New DNA could alter death row inmate'...

New DNA could alter death row inmate's fate

There are 41 comments on the www.kentucky.com story from Oct 26, 2010, titled New DNA could alter death row inmate's fate. In it, www.kentucky.com reports that:

A judge in southern Kentucky is poised to decide whether a death sentence will stand for an inmate after DNA evidence turned up a decade after being initially requested.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.kentucky.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
paul bird

Melvin, KY

#1 Oct 27, 2010
he need death

“Plumb Tickled To Death!”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Oct 27, 2010
I wonder why supposedly no one was aware of the DNA evidence in 1999. Why would the DNA evidence mysteriously turn up ten years later?
Pitti

Chesterfield, MO

#3 Oct 28, 2010
Honest Babe wrote:
I wonder why supposedly no one was aware of the DNA evidence in 1999. Why would the DNA evidence mysteriously turn up ten years later?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/006017...

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#4 Oct 28, 2010
Honest Babe wrote:
I wonder why supposedly no one was aware of the DNA evidence in 1999. Why would the DNA evidence mysteriously turn up ten years later?
This article goes more indepth about the DNA evidence.

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/25/1494573/te...

“Plumb Tickled To Death!”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Oct 28, 2010
Pitti wrote:
I did not know about this book. I am now looking forward to reading it. Thank you very much for pointing it out.

“Plumb Tickled To Death!”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Oct 28, 2010
doppleganger wrote:
<quoted text>
This article goes more indepth about the DNA evidence.
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/25/1494573/te...
Thanks, this answers most of the questions as to why the DNA evidence didn't turn up until later. I don't see how the hair not being Epperson's proves anything though. Unless it can be matched to one of the other suspects, I don't see how it would change anything concerning Epperson.

There doesn't seem to be any proof that the hair belonged to the person who committed the murder. The hair could have belonged to anyone who ever visited the Morris home, or it could have even been packed in from somewhere else.
Bob

United States

#7 Oct 28, 2010
They're just wasting more taxpayer money dragging this out. The only thing this proves is the fact the hair didn't belong to Epperson.
Pitti

Chesterfield, MO

#8 Oct 28, 2010
Honest Babe wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not know about this book. I am now looking forward to reading it. Thank you very much for pointing it out.
It Was My Pleasure Babe :-)
well

Pikeville, KY

#9 Oct 29, 2010
He probably was involved, but the fact that the hair in question was found on bessie morris's night gown, leads me to believe that it was from someone that night. It is possible that she picked up the hair elsewhere, but unless she wore her night gown through the day, which most people only put on a night gown before bed, the hair probably was from someone that night. Even if he was involved, I think there was more to it.
I see all

Melvin, KY

#10 Nov 3, 2010
Aren't you glad you have a new sheriff in town? Odd ... the convictions were based on testimony from X-WIVES...now that is a really non-biased source isn't it?

The evidence was buried because it is common for some evidence to buried if they can get away with it. The FBI was - and may still be - notorious for it. About a decade ago there was some black woman that got an award for her work as a lab tech for the FBI and her "high rate of convictions". She was sought out by the police and the FBI because she had a history of giving them what they wanted. In fact, most cops know "who to go too in order to get the results they want"...it is not as uncommon as you think.

We had them when I was an Army MP .. I saw them in the local police levels as well around the base. I knew they existed. This woman was exposed later for having wholesale fraudulent results.

How did they catch her? I saw her testifying on TV about some evidence. It was a hair sample. One hair was flat and square and the other was round. She said they were a match. A quick glance told you first off they were not a match in color or consistency and a flat or square hair means it came from someone with curly hair. A round hair is long and straight. Even a perm does not make a round hair square. These were two different people.

I called the attorney and told him to look again and get someone else to compare the hair. He said it was the FBI on the stand. I then told him about the "friendly techs" that often exist and to review her findings. I told him I am willing to bet nearly all of her findings were in favor of the police and that is not statistically possible.

The guy was convicted.

About 8 months later on appeal this woman was exposed for the fraud she was because of the hair. It turned out there were thousands of bad matches and thousands of people got new trials. Of course, a lot of them were released.

Think not? Google FBI lab under fire and you will see this is not as uncommon as you think.

Did they do it? Who knows ... but was the evidence cooked .... yeah, I'd say there was a good chance of it being cooked.
Catwoman

United States

#11 Nov 3, 2010
To I see all.......convictions based on testimony of x wives???? LOL where on earth did you read that? Convictions were based on one of three turning states evidence and telling exactly how it was done...down to the last detail...and that matched the evidence....Were you at the trial to hear this testimony? No, I didn't think so...I sure didn't see you...Perhaps you can do research and find out all the evidence that did convict them...FBI cooking up evidence? LOL Do you think that is all they have to do? Very paranoid people live in Mckee..everyone is out to get them...Does drugs cause that?

“Plumb Tickled To Death!”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Nov 3, 2010
I see all,

I must ask, whatever does McKee/Jackson County having a newly elected sheriff have to do with this case? This crime and investigation occured long before our current sheriff began his law enforcement career. I sure hope all the voters in the McKee area were not so misinformed about such things when they voted our good sheriff out of office on election day.

At least I have learned one thing from reading this; obviously I need HDTV. There is absolutely no way I could ever see a hair in such detail on my TV. Wow! What definition you must have on yours to be able to see the difference between a square hair and a round hair! Especially when attorneys and judges right there in the courtroom couldn't even see it. Simply amazing I say!

One thing is certain, it is a good thing you were watching TV that day! Without you pointing out the different shape of those hairs, all those other bungling idiot lawyers and judges, as well as those dishonest "friendly techs" in the FBI, would have never figured it all out! Just the thought of "some black woman" almost getting by with fooling all those people is appalling.

Oh, by the way, it would make me feel much safer if you would check in on FOX NEWS and keep an eye out for any suspicious packages in route from Yemen on the airplanes. I know those bumbling, ham-fisted, incompetent Homeland Security idiots are trying to do the best they can, but if you were keeping a close eye on the TV, it is untelling what you might spot. Please tune-in now! You could be the only hope America has for salvation from terrorism!
catwoman

United States

#13 Nov 3, 2010
Honest Babe, I couldn't agree more! Perhaps he should change his name from I see all to I know all!!

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14 Nov 3, 2010
I didn't read anything by anyone inferring Tim Fee had anything to do with this case unless you want to imply the comment: "aren't you glad you have a new Sheriff in town" as an implication Fee had something to do with it.

I read the article and it states it was mostly the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the ex-wives that got the conviction. Apparently, the one who turned state's evidence was not found credible at all.

As far as the FBI screwing up cases intentionally, you need to take the time to Google: FBI labs under fire, etc. and you will see it isn't that far fetched.

I looked up this matter on the internet just to follow up and see how much merit there was in this statement and discovered how wide-spread this really is. In just one report I found this:

"It is quite common to find laboratory facilities and personnel who are, for all intents and purposes, an arm of the prosecution," notes James Starrs, a professor of law and forensic science at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "They analyze material submitted, on all but rare occasions, solely by the prosecution. They testify almost exclusively on behalf of the prosecution...As a result, their impartiality is replaced by a viewpoint colored brightly with prosecutorial bias.

Furthermore the case cited by I See all was just one in which FBI lab technician Jacquelyn Blake admitted she failed to follow required scientific procedures while analyzing 103 DNA samples during the last few years before her termination.

Apparently, I See All was telling the truth, but none of you took the time to even look for it yourself and just chose to do what your mindless brain is best at. Ridicule, scoffing, laughing, and sneering in ignorance.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#15 Nov 3, 2010
Honest Babe wrote:
I see all,
I must ask, whatever does McKee/Jackson County having a newly elected sheriff have to do with this case? This crime and investigation occured long before our current sheriff began his law enforcement career. I sure hope all the voters in the McKee area were not so misinformed about such things when they voted our good sheriff out of office on election day.
At least I have learned one thing from reading this; obviously I need HDTV. There is absolutely no way I could ever see a hair in such detail on my TV. Wow! What definition you must have on yours to be able to see the difference between a square hair and a round hair! Especially when attorneys and judges right there in the courtroom couldn't even see it. Simply amazing I say!
One thing is certain, it is a good thing you were watching TV that day! Without you pointing out the different shape of those hairs, all those other bungling idiot lawyers and judges, as well as those dishonest "friendly techs" in the FBI, would have never figured it all out! Just the thought of "some black woman" almost getting by with fooling all those people is appalling.
Oh, by the way, it would make me feel much safer if you would check in on FOX NEWS and keep an eye out for any suspicious packages in route from Yemen on the airplanes. I know those bumbling, ham-fisted, incompetent Homeland Security idiots are trying to do the best they can, but if you were keeping a close eye on the TV, it is untelling what you might spot. Please tune-in now! You could be the only hope America has for salvation from terrorism!
How about this one:

Former DA Bob Macy, ex-forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist settle case

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
By Scott Cooper

As more cases involving former Oklahoma City Police Department forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist make their way through the legal system, the inner workings of the police lab and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office are revealed layer by layer.

When Curtis Edward McCarty was released from custody in 2007 after spending nearly 20 years on death row, the courts found that Gilchrist acted to either alter or intentionally lose evidence. With Bryson, attorneys looked more into the abilities of Gilchrist as a scientist and the hands-off approach the police department and the district attorney’s office took to their controversial chemist.

A trial was set to begin later this month which would have been the first public testimony of Gilchrist, former District Attorney Bob Macy and several of Macy’s prosecutors as well as police officials. It would have been an opportunity for the public to hear firsthand the explanations as to why a man who was found to have no biological evidence linking him to a crime spent more than decade in prison.

But at a last-ditch settlement conference meeting in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Robert Bacharach on June 3, the opposing sides came to an agreement. Gilchrist agreed to hand over $16.5 million, according to court records

Bryson was convicted in 1983 of raping and kidnapping Theresa Taylor and sentenced to 85 years in prison. The key pieces of evidence used against Bryson were hair, blood and semen samples, eyewitness testimony from the victim and another person in the area of the attack, and injuries to Bryson’s penis after he went to a doctor for treatment. Gilchrist testified at the 1983 trial that the hair and blood samples were consistent to Bryson. She told a jury the blood type from the sample was the same as Bryson’s, and the hair was consistent with Bryson’s hair.

But other scientists who looked into Gilchrist’s original work claim that, had the chemist conducted her science correctly, Bryson should have been excluded before the 1983 trial, regardless of DNA testing.

Hummmmm.....so much for your conspiracy crap Honest Babe and Cat Woman. Maybe you should take the time to think and read. It apparently does happen a lot ....lol
THINK ABOUT IT

Pikeville, KY

#16 Nov 3, 2010
gimpyolman wrote:
I didn't read anything by anyone inferring Tim Fee had anything to do with this case unless you want to imply the comment: "aren't you glad you have a new Sheriff in town" as an implication Fee had something to do with it.
I read the article and it states it was mostly the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the ex-wives that got the conviction. Apparently, the one who turned state's evidence was not found credible at all.
As far as the FBI screwing up cases intentionally, you need to take the time to Google: FBI labs under fire, etc. and you will see it isn't that far fetched.
I looked up this matter on the internet just to follow up and see how much merit there was in this statement and discovered how wide-spread this really is. In just one report I found this:
"It is quite common to find laboratory facilities and personnel who are, for all intents and purposes, an arm of the prosecution," notes James Starrs, a professor of law and forensic science at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "They analyze material submitted, on all but rare occasions, solely by the prosecution. They testify almost exclusively on behalf of the prosecution...As a result, their impartiality is replaced by a viewpoint colored brightly with prosecutorial bias.
Furthermore the case cited by I See all was just one in which FBI lab technician Jacquelyn Blake admitted she failed to follow required scientific procedures while analyzing 103 DNA samples during the last few years before her termination.
Apparently, I See All was telling the truth, but none of you took the time to even look for it yourself and just chose to do what your mindless brain is best at. Ridicule, scoffing, laughing, and sneering in ignorance.
You must know by now the people around here just love to be-little others. I think it's more in their "GENES" and even the way they were raised. If they can make somebody else look stupid they seem to tend to feel smart?

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17 Nov 3, 2010
Honest Babe wrote:
I see all,

At least I have learned one thing from reading this; obviously I need HDTV. There is absolutely no way I could ever see a hair in such detail on my TV. Wow! What definition you must have on yours to be able to see the difference between a square hair and a round hair! Especially when attorneys and judges right there in the courtroom couldn't even see it. Simply amazing I say!
One thing is certain, it is a good thing you were watching TV that day! Without you pointing out the different shape of those hairs, all those other bungling idiot lawyers and judges, as well as those dishonest "friendly techs" in the FBI, would have never figured it all out! Just the thought of "some black woman" almost getting by with fooling all those people is appalling.
Oh, by the way, it would make me feel much safer if you would check in on FOX NEWS and keep an eye out for any suspicious packages in route from Yemen on the airplanes. I know those bumbling, ham-fisted, incompetent Homeland Security idiots are trying to do the best they can, but if you were keeping a close eye on the TV, it is untelling what you might spot. Please tune-in now! You could be the only hope America has for salvation from terrorism!
How about this one:

Former DA Bob Macy, ex-forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist settle case

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
By Scott Cooper

As more cases involving former Oklahoma City Police Department forensic chemist Joyce Gilchrist make their way through the legal system, the inner workings of the police lab and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office are revealed layer by layer.

When Curtis Edward McCarty was released from custody in 2007 after spending nearly 20 years on death row, the courts found that Gilchrist acted to either alter or intentionally lose evidence. With Bryson, attorneys looked more into the abilities of Gilchrist as a scientist and the hands-off approach the police department and the district attorney’s office took to their controversial chemist.

A trial was set to begin later this month which would have been the first public testimony of Gilchrist, former District Attorney Bob Macy and several of Macy’s prosecutors as well as police officials. It would have been an opportunity for the public to hear firsthand the explanations as to why a man who was found to have no biological evidence linking him to a crime spent more than decade in prison.

But at a last-ditch settlement conference meeting in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Robert Bacharach on June 3, the opposing sides came to an agreement. Gilchrist agreed to hand over $16.5 million, according to court records

Bryson was convicted in 1983 of raping and kidnapping Theresa Taylor and sentenced to 85 years in prison. The key pieces of evidence used against Bryson were hair, blood and semen samples, eyewitness testimony from the victim and another person in the area of the attack, and injuries to Bryson’s penis after he went to a doctor for treatment. Gilchrist testified at the 1983 trial that the hair and blood samples were consistent to Bryson. She told a jury the blood type from the sample was the same as Bryson’s, and the hair was consistent with Bryson’s hair.

But other scientists who looked into Gilchrist’s original work claim that, had the chemist conducted her science correctly, Bryson should have been excluded before the 1983 trial, regardless of DNA testing.

Hummmmm.....so much for your conspiracy crap Honest Babe and Cat Woman....lol

You know what the problem is with your logic though? MOST JUDGES DOODLE ON A PAD (JUST WATCH MUNCIE IN COURT), most people don't know forensic evidence from a hole in a wall and wouldn't know the difference in a hair. They only know what an EXPERT tells them, and yes you can see the difference when a close up of the enlarged photo is shown on TV. Get real and use your brain if you have one.

“Quoth the Raven, Nevermore”

Since: Sep 09

Isle of Apples, Avalon

#18 Nov 3, 2010
gimpyolman wrote:
I didn't read anything by anyone inferring Tim Fee had anything to do with this case unless you want to imply the comment: "aren't you glad you have a new Sheriff in town" as an implication Fee had something to do with it.
I didn't read anything inferring such a thing either! Obviously, whomever said "aren't you glad you have a new sheriff in town" was simply a bit addled as to the actual topic of this thread. If you will notice, the topic is "New DNA could alter death row inmate's fate" which has nothing to do with the current sheriff, or the sheriff elect. Unless, someone was implying the newly elected sheriff is somehow involved in this crime.
gimpyolman wrote:
I read the article and it states it was mostly the circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the ex-wives that got the conviction. Apparently, the one who turned state's evidence was not found credible at all.
I also read the article, and I only saw one ex-wife mentioned as opposed to "X-WIVES" as was implied. If read by someone with decent comprehension, the article actually states that they were convicted "largely on the testimony of Bartley and Hodge's ex-wife, Sherry Hamilton, AND circumstantial evidence." It is true that Bartley probably wasn't considered "credible" since he was involved with the crime; however, since he was able to describe everything in detail, and that description obviously matched the evidence, it must have convinced the jury. Twice! Once in 1987, and again in 2003! Of course, one must consider the jury was privy to all the testimony and evidence during the actual trials. Something which some of us here on this topic are not.
gimpyolman wrote:
As far as the FBI screwing up cases intentionally, you need to take the time to Google: FBI labs under fire, etc. and you will see it isn't that far fetched.
This is totally irrelevent to this topic. The conviction of Epperson was not dependent upon the DNA from the hair being a match to his. Therefore, the hair didn't have anything to do with Epperson being convicted. The DNA results would have actually had to have been used for conviction for any of this to be relevent.

“Quoth the Raven, Nevermore”

Since: Sep 09

Isle of Apples, Avalon

#19 Nov 3, 2010
gimpyolman wrote:
I looked up this matter on the internet just to follow up and see how much merit there was in this statement and discovered how wide-spread this really is. In just one report I found this:
"It is quite common to find laboratory facilities and personnel who are, for all intents and purposes, an arm of the prosecution," notes James Starrs, a professor of law and forensic science at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "They analyze material submitted, on all but rare occasions, solely by the prosecution. They testify almost exclusively on behalf of the prosecution...As a result, their impartiality is replaced by a viewpoint colored brightly with prosecutorial bias.
Actually this is a moot point to this topic, and irrelevent to this discussion. There has been no question as to the authenticity of the DNA lab tests results.
gimpyolman wrote:
Furthermore the case cited by I See all was just one in which FBI lab technician Jacquelyn Blake admitted she failed to follow required scientific procedures while analyzing 103 DNA samples during the last few years before her termination.
Once again, totally irrelevent. For there to be any reason for concern about FBI competence, an FBI lab technician, such as Jacquelyn Blake, would have needed to have suggested the DNA from the hair matched Epperson at some point during the trial.
gimpyolman wrote:
Apparently, I See All was telling the truth, but none of you took the time to even look for it yourself and just chose to do what your mindless brain is best at. Ridicule, scoffing, laughing, and sneering in ignorance.
Oh silly you! Of course some of them took the time to ponder this themselves. It seems "Honest Babe" took time to write a most congenial reply, and she was very complimentary toward "I See All." I read where she was complimenting "I See All" on their high definition TV and good eyesight, and she even went so far as to suggest "I See All" use their desire to do detective work to protect America from terrorism by watching FOX NEWS! I'm sorry to say this, but you seem a bit rude and insulting toward the other posters in this last paragraph. Tsk, tsk!

“Quoth the Raven, Nevermore”

Since: Sep 09

Isle of Apples, Avalon

#20 Nov 3, 2010
THINK ABOUT IT wrote:
<quoted text>
You must know by now the people around here just love to be-little others. I think it's more in their "GENES" and even the way they were raised. If they can make somebody else look stupid they seem to tend to feel smart?
You know what, I've noticed some of them even act as trolls and gang up and attack other posters! Just ask "Honest Babe" as I'm sure she has had them gang up and attack her MANY times. They will switch names, and try to make it sound like you said things you didn't, and all sorts of childish, petty tricks.

Who would think people would be so silly and childish as to behave in such a manner? Oh well, I don't guess some people ever grow up, and they probably have nothing better to do with their time such as having a job or anything. They are probably suffering from self-esteem issues such as feeling they have a small brain, or other small appendages.

As for some people making someone else look stupid, sadly, some people don't need any help from others. They are simply so envious and full of hate toward other people who are genuinely blessed with intelligence, they make themselves look stupid while they spew their spite and malice. It's so sad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gray-Hawk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If you want to know just ask! 4 hr Kasey 1
Who got shot in sands springs 7 hr Cnn 36
Jessica spoonamore 7 hr Waiteing 50
Mark foley 10 hr Know 25
Will Pharris 14 hr Yep Really 55
T&R Auction Clover Bottom Yes or No? 14 hr FredSmyth 20
Sheriff race 16 hr Rose 29

Gray-Hawk Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gray-Hawk Mortgages