The Case of Preston Hughes III: The Big Sleep

No one wrote better than Raymond Chandler. No one.

From the conclusion of Chandler's The Big Sleep

Outside, the bright gardens had a haunted look, as though small wild eyes were watching me from behind the bushes, as though the sunshine itself had a mysterious something in its light. I got into my car and drove off down the hill. 

What did it matter where you lay once you were dead? In a dirty sump or in a marble tower on top of a high hill? You were dead, you were sleeping the big sleep, you were not bothered by things like that. Oil and water were the same as wind and air to you. You just slept the big sleep, not caring about the nastiness of how you died or where you fell. Me, I was part of the nastiness now.

I'm part of the nastiness now. For Marlowe, it was Rusty Regan lying at the bottom of an oil sump. For me it is a suicidal young woman lying in a lonely graveyard, a bullet hole in her face. It is a one-year-old boy, lying in his crib, asphyxiated by an electrical fire. It is a fifteen-year-old girl and her three-year-old cousin with stab wounds in their necks, bleeding out in a dark, overgrown field.

The Big Tension in the case of Preston Hughes is Shandra's time-of-death. Having learned from her autopsy report that her left carotid artery and left jugular vein had been transected, it seems impossible she survived her neck wound for more than a couple minutes, much less remained conscious long enough to provide a dying declaration. On the other hand, it is painful to accept that the police would actually frame someone for capital murder.

The implications associated with Shandra's neck wound are therefore numerous, startling, and ugly.

The Wound
From Shandra's autopsy report (Brain Teaser #2):

The stab wound track perforated the soft tissues and muscles of the neck, transected the left jugular vein and the left common carotid artery and the track ended in the soft tissues and muscles of the neck with an approximate depth of penetration of 3-1/2 inches.

Survivability
Ice hockey goalie Cling Malarchuk survived a nearly severed carotid. (Pools of Blood) Malarchuk survived, however, only because someone stuck their fingers into his neck wound and pinched the artery.

Malarchuk's life was saved by the team's trainer, Jim Pizutelli, a former Army medic who had served in Vietnam. He reached into Malarchuk's neck and pinched off the bleeding, not letting go until doctors arrived to begin suturing the wound. ... It is estimated that if the skate had hit 1/8 in (3mm) higher on Malarchuk's carotid, he would have been dead within two minutes.

The brain needs a constant supply of freshly oxygenated blood. Judoka have known this for more than a century. They know they can render an opponent unconscious within 14 seconds by restricting the flow of blood through both carotids. (Shime-Waza)

If only one carotid is blocked, the other carotid can still provide blood to the brain via the Circle of Willis. (Where's Willis?) The problem with a severed (rather than a blocked) carotoid is the rapid blood loss: the remaining carotid will have insufficient blood (and blood pressure) to supply the Circle of Willis.

As an aid to understanding how long a human might survive severed carotids, sheep provide a valuable analog. They have nearly the same blood volume and cardiac output as humans, they are routinely slaughtered by severing one or both of the carotids, and people have studied how long the sheep maintain brain function after their neck injuries. (Where's Willis?)

If both carotids (and jugulars) are severed, sheep will maintain brain function for 14 seconds. That is the same amount of time a judoka can remain conscious while being properly choked. If the carotid and jugular are severed on one side only, sheep lose brain function in 70 seconds. (Silence of the Lambs)

If we assume sheep are as good an analog for a single, non-functioning carotid as they are for two, then it is exceptionally unlikely that Shandra Charles survived more than 90 seconds after her carotid was completely severed.

The majority of medical expert witnesses recognize that humans cannot survive severed carotid for more than a few minutes. I base that on my survey of expert witness testimony from murder trials involving severed carotids, one side only. (Cases Involving Carotid Arteries)  In the summary chart below, the label "Several" represents several minutes, a couple of minutes, and within minutes.

Fifty percent of the medical expert witnesses put the maximum survival time as no more than several minutes, or a few minutes. Seventy-five percent of the experts place the survival time as no more than five minutes.

For what it is worth, the prosecution-friendly, fill-in medical examiner testified during Hughes' trial that he could not rule out the possibility Shandra was stabbed as early as 8:30 PM and died as late as 12:58 AM. In other words, he left open the possibility that Shandra might have lived for 268 minutes after having her carotid separated. That would make him a serious outlier.

Consciousness
Neither the prosecution nor the defense bothered to ask how long Shandra might have remained conscious after having her carotid severed. Once again, the experts agree it couldn't have been very long. (Cases Involving Carotid Arteries)

Not a single expert believed someone could remain conscious for more than three minutes after suffering a severed carotid. No one any where at any time, as far as I know, has suggested that someone with a severed carotid could regain consciousness without medical treatment, without at least first aid.

While the time-of-death summary might provide a minuscule glimmer of hope for those who really, really, really want to trust the HPD, the time-of-consciousness summary must shatter any thought that Shandra Charles could have been conscious when she allegedly named "Preston" as her attacker.

Implications
Stand by for precautionary statements.

IF Shandra Charles' left carotid artery was in fact transected, as per the autopsy report, AND

IF by "transected" the autopsy report means "severed" as I have so frequently used the word, AND

IF someone who suffers a severed carotid will lose (and not regain) consciousness within three minutes and/or dies within five minutes unless provided medical care, AND

IF that person is not provided medical care within such five minutes, AND

IF Shandra Charles was not exceptional with respect to succumbing to a severed carotid, AND

IF the HPD reports which I have frequently referenced are accurate representations of the actual HPD reports in this case, AND

IF the first officers on the scene did not arrive within five minutes of Shandra having her carotid severed,

THEN ...

HPD Officers Cook and Baker ...
knowingly or unwittingly filed a false police report. Shandra Charles could not have been alive and breathing deeply when they discovered her on the trail. This would explain why they did not bother to apply first aid to Shandra, though they applied CPR to Marcell, who they admitted was already dead.

If Cook and/or Baker testified similarly at a preliminary hearing or at trial or anywhere under oath (and I do not know that they did), then they knowingly or unwittingly provided false testimony. ... AND

HPD Sgt. D. Hamilton ...
knowingly filed a false police report. Shandra Charles could not have been alive, much less conscious, when he arrived on the scene. Shandra Charles could not, therefore, have provided a dying declaration. Shandra Charles could not have identified Preston as her attacker. This would explain why Sgt. Hamilton did not apply first aid to Shandra. It would also explain why Sgt. Hamilton strangely sat with Shandra all by himself, as Cook and Becker stood watching from Marcell's body.

If Hamilton testified similarly at a preliminary hearing or at trial or anywhere under oath (and I do not know that he did), then Sgt. Hamilton perjured himself. ... AND

HFD Ambulance Driver M.S. Miller and HFD Paramedic M. Atkinson ...
knowingly or wittingly transported a dead person while leaving a second dead person at the scene. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Shandra Charles died not long before she was discovered, that she was not displaying incontrovertible signs of being dead for a lengthy period, and that Sgt. Hamilton informed them she had spoken with him just recently. ... AND


HFD Ambulance Driver M.S. Miller and HFD Paramedic M. Atkinson ...
knowingly or wittingly delivered a dead person to the emergency room of West Houston Medical Center. This might help explain why the hospital refused to accept Shandra Charles. It's certainly less odious than turning away someone bleeding out from a neck wound. ... AND


HFD Ambulance Driver M.S. Miller and/or HFD Paramedic M. Atkinson ...
lied about Shandra being alive when they arrived on the scene and lied about Shandra saying something about her cousin, ASSUMING HPD Officer J.L. Waltmon was accurate when reporting what they told him. ... AND

HPD Officer J.L. Waltmon
filed a false police report when he claimed that Miller and/or Atkinson told him Shandra was alive when they arrived on scene and that she said something about her cousin, ASSUMING Miller and Atkinson never said any such thing.

If Miller and/or Atkinson did not say such thing, and if Waltmon testified under oath that they did (and I do not know that he did) then Officer Waltmon perjured himself. ... AND

HPD Sergeants Gafford and Bloyd
may have filed a false police report when they reported that they located Preston Hughes because Shandra told Hamilton that she had been attacked by someone named Preston, and that Preston lived in the Lakeside Apartments.

Even given all the qualifications I have already made abundantly clear, it is possible that Hamilton deceived Gafford and Bloyd about Shandra's dying declaration. That would leave unexplained, however, why the three began their search in the Lakehurst apartments, though Shandra allegedly told Hamilton her attacker lived at Lakeside. It would leave unexplained, also, why the three called off their search for the Preston who lived at Lakeside without searching for a Preston who lived at the Lakeside Green apartment complex, located just north of the lot where Shandra was found murdered. It would leave unexplained also why the three did not search for any Preston living in the Lakewood Village apartment complex, easily visible from Preston Hughes' bedroom widow.

Someone seemed familiar with the names of the apartment complexes in the area. Though Shandra allegedly said Lakeside, the three searched Lakehurst and only Lakehurst.

If Sergeants Gafford and/or Bloyd were aware that Shandra Charles did not provide a dying declaration, and if they testified at a preliminary hearing or at trial or anywhere under oath as per their police report, then Sergeants Gafford and/or Bloyd perjured themselves.

Why Preston Hughes?
The 64 Thousand Dollar Question becomes: Why did the HPD so quickly home in on Preston Hughes if Shandra did not identify him in a dying declaration. You need look no further than Sgt. Gafford's views of the Hartleys to understand why. I offer this reminder.

The uniformed patrol officers had detained a male, and knew the location of the males [sic] wife, who had called the police a short time before the compls were discovered. These witnesses are known in the area from past incidents,and are known by the area officers to be somewhat unstable, a condition which Sgt observed this date as well. The information provided by these witnesses does not appear relevant to this case.

Many police have little use for people they consider to be low-lifes, unless of course they need to purchase accomplice or snitch testimony. Drew Hartley and Barbara Szekely were on the HPD list of low-lifes, and so was Preston Hughes.

Recall this segment from Guest Blogger Al's introductory posts to this series:

This is a difficult matter. Hughes states that he ‘plead out’ this charge even though he was innocent of the crime. Do we believe this, especially considering the assault of Shandra Charles would be the second time this charge had been leveled at Hughes within a three year period?

Putting myself in place of a juror, I would be inclined to at least maintain some doubt about the conviction, and side with Hughes. First reason, Hughes serves no jail time, but is released on probation for sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl and then of threatening her with a gun after she filed a complaint with the police. In a law and order state like Texas, I don’t believe the state would release a violent criminal unless the prosecution’s case was exceptionally weak. Second, Hughes was 20 at the time, so the possibility that the relationship with his accuser was consensual is plausible. Lastly, as a young man without the resources to defend himself, it’s highly probable that he would take a plea deal like to this since it involved no jail time rather than risk a trial.

Now from Hughes v. Quarterman (2008)

At the punishment phase, the State called Tracy Heggar. She testified that Hughes had raped her in 1985, when she was thirteen years old. She testified further that Hughes had threatened her with a gun in an attempt to prevent her from testifying against him about the rape. The State also presented evidence that, at the time of the murders, Hughes was serving two ten-year probated terms for the aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault of Heggar.

My hypothesis (and it is only that) follows immediately.

The HPD considered Hughes a child molester, the lowest of the low-lifes. They believed also that he had threatened his victim with a gun, yet he walked around free. (The evidence against him must have indeed been weak.) Hamilton arrives on the scene and finds a girl about the age of Tracy Heggar dead on the trail, her pants pulled part way down her hips. He knows Preston Hughes lives in the apartment nearby, but mis-remembers the name as Lakeside. (There were three complexes in the immediate area with "Lake" in their names.)

Shandra is dead, but not yet showing incontrovertible signs of being dead. He turns her over and sits alone beside her, instructing others to perform such tasks as keep watch over Marcell or run back to the Stop N Go to round up Drew Hartley.

When the paramedics arrive, he tells them that the boy is dead but the girl just spoke to him. They begin medical treatment by applying pressure to her neck wound, inserting an airway, and forcing blood into Shandra's right carotid artery.

They begin CPR. Once they begin, they cannot stop until their patient is declared dead.

They rush her to West Houston Memorial, just a mile away, and they roll her into the critical care unit. West Memorial, however, realizes that Shandra Charles is sleeping the big sleep, and they refuse to admit her. A quarrel ensues. That quarrel accounts for the missing 13 minutes in the paramedics' futile search for a hospital. Even as they arrive so late at Ben Taub, they continue to apply CPR.

HFD Ambulance Driver M.S. Miller and HFD Paramedic M. Atkinson stand out as the only players in this nasty, ugly case to perform their jobs professionally and heroically.

While Miller and Atkinson relentlessly try to save Shandra's life, Hamilton, Gafford, and Bloyd home in on Preston. They go through the motions of checking the resident list at Lakehurst, but they make no effort to check the resident lists at Lakewood Village or Lakeside Green. They knock on Preston's door then take him in for questioning.

Gafford makes it a point to note in his report that Hughes was the last person to leave his apartment and that Hughes locked the door with his keys. Nice touch. Gafford does not anticipate that the complex manager Joseph Casler will testify that at around 1:00 AM, he gave Gafford a set of master keys and pointed out three that would open Hughes' apartment door.

While Hughes is being transported to the station, or while Hughes is cooling his heels at the station, Gafford and/or Hamilton and/or Bloyd and/or Hale and/or others return to Preston's apartment and search it. They find a bloody knife in Preston's closet. The figure they have the right man. They don't realize that Preston's knife cannot be the murder weapon. They plant a pair of glasses in his couch, collect some evidence and have Officer F.L. Hale come in, take photographs, and collect the evidence.

Hale is not completely clued into what is going on. He takes a photograph of Preston's entry. That photo reveals he was there at night.

Hale records most, but not all of the evidence collected and turns it into the property room.  Property Officer  F.L. Martin puts Hale's typewritten property invoice into his own typewriter, enters a time of 2:58am and types his name. His typewriter has a fresher ribbon than does Hale's and the 2:58am stands out like a sore thumb. His typewritten text does not line up with Hale's typewritten text. Officer Martin signs his name to the invoice, as did Officer Hale.

Believing that they have the murder weapon in hand, Gafford and Bloyd begin their interview with Hughes at 4:10 AM. Preston acknowledges that he knows Evelyn Brown, Shandra's friend. Strangely, Gafford claims that acknowledgment convinced them to arrest Hughes.

Sgts then asked Hughes if he knew a female by the name of Shawn. Hughes stated that he knew one girl name Shawn ... that he last saw her when she came by his apartment about two months ago with a girlfriend named Evelyn. ...

It now became clear to Sgts that, due to: the naming of "Preston" by the #1 compl as the suspect, the close proximity of Preston Hughes residence to the murder scene, and the fact that Preston Hughes does know both the compl and Evelyn, Sgt. Gafford now arrested Preston Hughes as a suspect in this case.

I suggest they did not arrest Hughes because he acknowledged meeting Evelyn Brown two months earlier. I suggest instead that they arrested him because they found what they believed to be the murder weapon during a surreptitious, illegal search of his apartment.

The police type out their police reports after Hughes has confessed twice. They know names of the victims and know of their relationship. They incorporate that information into their story that Shandra as concerned about her cousin Marcell.

Shandra, however, could not have told them such a thing because she lapsed into unconsciousness within minutes of having her carotid severed, and she died soon thereafter. That means also that the paramedics could not have heard her say anything about her cousin. According to this hypothesis, because it is still a working hypothesis, Officer Waltmon joined in the conspiracy to frame Preston Hughes by reporting that the paramedics told him that Shandra Charles mentioned her cousin.

Not surprisingly, the HPD did not take a signed statement from the either ambulance drive D.S. Miller or paramedic M. Atkinson.

Gafford and others would also file a false police report (and possibly perjure themselves) when they wrote (or swore under oath) that they searched Preston's apartment only after securing a Voluntary Consent for Search and Seizure form around 5:30 AM. That form was pretty clearly manufactured.

-----

The HPD decided Preston Hughes should die. Now the State and people of Texas want to see him sleep the big sleep.

And now they are part of that nastiness.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

The Impending Execution of Yokamon Hearn

Yokamon Laneal Hearn sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Texas, tomorrow, 18 July 2012. It seems unlikely he will survive the day.

I do not find a good summary of his case in any appellate decision available online. I therefore excerpt from a lengthy Amnesty International article about Hearn's case. 

On 26 March 1998, the body of Frank Meziere, a 23-year-old finance graduate from Texas A&M University who had been working with Merrill Lynch in Dallas for the previous eight months, was found in a field near a water treatment plant in Oak Cliff, southwest Dallas. He had last been seen alive the previous evening at a restaurant in the Upper Greenville area in the north of the city. After leaving the restaurant, he had apparently gone to a coin-operated carwash to wash his car and had been spotted by a group of youths in a nearby 7-Eleven store who were looking to steal a car. Two hours after his body was discovered, Frank Meziere’s abandoned Ford Mustang was found in the car park of a shopping centre about five miles (eight kilometres) away in East Kiest, Dallas. 

Yokamon Hearn and Delvin Diles were arrested at a motel in Dallas on 29 March 1998. 

In an interview that weekend, Yokamon Hearn’s mother described Yokamon, her only child, as “a little slow, to be honest… He’s like a 15-year-old”. Having spoken to him by phone on 29 March after his arrest, she said that he was “trying not to break down, but I could hear the scaredness in his voice”. 

Yokamon Hearn could not afford a lawyer so he was appointed one by the trial judge. 

Yokamon Hearn’s current lawyers have argued that his conduct following the crime – including what the prosecution portrayed to the jury as remorselessness and a reason for the death penalty – provide an insight into his mental deficiencies:

Mr Hearn drove the murder victim’s car back to the house of one of his co-defendants. Someone told him to leave the car somewhere else, and another person directed him to leave it in the parking lot of a shopping center. Mr Hearn left the car in a shopping center parking lot, as directed, but failed to take minimal steps to ensure that the car would be inconspicuous. The lights were left on and the trunk was left open, thereby drawing attention of an individual who notified the police. In addition, Mr Hearn left the victim’s wallet with a friend, Aaron Runnels, who was himself impaired. A relative of Mr Runnels found the wallet in Mr Runnels’ room, where it had been left in plain sight. 

After the commission of the crime, Mr Hearn boasted to others that he had killed someone. One person explained [at the trial] that Mr Hearn, ‘was trying to make himself look… like a big person… [He] was talking loud, walking around, smiling. He kept repeating what they did and he said he killed a white boy…’ Aaron Runnels testified that the day after the murder, Mr Hearn was waving a newspaper article about the case, ‘telling everybody that he killed the man.’

In 2006, Yokamon Hearn’s current lawyers obtained sworn statements from his three codefendants, Delvin Diles, Teresa Shavonn Shirley, and Dwight Paul Burley, all serving sentences at that time in various facilities in Texas for their roles in the abduction and killing of Frank Meziere. 

Delvin Diles said: “The night Mr Meziere died, it was Dwight’s idea to go jacking. Jacking meant to take someone’s car. Before we got to the 7-Eleven, there was no plan to kill Mr Meziere or anyone else. Once we were at the 7-Eleven, the fact that we didn't have masks to cover our faces came up. I said that we should kill Mr Meziere and Yogi [Yokamon] said he was cool with it. It was never Yogi’s idea to kill the man”. 

Teresa Shirley said:“Yogi was an ‘impressionist’. When I say that Yogi was an ‘impressionist’, I mean that he did things to impress the guys in the group… The night Mr Meziere got shot, the plan was to go to North Dallas and ‘hit a lick’. To ‘hit a lick’ means to rob someone. I know that the plan was not to kill anyone because when we returned to Dwight’s house after Mr Meziere got shot, Dwight and Yogi got into a fight. Dwight was yelling at Yogi asking him why he shot the guy, why he did that”. 

Dwight Burley said: “Yogi rolled with the flow. Yogi followed along with what the group decided… Yogi was a follower. He didn't have the skills to be a leader. When we went to North Dallas the day Mr Meziere got killed, the plan was not to kill anyone. We only planned to get money. The whole thing wasn’t supposed to be like it happened. There was no plan, it just happened. He never said he was going to shoot the guy”. 

On 10 December 1998 – the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the 12 jurors deliberated for about 50 minutes before rejecting Yokamon Hearn’s not guilty plea and finding him guilty of the murder of Frank Meziere. “We’re pleased with the verdict and the speed of the verdict”, the prosecutor was quoted as saying afterwards.  

The speed continued. The sentencing hearing began on that same day and ended on the next, 11 December 1998. The jury deliberated for about an hour before handing down a death sentence. 

At the conclusion of the sentencing phase, the jury had been asked to consider a question, namely: “Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that the defendant, Yokamon Laneal Hearn, would commit criminal acts of violence in the future that would constitute a continuing threat to society?” A jury’s affirmative response to the so-called “future dangerousness” question is a prerequisite for a death sentence in Texas. Such a sentencing scheme asks a jury to engage in little more than crystal ball gazing – predicting human behaviour based on an individual’s past conduct. Prosecutors encourage jurors to vote for death by painting a picture of a dangerously irredeemable defendant, and perhaps by stoking fear of crime. Arguing for the death penalty at the 2011 murder trial of teenaged offender Cortne Mareese Robinson, for example, a Texas prosecutor told the jury that a razor blade had been found in Robinson’s possession while in pre-trial custody. “The World Trade Center was brought down by a razor blade,” the prosecutor said. 

The jury voted for death. 

In Yokamon Hearn’s case, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had boasted to friends that the killing had made the headlines. The case “proved that criminals read the paper”, the lead prosecutor said immediately after Hearn’s trial. “Hopefully, the next group of would-be criminals will read this paper about Yokamon Hearn getting the death penalty and it will be a deterrent”. 

In the absence of proof of any special deterrent effect of the death penalty, hope – rather than any guarantee – that the death penalty will deter murder is all there can be for its advocates. Hope is an unsafe platform on which to base an irrevocable punishment. 

Forty years ago, concurring in the decision to end the death penalty in the USA as then being applied, US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall referred to this absence of proof: “Despite the fact that abolitionists have not proved non-deterrence beyond a reasonable doubt, they have succeeded in showing by clear and convincing evidence that capital punishment is not necessary as a deterrent to crime in our society. This is all that they must do. We would shirk our judicial responsibilities if we failed to accept the presently existing statistics and demanded more proof. It may be that we now possess all the proof that anyone could ever hope to assemble on the subject.”

For a complete explanation of Amnesty International's opposition to Hearn's execution, visit their summary at the link provided above.

It is my public and unwavering strategy to oppose only those executions in which I feel the person to be executed may be innocent of the crime for which he is to die. In all other case, I stand mute regarding the propriety of the execution. I neither support it nor oppose it.

In the case of Yokamon Hearn, I stand mute.

ADDENDUM (18 July 2012):
Yokamon Hearn was executed by the people of Texas on 18 July 2012. He was pronounced dead after an injection of pentobarbital. Cause of death will be recorded as "Homicide", the killing of one human by another.

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 -->