Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Soon to be Impending Execution of Jason Reeves


Jason Reeves sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Louisiana. Though most recently scheduled for execution on 15 August, three days prior to the date of this post, he has been given a stay based on the requests of his new attorneys.

I write of his case now to be done with it. While each case I write of is horrible in its own way, this one is one of the worst. I am not being coy when I suggest you may simply want to let this one be. I much prefer that you spend your time familiarizing yourself with the wrongful impending execution of Preston Hughes III. Links abound on my homescreen.

From State v. Reeves (2009)
On December 13, 2001, a Calcasieu Parish grand jury indicted the defendant, Jason Reeves, for the first degree murder of a four year old girl, identified as M.J.T., which occurred on November 12, 2001, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30. Reeves' first trial began with jury selection on October 27, 2003, and ended in a mistrial on November 9, 2003. 
Reeves' retrial commenced with jury selection on October 12, 2004. On November 5, 2004, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty as charged. After a penalty phase hearing, the same jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death after finding as aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape; (2) the victim was under the age of twelve years; and (3) the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. On December 10, 2004, after denying post-verdict motions, the trial court imposed the sentence of death in accordance with the jury's verdict. ... 
On November 12, 2001, at approximately 3:15 p.m., the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff's Office (CPSO) received a complaint of a suspicious vehicle at a school in Moss Bluff, Louisiana. The vehicle was described as a blue four-door, older model vehicle which may have been an Oldsmobile Cutlass. The driver of the vehicle, who was described as wearing a maroon t-shirt and blue jeans, was loitering in the parking lot of the school and conversing with two young female students. The complaint included the license plate number of the suspicious vehicle. A check on the license plate revealed that the defendant, Jason Manuel Reeves, was the owner of a blue Oldsmobile Cutlass, with the same license plate number, and that he had a criminal history of sexual offenses with minors. 
Shortly thereafter, at 5:02 p.m., the CPSO received a 911 call from the mother of a four-year old girl, M.J.T., who had disappeared from McFatter Trailer Park in Moss Bluff. The trailer park is located 3 miles from the school where the suspicious vehicle had been reported. The young girl's mother, C.T., told sheriff's deputies that she had seen a suspicious, older model, blue vehicle circling the trailer park prior to the time she realized her daughter was missing. She also remembered a red sticker in the vehicle's rear window. C.T. later identified Reeves' vehicle as the one she saw in the trailer park on November 12, 2001. 
That evening, CPSO deputies went to Reeves' home and obtained permission from him, and his mother with whom he lived, to search his vehicle and home. After finding no evidence connecting Reeves to the missing girl, the deputies informed Reeves of his constitutional rights and asked him to go to the sheriff's office for further questioning. Reeves agreed and followed the deputies in his own car to the CPSO because he did not know where the sheriff's office was located. 
Reeves arrived at the CPSO at approximately 10:20 p.m., was informed of his constitutional rights, and signed a form waiving them. He was initially questioned from 10:45 p.m. until 12:40 a.m. Thereafter, Reeves was taken to an interview room in the detectives' area, which is a secure area. Reeves was again informed of his constitutional rights and was questioned throughout the night with regard to his whereabouts and activities on November 12, 2001. 
Reeves told the officers that he had finished work at approximately 3 p.m., purchased a drink at a gas station, and driven home, arriving at approximately 4 p.m. Judy Doucet, the defendant's mother, told sheriff's deputies that she specifically remembered her son arriving home around 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. Throughout questioning, Reeves continually denied any involvement with the missing girl. These statements were not recorded. 
From the time M.J.T. was reported missing until sometime on November 13, 2001, individuals assisting in the search for M.J.T. recovered evidence from a creek located approximately 15 minutes from McFatter Trailer Park, near a wooden bridge on Charles Breaux Road. The victim's mother identified a pair of a child's white tennis shoes and a pair of girl's purple pants as having been worn by M.J.T. at the time of her disappearance. 
On November 13, 2001, at 9:16 a.m., deputies obtained Reeves' permission to obtain his bodily substances for testing, then transported him to a local hospital where the requested samples were obtained. A nurse collected blood samples, oral swabs, pubic hair combings and fingernail scrapings from Reeves. A physical examination of Reeves at this time showed scratches on the inside of his left upper thigh, on his nose, and on his arms. He also had abrasions on both knees. 
Around 11:40 a.m. on November 13, 2001, Reeves was placed under arrest on an outstanding warrant from another parish. At that time, Reeves was again informed of his constitutional rights, interrogated further, and then placed in the jail. During this interview, a detective made the statement that only two people knew what really happened to M.J.T. Reeves replied, "Yeah, me and the good Lord." Despite making this statement, Reeves continued to deny involvement with the disappearance of M.J.T. 
On November 14, 2001, at approximately 11 a.m., deputies took Reeves from his jail cell to the detectives' interview area where he was again Mirandized. Reeves continued to deny involvement with the missing girl but further details which had emerged in questioning were now preserved on videotape. While still maintaining he finished work around 2:30 p.m. or 3:00 p.m., he related that he had driven in the direction of the Chardele Trailer Park to visit his cousin, but turned around when he realized he did not know his cousin's trailer number. Reeves then headed back in the direction of Moss Bluff, stopping at a convenience store to purchase a Mountain Dew soft drink. He claimed he traveled along a highway toward his grandfather's house, but remembered en route that his grandfather would not be home. Reeves then claimed he turned around in the parking lot of a Moss Bluff school, speaking briefly to a woman there. He continued traveling and stopped along the way at McFatter Trailer Park to see an old friend, Kurt Leger, with whom he had worked offshore. He asked a group of children at the trailer park if they knew where his friend Kurt lived. Reeves then claimed his car overheated, so he waited for the vehicle to cool down before driving home, where he claimed to have arrived by 4:00 p.m. This statement concluded when lunch was brought to Reeves at 12:40 p.m. 
At approximately 2:30 p.m. on November 14, 2001, the body of M.J.T. was found in a secluded area in some woods, 10-15 yards off a trail next to LeBleu Cemetery. The cemetery is located approximately 8.2 miles from McFatter Trailer Park. A Mountain Dew soft drink bottle was recovered approximately 25 feet away from where the body was found. The little girl's body, clothed only in a purple shirt pulled up halfway and naked from the waist down, had been stabbed multiple times. M.J.T. was found lying on her back with her legs bent, with signs of sexual abuse evident. Before evidence was gathered or the body was touched, law enforcement officers videotaped the crime scene. 
Interrogation of Reeves began again around 8 p.m. Former FBI Agent Don Dixon confronted Reeves with photographs of M.J.T.'s body taken at the murder scene. As a pre-arranged strategy, Agent Dixon told Reeves that a latent print found on a palmetto leaf tied him to the murder scene. At 9:25 p.m., detectives began videotaping the interview, during which Reeves confessed to having the girl in his car and taking her to the cemetery. He walked with her into the nearby woods, where they sat down and watched a rabbit. Reeves whittled a piece of wood with his pocket knife. Reeves then claimed he blacked out and does not remember doing anything else to the little girl. The next thing Reeves remembers was walking toward his car parked in the cemetery's parking lot, stopping at his sister's grave, saying good-bye and that he was sorry. When he reached his car, he noticed his pants were unzipped and his knife was missing. 
Reeves had requested to speak with his mother. At 10:40 p.m., the videotape was stopped when Reeves' mother arrived at the sheriff's office. One of the detectives monitored Reeves' conversation with his mother and heard Reeves say, "I did this thing. I don't know why, but I did it." 
Thereafter, Reeves indicated that he wanted to finish the interview because his actions had hurt his mother and the victim's family. Reeves was Mirandized again and continued his statement at 11:12 p.m. He expanded his earlier statements and acknowledged that he picked up M.J.T. to "go fool with her." He took her to the cemetery since the cemetery was a secluded place. After visiting his sister's grave and becoming very angry, Reeves took M.J.T. to the woods and started touching her on her bottom. Reeves admitted he told M.J.T. throughout the encounter that he would bring her back home and other things in an attempt to calm her down. M.J.T. became upset and asked him to stop, which further angered Reeves, who was still wielding his knife. Although he claimed he did not remember taking off M.J.T.'s pants or assaulting her, Reeves acknowledged that he was the only person who could have stabbed her. Reeves hurried out of the cemetery, fearing that M.J.T. was not alive when he left her. He does not remember anything about disposing of her pants and shoes. He does remember driving home with dirt and possibly a light smear of blood on his arms. He rinsed off his arms with the outside hose before entering his house and seeing his mother, then took a bath. The statement concluded at 11:48 p.m. Reeves was subsequently arrested for aggravated kidnaping and first degree murder. 
On December 13, 2001, a Calcasieu Parish grand jury indicted Jason Reeves for the first degree murder of M.J.T. Specifically, the indictment states: "JASON MANUEL REEVES committed the offense of first degree murder in that he killed M.J.T., a female juvenile whose date of birth was March 25, 1997, with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon M.J.T. and was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape and/or M.J.T. was under the age of twelve years." 
At the guilt phase of this first degree murder trial, the state presented Reeves' videotaped statements to the jurors and evidence discovered through investigation. A maroon t-shirt and jeans, which the defendant had worn on November 12, 2001, were seized from his house. Reeves' mother had washed them before the police seized the items. A picture of Reeves' vehicle, admitted into evidence, shows that the vehicle is a blue four-door, older model Oldsmobile Cutlass with a red sticker on the back window. 
Two girls from the Moss Bluff school testified the defendant tried to talk to them on November 12, 2001. One of the girls, and the after-care provider who spoke with Reeves that day, identified him as the person who had been at the school near where M.J.T. disappeared. 
In addition, an off-duty Lake Charles city police officer testified that he saw Reeves at the cemetery at 4:40 p.m. on November 12, 2001. The officer, who was meeting with a confidential informant at the cemetery between 4:15 p.m. and 4:45 p.m., saw the defendant walking back to his car and leaving the cemetery parking lot. As Reeves drove right next to the officer in leaving the area, the two men came face-to-face with each other. The officer identified Reeves in court as the man he saw at the cemetery at 4:40 p.m. on November 12, 2001. 
The state presented testimony that a man-trailing dog identified the scent of the victim inside Reeves' vehicle. The man-trailing dog also followed Reeves' scent to a wooden bridge off Charles Breaux Road, under which the pants and shoes of M.J.T. were found in a creek. At the cemetery, the man-trailing dog went toward the water, then toward the woods and over the fence from the cemetery to the area where there were wood shavings on the ground. From there, the dog went to the place where the victim was found. At that point, the dog started whining and crying, and refused to go further. At each location, the dog's handler was given no information. 
The state presented expert testimony that the purple fibers from the victim's clothing matched fibers of vacuumed debris evidence from Reeves' vehicle. Hairs identified as dog hairs were found both in the defendant's vehicle and on the victim's clothing. During the recovery of evidence at the crime scene, maggots and an adult fly were recovered from the victim's body. An entomologist estimated that eggs were laid on the victim's body within one hour of her death and that the last time the eggs could have been laid considering their development was at approximately 5 p.m. on November 12, 2001. 
The coroner testified that the approximate time of M.J.T.'s death was 4:30 p.m. The cause of death was found to be multiple incised stab wounds of the neck and trunk. M.J.T.'s neck had been cut nearly two-thirds of the way around. In total, the victim had sixteen stab wounds, with fourteen on the front of her body and two on her back. Six of the stab wounds were in the area of the heart, while the heart itself was stabbed five times. The wounds to M.J.T.'s heart and back occurred while she was alive, although the stab wounds around her liver and mid-section occurred following death. There were long scrapes along the entire length of the victim's legs, which showed M.J.T. could have been dragged along the ground. Injuries on M.J.T.'s right hand were consistent with defensive wounds, showing that the little girl attempted to protect herself. Although she had been stabbed in the heart, the coroner believed M.J.T. would have survived for some time and would have suffered throughout the attack. 
M.J.T.'s body also showed she had been brutally sodomized while she was alive. Three visible scrapes and blood were visible on her anus. The forcible widening or opening of her anus was approximately three-fourths of an inch in circumference. Her body showed blue bruising around her bottom, which the coroner stated could only occur when blood is pumping and the victim is alive. Semen was found in the victim's anus. An expert forensic analyst matched the semen obtained from a rectal swab of the victim to Reeves' DNA profile. The expert testified the probability of finding the same DNA profile from another Caucasian individual other than Reeves was calculated as 1 in 256 trillion. 
After the state presented its evidence in the guilt phase, the defendant called, as a witness, an expert forensic psychologist, who testified as to his opinions regarding the reliability of the defendant's confession. 
After deliberating, the jury unanimously found that the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Reeves committed the first degree murder of M.J.T. After allowing the statutorily-required time period to elapse, the penalty phase of the trial began. 
At the penalty phase, the state introduced Reeves' prior criminal record, which included two juvenile adjudications for simple burglary and two adult convictions for indecent behavior with a juvenile, in 1996 and 1997, respectively. The victim of the 1996 conviction, N.T., testified that when she was 15 years old, the defendant drove her in his truck to a park. He pulled her pants down as she struggled against him. N.T. stopped his assault only when she bit Reeves on the shoulder so hard that he bled. The record of the 1996 conviction shows that Reeves' victim, S.D., was a 7 year old child. 
Further, the state presented testimony from a young girl, W.H., who described her encounter with Reeves on November 8, 2001, four days prior to M.J.T.'s disappearance and murder. W.H. stated that she was 13 years old on that date. She was walking to the office at Moss Bluff Middle School near the end of the school day when Reeves, walking past her in the opposite direction, grabbed her bottom. She ran quickly to the school's office to get help. 
The state also presented the testimony of Detectives Zaunbrecher and Primeaux of the CPSO. Both detectives testified that on December 10, 2001, Reeves had stated, in their presence, that he would not serve life in prison. While making a slitting motion across his neck, Reeves told the detectives that he would make them wish they had given him the death penalty if he did not get it. Reeves stated, "What are they gonna do, give me the—give me life in prison twice?" Further, Deputy Mandy Taggert, a CPSO transportation deputy, testified that Reeves told her that if he got out of jail, he would find another child and would kill again. Deputy Taggert stated that Reeves then began smiling and laughing after making that statement. 
The defense presented testimony from an expert in forensic psychology who asserted that Reeves suffers from major depression and mixed personality disorder, with borderline and anti-social personality traits. The defense expert testified that Reeves exhibits signs of dissociative amnesia stemming from chronic post traumatic stress disorder. The expert claimed that Reeves developed these disorders after witnessing his sister's death and being sexually assaulted as a young boy. Additionally, another defense expert determined that Reeves has an aggressive attitude and is prone to verbal and physical aggression. That defense expert testified, further, that the defendant also exhibits emotional instability, volatile interpersonal relationships, anger, mood swings and impulsivity. The defense expert did not find Reeves to be psychotic, schizophrenic, delusional or prone to hallucinations, or otherwise suffering from a mental illness. 
The state's forensic psychology expert countered that, from a psychiatric or psychological standpoint, he did not see a causative trigger which resulted in Reeves' criminal behavior. He did not feel that Reeves' actions in raping and murdering M.J.T. were a result of a post traumatic stress disorder. Rather, the state expert asserted that Reeves possessed the ability to discern and appreciate right from wrong. The state expert also discounted the defense expert's diagnosis of dissociative amnesia. According to the state expert, dissociative amnesia relates back to the traumatic events occurring previously in a person's life rather than to current memory lapses. 
After deliberation, the jury unanimously recommended that Reeves be sentenced to death, finding the victim was under 12 years old; the murder was committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an aggravated rape; and the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. After denying post-verdict motions, the trial court formally sentenced the defendant to death on December 10, 2004.
LAKE CHARLES, La. (AP) — A new execution date has yet to be set for a former Ragley man convicted of raping and killing a 4-year-old girl in 2001. 
Convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Mary Jean Thigpen, Jason Reeves was scheduled to be put to death on Wednesday. 
Reeves' death warrant was signed on May 31 and any post-conviction relief was to be filed within 30 days. Judge Mike Canaday said there was a change in Reeves' counsel, and the state received a call in June from his attorneys requesting more time to file. ... 
Reeves now has until Sept. 11 to file for post-conviction relief.
I stand mute.

The Impending Execution of John Balentine

John Lezell Balentine sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Texas on 22 August 2012. Given that his case has already been turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court, I suspect he will not survive the day.

From Balentine v. State (2002):
John Lezell Balentine was convicted of capital murder on April 19, 1999. ... 
Officer Timothy Hardin of the Amarillo Police Department testified that he was dispatched on a shots-fired call at 2:26 a.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 1998. When Hardin arrived, the complainant stated that he thought he had heard .22 caliber shots to the east of his residence. Hardin looked around and found nothing in the complainant's backyard or the alleyway behind the house. Two other officers then arrived and offered to assist Hardin by searching the area in their vehicle. After the officers left, Hardin noticed a man, later identified as Balentine, walking down the street two houses away from the complainant's residence. 
Hardin testified that when he first saw Balentine, Balentine had his hands in his pockets, appeared to be nervous, and was constantly looking over his shoulder in Hardin's direction. In addition, Balentine was walking away from Hardin at a brisk pace. Hardin ordered Balentine to stop and raise his hands in the air. Hardin then approached Balentine, and conducted a pat-down "Terry frisk" because he "didn't know if [Balentine] might be the person who had fired shots" and that he "wanted to make sure that there was no weapon on [Balentine] while I was speaking to him." Hardin did not feel any weapons. 
Nevertheless, Hardin suspected that Balentine may have been involved in the reported gunfire and he escorted Balentine to the back seat of his patrol car for questioning. When Hardin asked Balentine why he was in the area, Balentine stated that he was walking from a WalMart, which was approximately five miles away, to his sister's house, which was located several miles across town. Balentine identified himself as "John Lezell Smith" and told Hardin that he was staying with his sister. Balentine initially stated that he did not know his social security number but later told Hardin five of the digits. He then stated that he had planned to visit a friend in the area and agreed to let Hardin ask this friend to identify Balentine because Balentine did not have a driver's license or an identification card. 
Hardin drove Balentine to his friend's residence. Balentine's friend identified him as "John" and stated that he lived a block away, which contradicted Balentine's story that he was staying with his sister several miles across town. Balentine explained that his friend was unaware he had moved. When Hardin asked Balentine to show him where he used to live, Balentine gave Hardin an address that turned out to be an empty lot. 
Hardin asked Balentine if he had ever been arrested in Amarillo and Balentine replied that he had not. Hardin contacted the police dispatcher to run a records check. According to the police dispatcher, "John Lezell Smith" had been arrested for traffic warrants. Hardin again became concerned for his safety because he felt that a subject who would lie to him during questioning might "commit some type of unsafe act or conceal a weapon." 
Hardin placed Balentine in handcuffs, had him exit the vehicle, and conducted a second, more thorough pat-down search. When he patted down the outside of Balentine's front pants pocket, he felt what he thought was a small pocket knife. Hardin put his hand in Balentine's pocket and felt that the object was actually a lighter. While Hardin was feeling the lighter, his hand touched an object that he immediately recognized as a bullet. He removed the object from the pocket and saw that it was a .32 caliber bullet. Balentine told Hardin that he had recently been on a hunting trip and forgotten the bullet in his pocket. Hardin again placed Balentine in the patrol car and called a supervisor who told Hardin to complete a field interview card and then release Balentine because possession of a bullet was not against the law. 
Hardin returned the bullet to Balentine and offered him a ride to his sister's house, which Balentine accepted. The trip took five to ten minutes and Hardin dropped Balentine off at the residence at 3:36 a.m. Hardin returned to the area where he had detained Balentine to have another look around but found nothing. Later that day, officers for the Amarillo Police Department were called to the scene of a triple homicide that had occurred at a residence fifty yards from where Officer Hardin encountered Balentine. The police identified Balentine as a suspect the day the victims were discovered. Balentine was eventually arrested in July of 1998 in Houston. ... 
In addition, the State introduced evidence that the three victims were killed by .32 caliber bullets and that three spent cartridge shells found at the scene of the murders were marked identically to the bullet found on Balentine. ... 
Sergeant Paul Charles Horn, an investigator with the Special Crimes Unit in the Amarillo Police Department, was assigned to investigate the homicides. He testified at the suppression hearing that acquaintances of the victims identified "John Balentine" as a possible suspect. Investigators for the Unit also determined that "John Balentine" was the same individual as "John Lezell Smith," whom Officer Hardin encountered earlier that morning. They learned that Balentine had been staying in a building owned by Mr. Michael Means, located at 308 North Virginia Street in Amarillo. 
When Lieutenant Edward William Smith arrived at 308 North Virginia Street the following day, Means told him that he was not renting the residence to Balentine but that he had given him permission to stay there as a "guest" because "he felt sorry for him." 
[Footnote from the decision: Balentine had been living with his former girlfriend, Misty Caylor, who was the sister of one of the victims, Mark Caylor, in the residence in which the murders took place. That residence was  also owned by Means and Balentine came to know Means in the time he lived with Misty Caylor. Balentine contacted Means a few days before New Year's Day of 1998 and told Means that he had been thrown out of Misty Caylor's house.] 
Means gave written consent to search the residence. The police then searched the residence and found a receipt for the purchase of .32 caliber ammunition from a local K-Mart store. 
In his fourth point of error, Balentine challenges the admissibility of the taped confession that he gave after being arrested in Houston on July 24, 1998. 
... Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
From Austin's Statesman:
Balentine, 41, was condemned for the 1998 slayings of Mark Caylor Jr., 17, and 15-year-olds Kai Brooke Geyer and Steven Watson. Caylor was the brother of Balentine's former girlfriend, and prosecutors said the slayings capped a feud between Caylor and Balentine. 
Evidence showed all three were shot once in the head as they slept at an Amarillo house where Balentine also once lived. ... 
Balentine was pulled over in Houston in July 1998 and gave a traffic officer a false name, but the alias was detected as one used by a man wanted in the shooting deaths of the three teenage boys six months earlier in Amarillo. 
In a tape-recorded statement to police played at his trial, Balentine said he moved out of the Amarillo house because of drug use there, then said he learned later that Caylor was looking to kill him because he had "jumped on his sister." He slipped into the house and "shot Mark in the head and shot the other two in the head," he said. 
"Mark had threatened my life, threatened my brother, girlfriend and the kids, waving a gun and talking about what he was going to do to me and whoever else come over there looking for me and stuff," he said. 
He also said he didn't know the other two victims.
I oppose the execution of any person who might be innocent of the crime for which they are to be executed. Regarding the propriety of all other executions, I stand mute. I neither support them nor oppose them.

In the case of John Lezell Balentine, I stand mute.

ADDENDUM (23 August 2012):
John Balentine was granted a last moment stay of execution by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Opus 50

When I realized that I would easily surpass 50 blog posts in this series, I quickly settled on the name of post number 50. I would call it Opus 50.

From Dictionary.com, the third meaning:
opus:  a literary work or composition, as a book.
Opus is a highfalutin word usually made more highfalutin by addition of the word magnum. An opus magnum is not just any old piece of work, it is a great piece of work, perhaps the pinnacle of one's achievements.

I intended to use the word opus as a bit of self mockery, such as when I occasionally refer to this blog as "this august blog." Again from Dictionary.com:
august:  inspiring reverence or admiration; of supreme dignity or grandeur; majestic.
As it turns out, I did not write Opus 50. This post is merely an introduction and a link to the real Opus 50. The real Opus 50 has just recently been authored by David Protess. David Protess was already famous for his work even before I wrote of him in this august blog: Meet David Protess.

In his 1000 word Huffington Post article, he somehow managed to compress what I have spent 49 blog posts (and perhaps 49,000 words) attempting to convey. My counter to that amazing economy of words is only that I include lots of pretty pictures.

Without further ado, I invite you to read and comment on the real Opus 50: The Skeptical Juror and the Texas Condemned Man, by David Protess.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

Sunday, August 12, 2012

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Down the Rabbit Hole


"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again."

In Singularity, I made my case that the police searched Preston's apartment twice: once prior to 2:58 AM and once after sunrise. In this post I will attempt to recreate the events that took place during the time surrounding those two searches.

Keep in mind that the following scenario is a hypothetical. It presumes two searches such as just described. It assumes police behavior that fits the evidence as I understand it. I do not present it as fact. I base some of the narrative on trial transcripts, which I have begun recently to receive. The names of the police officers have not been changed to protect the innocent.

Buckle up. Down the rabbit hole we go.

Officer F.L. Hale arrived at the crime scene as the CSU investigator. His job was to photograph the evidence, secure the evidence, and transport the evidence to the property locker for secure storage or to the lab for analysis.

Hale began by taking 21 color Polaroids. Copies of all 21 Polaroid images were provided to Barbara Lunsford in response to her open records request. None of the photographs referred to henceforth have anything to do with the Polaroids.

Hale would expose two rolls of 35 mm film. Assuming each role was good for at least 36 exposures, and assuming Hale exposed them all, then Barbara Lunsford should have received copies of at least 72 images from the crime scene, the apartment, and the morgue. She did not. She received 50 such images. (See my floundering effort to convince you that 22 images were withheld.)

Hale took at least 24 images of the crime scene. Those images included pictures of Marcell's body, the location where Shandra fell, the trail, the hole in the fence, and Fuddruckers. Those images did not include any pictures of Shandra, since she had been transported from the scene by the time Officer Hale arrived. If Officer Hale took one or more pictures of Shandra's eyeglasses at the crime scene, as some people have suggested, then he took more than 24 images of the crime scene.

From the crime scene, Officer Hale traveled one mile to West Houston Memorial Hospital. There he picked up some of Shandra's personal items, including her shoes, her shorts, her gold neck chain, a note with a phone number and the name "Dog", and just the right amount of money for a dime bag.

Though the hospital took everything belonging to Shandra except the shirt off her back (literally), they turned her away while she was bleeding out (or already dead) from a severed carotid artery and severed jugular vein. They sent her to Ben Taub, 15 miles away. If Shandra had by some miracle been alive, she had no chance to survive the ride to Ben Taub. There she was pronounced DOA, more than an hour after the arrival of the first police officer at the crime scene. Her treatment, or lack thereof, at West Houston was not only sad, it was unusual.
Singularity is almost invariably a clue.
While Officer Hale visited West Houston Memorial, Sergeants Gafford, Bloyd, and Hamilton made their way to Preston's apartment. They instructed Hale to meet them there.

At the apartment complex, Hale took at least one photograph of the apartment building at the northwest corner of the Lakewood Village complex, though Preston lived neither in the building nor anywhere in the complex.

HPD Photo

Google Satellite View
Google Satellite View
I have no idea why Hale took that picture.
Singularity is almost invariably a clue.
Officer Hale also took at least one photograph of Preston's apartment building,  a close up of the stairway landing and the front door.

HPD Photo
Officer Hale did not initially enter Preston's apartment with the three sergeants. The three knocked on Preston's door for 5 to 10 minutes before Preston answered. Preston was in his underwear. The police asked if they could speak with him. He agreed and invited him in.

The police asked Preston if he would talk with them downtown. Preston agreed. He went to his room to put on some clothes. Sgt. Hamilton went with him.

Sgt. Gafford would later testify that while waiting in the living room, he noticed the glasses between the cushions of the couch.

Sgt. Hamilton would later unwittingly testify that the lights were off in the apartment, that it was dark in there, that Sergeants Gafford and Bloyd waited in the living room in the dark. Sgt. Hamilton would offer this testimony under oath while being cross-examined about any effort to search the apartment by looking around. Sgt. Hamilton testified that the living room was always so dark that he could not have seen anything if he wanted to.

Sgt. Ferguson (who would conduct the second search and extract the second confession) unwittingly testified under oath that someone standing where Sgt. Gafford claimed he stood could not have seen the glasses even if they had been there, even if the living room was well lit. Sgt. Ferguson would offer this testimony under oath while being cross-examined about the positioning of the camera necessary to make the glasses visible in the photograph.

The three sergeants and Preston left the apartment. In the police reports and the trial testimony, several of the three make a point of noting that Preston left the apartment last and locked the door with his key.

Sgt. Gafford will testify later that he may have been given a master key to Preston's apartment by the complex manager. He simply can't remember. (It is my understanding that the complex manager testified that he did indeed give Sgt. Gafford a master key to Preston's apartment. I cannot yet confirm that.)

A patrol officer, or two, transported Preston to the police station in the back of a marked police car.

[Caution everyone. This is where it becomes more speculative. I'm writing of a possible scenario, not of established fact.]

Sergeants Gafford, Bloyd, Hamilton, and Officer F.L. Hale returned to Preston's apartment. They re-entered using the master key provided to Sgt. Gafford by the complex manager. They searched the apartment. Officer Hale took photographs. If he took just as many as he did during the later daylight search, he took at least 14 photographs. That would bring the photo count to at least 40 photos.

Sergeants Gafford and Bloyd returned to the police station.

CSU Officer Hale returned to the police station in a separate vehicle. He logged the items collected into the property locker. Property Officer F.L. Martin placed Hale's property invoice into his [Martin's] typewriter, typed the time "2:58am", typed his name, and initialed or signed by his name. The eyeglasses were not on the list of items that Hale turned into the property room, nor was the green leafy substance. The Busch beer can was.



Officer Hale traveled to the morgue where he claims to have photographed both Shandra and Marcell. Barbara Lunsford received three images of Shandra Charles at the morgue. Presuming Officer Hale took at least one photograph of Marcell that Barbara did not receive, that brings the photo count to at least 44.


After waiting for an extended time to be questioned by any of the sergeants who desperately wanted to speak with him at the station, Preston was interviewed by Sgt. Gafford. Things moved more quickly at that point. Without too much delay, Sgt. Gafford typed out a confession which Preston signed. Two witnesses entered the room and signed after the fact, after asking Preston if he had signed voluntarily. The witnesses signed at 7:15 AM.  (I will write more of this when I discuss Preston's confessions and more still when I discuss the trial.)

The nominal work shift for Gafford and Hale was 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. They would work well into the day, however, finishing their reports on Hughes. The next shift of homicide detectives arrived just about the time Preston's first confession was being witnessed. Sgt. Gafford briefed incoming Sgt. Ferguson and Sgt. Yanchak on the Hughes case.

[Reminder: Some, perhaps all, of what follows may be a bit speculative.]

Ferguson and Yanchak realized that Gafford had screwed the pooch. Not only had he searched the apartment without a warrant, he had collected property from the apartment and turned it into the locker room. The only possible witnesses were dead and would not be testifying against Hughes. The clothes had no apparent blood on them, the knife had no apparent blood on it. There was not a spot of blood to be found in the apartment. The clothes and knife would be tossed in any case because they were collected without a warrant. The HPD had no physical evidence and no witness evidence tying Hughes to the crime. The only thing that they had was Hughes' confession, and that was crap. It made no mention of the little boy, and it did nothing to explain the girl being found with her pants pulled part way down her hips.

Ferguson and Yanchak set about to repair the damage.

[Remember, speculative.]

They orchestrated a tale about the girl naming Preston as her attacker. At least Hamilton had the good sense to sit with her alone so that no one would be able to overhear anything she did or did not say. (Hamilton did not offer her a whit of first aid, but he did sit with her, as she bled out, until the paramedics arrived. See Shandra's Final Hour.) Neither Ferguson nor Yanchak realized that Shandra's wound was fatal within three minutes. Neither realized that she could not have given a dying declaration to Hamilton or anyone other than the person who stabbed her. (See any one of many posts, perhaps Silence of the Lambs and its immediate successor Where's Willis?)

They decided to stage a second search of the house, one that would take place after the signing of a Voluntary Consent to Search form, one that would be photographed in the daytime.

A warrant would be particularly troublesome. It would require them to sign and swear to affidavits before a judge. Better they get a Voluntary Consent to Search form. For some reason still unclear, Preston would not sign it or they did not ask. Instead they manufactured a form by pasting the body of a consent form over Preston's signature from another form. The evidence of that composite form is quite obvious even to a casual observer.

Note the tape lines just above "VOLUNTARY CONSENT FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE." Note the tape lines just above Preston's signature.

At trial, several of the officers already mentioned would testify that budget constraints caused them sometimes to Xerox forms. I assume any suspicion about the document could be resolved by simply introducing the original document as evidence at the trial. I cannot not yet confirm whether or not that was done.

Ferguson and/or Yanchak collected the evidence from the property room. They collected the eyeglasses from wherever the glasses had been. They traveled to Preston's apartment, and entered using Preston's now-surrendered key. They placed Preston's items according the sketch Sgt. Hale had made as part of the first search.

They instructed Officer Hale to meet them at the apartment. He arrived and shot additional pictures of the items in Preston's apartment. He shot a picture of the the glasses between the cushions of Preston' couch. That picture was shot in the daylight. The living room lights were off.


During his testimony, Sgt. Ferguson testified that, though it was daylight, Officer Hale turned on the living room lights and used a flash to take the pictures of the couch. Apparently, Sgt. Ferguson was recalling a photograph other than the one above.

Sgt. Ferguson or Yanchak transported the evidence from the second search and tagged it into the lab, presumably for testing. The chain of custody would not reflect that the evidence made an intermediate stop as it traveled from the property room to the lab for testing. If the chain of custody documents are properly time stamped, and if my hypothetical speculative scenario is somehow correct, then the time stamps will indicate that it took Ferguson and/or Yanchak hours to transport the evidence from the property room to the lab.

In retrospect, it is not at all clear why the police would pull the evidence from the property room and transport it to the lab, if not to use it for illicit purpose. As it turns out, the police had no interest in actually testing the evidence. Neither the clothing nor the knife was tested for blood for 213 days. The clothing would be subjected to a presumptive test for blood, a non definitive test, just 4 days before James Bolding would testify at trial. (Bolding was the supervisor of the serology section of the HPD crime lab.) The presumptive test would be positive for blood.

(Note that presumptive tests are usually conducted when no blood is visible to the naked eye. The presumptive test causes a host of materials, including blood, to react in noticeable fashion. The presumptive test helps the technician decide which areas should be subjected to definitive testing.)

That clothing would be subjected to a definitive test for blood just one day before Bolding testified. The clothing tested negative for blood. There was no blood on Preston's clothing.

(The testimony focused on whether or not the presumptive test could distinguish between human and animal blood, as if that were of significance. Almost nothing, literally almost nothing, was said of the definitive test or its results. Even a skeptical observer would have to read the transcripts several times over before noticing it.)

Though it seems impossible, the police were even less interested in testing the knife. The knife would not be tested for blood until Bolding was actually sitting in the witness box. He actually tested the knife while sitting in the witness box. He could perform only a presumptive test for blood on the knife, given the constraints of the exceptionally bizarre test environment. And, I suspect, that was the whole point. The presumptive test returned positive for blood.

(Persistent readers of this august blog know that the knife could not be the murder weapon. For those of you who have joined us more recently, I refer you to On Being Blunt and Marcell's Neck.)

While at the apartment for the daylight search, Officer Hale took at least 14 pictures. That brings the running total to at least 58.

Officer Hale traveled from the apartment back to the field to take some photos there in the daylight. There he took at least 7 photos in the daylight. That brings the running total to 65, seven short of the nominal 72 exposures for two rolls of 36 exposure film.

Seven photos are not a lot for a daylight photo session of a double murder crime scene. Perhaps Officer Hale ran out of film.

Assuming my accounting of the photos is correct, and assuming Officer Hale exposed two entire rolls of 36 exposure film without overshoots, then 22 photographs are missing from the collection sent to Barbara Lunsford in response to her open records request.

I presume at least one of them is a picture of Marcell Taylor at the morgue. I presume 14 of them are pictures from the first search of Preston's apartment. That leaves 7 unaccounted for.

Perhaps my accounting is incorrect. Perhaps Officer Hale did not expose two complete rolls.

Perhaps 7 photos found their way down a rabbit hole.

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next --> 

The Case of Preston Hughes III: Singularity

In the Boscombe Valley Mystery, Sherlock Holmes observed:
But it is profoundly true. Singularity is almost invariably a clue. The more featureless and commonplace a crime is, the more difficult it is to bring it home.
Interesting. Something surprisingly unusual is almost always a clue. Consider then, once again, the property invoice.

If the police did indeed search Preston's apartment around 9:15 AM on September 27, why does the property invoice show a time of 2:58 AM on September 27?

Where is the "green leafy substance" Officer F.L Hale recovered from Preston's dining room table, the substance he kept in his "care control, and custody until tagged in the police property room"?


Where are Shandra's eyeglasses that Officer F.L. Hale recovered from between the cushions of Preston's couch? He claims he turned them over to the lab for printing. Why did he not at the same time turn the Busch beer can over to the lab for printing?


In the Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes advised:
The more outre and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it deserves to be examined, and the very point which appears to complicate a case is, when duly considered and scientifically handled, the one which is most likely to elucidate it.
Interesting. An investigator should welcome confusing evidence, since that evidence, carefully considered, is most likely to bring clarity to the case.

Consider then this photo.


At first blush, it seems to be nothing more than a shot along the hallway looking into Preston's bedroom. Those are his jeans lying on the ground, and his blue work shirt lying just beyond.

But there is mystery here. Look again at the photo.

Do you see it?

Look again. Tilt your head so that the doorway is vertical and walk forward a bit.


How about now?  Do you see it?

Focus above the chest of drawers.


Now you can see what has been bothering me for quite some time. It shouldn't have taken me so long to figure it out, but I now believe I understand. Off and on, during that all that time, I kept thinking of Holmes.
Singularity is almost always a clue. (BOSC)
It shouldn't have taken me so long to figure it out, but it did. I kept wondering if I was only imagining what I see in the picture. I kept wondering if someone had falsified the 2:58 AM time stamp on the property invoice. It was always so simple, just as I had been told it would be.
It is a mistake to confound strangeness with mystery. (STUD)
You see it now as well, don't you. There is light coming from behind the sheer curtain. It is light outside. The photograph was taken in the daytime. The police could not have recovered the items photographed during this search and turned them into the locker room by 2:58 am. They cannot violate space and time any more than you can.

No need to look for a street light outside Preston's second floor window. I already did, using Google satellite view and Bing birds eye view. There is none there. I know the search engine images are not from 1988. I realize that maybe a streetlight had been removed between now and then.  But I don't think so.

The table lamp is turned off. It does not need to be on because it is light outside. Don't believe me? Just back up and take another look down the hall.


The hall light isn't on either, because it is light outside. As icing on a well-illuminated cake, the light switch is in the off position.

So, I figured, the 2:58 AM time on the property invoice must be wrong. Maybe someone falsified the document? But who and to what end? Maybe it was just a simple clerical error. Maybe the typist meant to enter 2:58 PM. The "A" and "P" keys, however, are just about as far apart as they can be on the keyboard. Surely the person typing the document knew whether it was the middle of the day or the middle of the night.

It seemingly made no sense, but it was so, so simple. And I was so, so slow to figure it out.
As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is the less mysterious it proves to be. (REDH)
The police searched the apartment twice.

TO BE CONTINUED

 <-- Previous                           Table of Contents                              Next -->