wooden staircase is also the same used in the lakewood complex.why? i think it is the view from the hole in the fence.just for the general view...

That gives Rene 60 Skeptical Juror nugatory points total. Not only is Rene now in the lead as an individual, Netherlands is now in the lead as a country. This is, in my unbiased opinion, bigger than all the ice skating gold medals I anticipate they will win in the upcoming Olympics.

I offered 50 points for this portion of the brain teaser because it required not only observational skills (limited to the documents I present in my post) but investigation mettle as well. Rene relied on Google maps to search both the Lakehurst apartment complex (where Preston lived) and the Lakewood Village complex (where some other interesting characters lived). I search both Google maps and Bing maps. I found the best view of the building from Bing's bird's eye view.

Here ya go.

I've circled the northwest apartment building in the Lakewood Village complex. Rene identified that building as the one in the first photo. It's not at all obvious from this satellite view. I'm not sure how Rene homed in on that building, but I magnified to the max allowable, then scanned each of the complexes from multiple directions. I did so in both Google Earth and Bing Bird's Eye. Here's a better shot, looking from the south, using Bing's Bird's Eye view.

Then I clipped the image and magnified further using Gimp. Here's the best shot.

It's a bit blurry due to the latest magnification, but you can clearly see the staircase, the distinctive design of the front of the building, and even the metal container still in the lower right corner. The clincher for me was the quarter-circle curb to the right of the building. I find nothing close anywhere else in either complex.

That is certainly the building in the first photo, so I awarded Rene the 50 points. I do not, on the other had award any points for providing a compelling explanation on why the photo was taken and included in the package sent to Barbara Lunsford. Rene suggested it was simply take to provide a general view of the region surrounding the hole in the fence.

Incorrect. Thanks for playing.

If you were, on that night, standing by the infamous hole in the fence, you would not be able to see the building. A tall fence would be in the way. Here's a reminder photo from Shandra's Trail

See? The photographer must have been standing just on the other side of the fence at the left of the screen. But why? I have some thoughts, but I want a definitive answer. The 100 bonus points remain to be won. I suspect they can be won only by someone with intimate knowledge of the building or the HPD. Speculation is nonetheless welcome.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Summary

Current as of September 23, 2012:

Sixteen year old Shandra Charles and her three-year old cousin Marcell Taylor were stabbed to death in a dark, overgrown, wooded field located in west Houston. Each suffered two stab wounds: one each to the chest and one each to the neck. Shandra's left carotid and jugular were completely severed. Marcell's left carotid and jugular were punctured.

The evidence that Preston Hughes committed the murders consists of:

1. Shandra Charles identified her assailant as "Preston" to a police officer before she died.

2. The murder weapon was found in Preston's apartment. There was blood on the knife.

3. Preston's clothes, recently worn, had blood on them.

4. Shandra's glasses were discovered in Preston's apartment.

5. Preston Hughes confessed, not just once, but twice.

I summarize my findings below.

1. Shandra Charles could not have possibly identified anyone as her assailant. Anyone with a severed carotid artery will lose brain function within 90 seconds. They will die soon thereafter, within several minutes. The police officer claiming to have heard a dying declaration arrived on the scene no earlier than 15 minutes after the stabbing. The officer reported that, rather than attempting to staunch the blood from her bleeding neck wound, he interviewed her. The officer reported that she was calm and spoke in complete sentences. This cannot be true.

Pools of Blood
Eleven Twenty Five
Cases Involving Carotid Arteries
Exsanguination
Silence of the Lambs
Where's Willis?
Shime-Waza

2. Preston's knife, the one found in his apartment, was not the murder weapon. The knife has a single-edge blade approximately 1" wide. The neck wounds were made with a double-edged blade approximately 5/8" wide.

Shandra's Neck
Stabbings Well Done
Stabbings Redeaux
On Being Blunt
The Right Tool for the Job
Marcell's Neck

3. No blood was visible on the clothing. The police seemed particularly uninterested in testing the clothing for blood. After 213 days of no testing, the clothing was subjected to a presumptive test for blood just 4 days before the head of the serology lab would testify at trial. The presumptive test would be positive for blood. The areas of clothing highlighted during the presumptive test were then subjected to a definitive test. The definitive test was negative for blood. There was no blood on Preston's clothing.

The Searchers
Down the Rabbit Hole

4. A pair of eyeglasses was indeed found between the cushions of Preston's sofa. The police conducted two searches of Preston's apartment: one before 2:58 AM and one after sunrise. Items from Preston's apartment were secured during the first search and turned into the property locker at 2:58 AM. The eyeglasses were not listed among the items turned in. The items were then removed from the property locker, returned to Preston's apartment, and staged for photographs taken during the second search. The eyeglasses appear only during this second search in which the other items were clearly staged.

The Searchers Part 2
The Searchers Part 3
Singularity
Down the Rabbit Hole

5. Preston's two confessions are the most exculpatory documents of all. They reveal that he had no knowledge of the crime. In each confession, he confessed to stabbing Shandra as many as ten times.  In the first confession, he made no mention of Marcell being stabbed. In the second confession, he confessed to stabbing Marcell in close proximity to Shandra. Both confessions are falsified by the facts of the crime scene. Shandra and Marcell were each stabbed only twice, and in identical, precise fashion: one stab wound to the chest and one stab wound to the neck. Shandra and Marcell were not stabbed in proximity to one another.

Confession #1
A Blogger's Cruelty
14244
The Big Why
The Big How
Easy Peasy
The Gingerbread Man
Confession #2

In summary, not a single piece of evidence used to convict Preston Hughes withstands scrutiny. There is no viable evidence that Preston Hughes committed the crime.

None.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

Independence Day 2012

June 25, 2012

Mr. Preston Hughes III
Polunsky Unit #000939
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas 77351

[My Address Redacted]

Dear Mr. Allen

Hello. I hope this letter finds you doing very well, in the best of health and spirits and in the comfort of God's graces and care upon your receipt. At the time of the writing of this letter I am doing as well as can be expected of one considering the unfortunate circumstances and conditions I have been forced to endure for twenty-three years.

My name is Preston Hughes III. I have been provided with some of the information you've posted on The Skeptical Juror website concerning the wrongful conviction against me. I'm writing to you today because I thought you may be interested in reading about a matter concerning the wrongful conviction. Please feel free to post this letter (or the relevant portions of it) and materials enclosed on the website.

I have obtained evidence that proves the police illegally searched my apartment prior to arresting me without a warrant and without probable cause, planted false evidence (taken from the crime scene where the victims were found) between the cushions of one of my couches and created a fabricated consent for search and seizure to justify their illegal searches of my apartment. This evidence could help establish the fact that I am innocent as well as prove wrongdoings by the police and prosecutor. However I need the immediate assistance of an attorney to prepare and file an effective appeal arguing the fact that I was denied, in state court, the opportunity for full and fair examination/review of the "original exhibit" Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure in evidence that is claimed by the police and prosecutor to be an alleged original consent.

An examination of the original exhibit, by a Forensic Document Examiner, will in fact determine the signature, Preston Hughes III, on the fabricated consent isn't authentic. I NEVER signed a consent for search and seizure. The signature on the fabrication wasn't made from ink in an ink pen. It's "XEROXED." I have determined what document bearing the signature Preston Hughes III was used in the creation of the fabrication but I have unsuccessful in my attempts to obtain a copy of the document.

[Omitted: approximately one entire page detailing evidence of faked Voluntary Consent and Seizure form.]

I have been denied a fair trial, under due process of law, and the opportunity to effectively appeal the wrongful conviction against me. I have been trying to get this matter, along with others, exposed for over two decades but have been unable to do so, due to the fact I have been misrepresented by nothing but court appointed attorneys that have been helping the state to keep these matters covered up.

Thursday, June 21, 2012, I received a letter from the ineffective court appointed attorney that has been misrepresenting me for the past several years. He wrote to tell me that I'll be bench warranted to Houston a week or so from the date of this letter (June 19th) for a hearing in which the trial judge is going to schedule an execution date for sometime in November.

Before I make it back to Houston the attorney will have done something he knows I DON'T want him to do, which is file a successive State Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I don't want him filing the appeal because he's working to help the state keep the wrongdoings against me covered up and trying to help the state wrongfully kill me. Therefore he'll be filing yet another frivolous appeal.

I must raise $5,000.00 dollars immediately to enable me to finance the services of an investigator to obtain evidence and information that establishes my innocence and further wrongdoings by the police and prosecutor. The evidence and information will have to be used for the purpose of getting a stay of execution, since I was unable to locate an attorney to file effective State Petition for Write of Habeas Corpus on my behalf.

To learn more about the wrongful conviction against me and the wrongdoings of the police, prosecutor and court appointed attorneys, and how donations can be made to help me, please log onto: www.mysterycrimescene.com/preston-hughes-time-recap.html and www.prestonhughes.blogspot.com.

I would like to thank you in advance for your time, cooperation, and any assistance you could give in the above matters. Your assistance would be gratefully appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[Signed]
Preston Hughes III

-----

Offender : PRESTON III HUGHES, ID: 00000939
Sender : John B Allen
Date : 6/30/2012 3:23:05 PM EST, Letter ID: 36641140
Location : TL

Preston,
   I received your letter today. I realize time is critical. I'll get straight to the point. I'll also be brief and compact in my writing because of cost considerations associated with JPAY.
   I am not an attorney or a licensed investigator, but I have been researching and writing extensively of your case. I have uncovered additional evidence of your innocence.
   First, it is impossible that Shandra Charles gave the police your name in a dying declaration. She died soon after she was stabbed, well before the police arrived. Her carotid was transected (completely severed) according to the autopsy reports, which I have obtained. A person can live for only about 90 seconds with a severed carotid. I wrote a half dozen or so posts about that issue on my blog The Skeptical Juror. I'll provide more information to you via U.S. mail.
   Second, none of the wounds had a blunt edge, again according to the autopsy report. If a single-edged knife made the wounds, the neck wounds would have revealed a blunt edge. For technical reasons, the chest wounds may or may not have revealed a blunt edge. The neck wounds were made with a double-edged knife, not the single-edged knife they took from your apartment and presented in court as the murder weapon.
   Third, I have found additional information that the voluntary consent to search form was fabricated from pieces, as you claim. In addition to the tape lines (visible above your signature AND across the top of the page), the typewriter line spacing is inconsistent between the upper and lower halves of that document. Within the upper half, the line spacing is consistent with a typewriter. Within the lower half, the line spacing is also consistent with a typewritten. Taken together, however, the line spacing is not consistent. It changes somewhere between the upper and lower halves. That document was not created during one pass through a typewriter.
   Fourth, I have reviewed the photographs obtained by Barbara Lunsford. Two of those photographs show your apartment from the outside. They were both taken at night. I assume none of the officers who arrived at your apartment that night had a camera with them. If they did not, then those external, nighttime photos are evidence the police returned to your apartment to search it before they had a warrant or a consent (manufactured or otherwise). Those external, nighttime photos are consistent with the time the items taken from your apartment were logged into the property room, i.e. 2:58 AM. I suspect, as you do, that the glasses were planted there during that warrantless, non-consensual search.
   The evidence against you seems to consist of Shandra's dying declaration (which we now know could not have happened), the knife found in your apartment (which we now know could not have been the murder weapon), the glasses found in your couch (which we have even more evidence may have been planted), the small spots of blood found on your clothes (which are absolutely inconsistent with someone who just severed two carotid arteries), and your confessions (which show you had no idea of what happened in that field that night.)
   In summary, I may be the investigator you've been hoping to find for so long. While I am a writer, rather than a professional investigator, I nonetheless seem to have a knack for finding in the case documents critical evidence that others have missed. And while I might not be exactly what you had in mind, the good news is two-fold: I work pro bono and I have already uncovered additional evidence of your innocence.
   I intend to keep researching and writing about your case, now with an even greater sense of urgency. I also intend to search for a capable, assertive, pro-bono attorney to take on your case. Here's what I need from you, by return U.S. mail as quickly as possible.
   1. Inform me if you in fact wish my help researching your case and seeking an attorney.
   2. Give me permission to tell attorneys I contact that I contact them on your behalf.
   3. Inform me of any legal issues I should be aware of. Is it necessary, proper, and/or wise that I coordinate with your court-appointed counsel. In any case, please provide me with the contact information for your attorney. Please tell me whether or not you wish that I touch base with him.
   4. Inform me of any restrictions regarding what I send you via U.S. mail. Is there a restriction on length? Is there a restriction on attachments, such as printed images?
   5. Understand that I work with case documents. I would like a copy of every document you have. If you have had the document posted online or if you provided the document to Barbara Lunsford, then I already have a copy. If you have any other documents, please copy them (or have them copied) and send them to me as quickly as possible. No telling what I might find in them. I am particularly interested in all the trial transcripts, all the preliminary hearing transcripts, and any police reports. I am currently working with the statements provided by Drew Hartley and Barbara Szekely. They are helpful. If you are aware of police statements provided by anyone else, I would really like a copy.
   6. Please explain your appeals status. As I understand, you are out of all standard appeals, including the federal habeas appeal.
  7. In your letter to me, you claim that you know which document bearing your signature was used to manufacture the composite voluntary consent to search. Please describe that document in detail to me, including the form number (if any) located at the lower left of the document.
   Assuming you are interested in my continued involvement in your case, we will have much to talk about and little time to do so. Respond as quickly as you can. I will use JPAY at least initially to speed up the process on my end. From here on out, please call me John rather than Mr. Allen.
Regards,
John

  <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next -->