The articles first, then comments.
False forensic testimony in Gary Alvin Richard's case.
What if the perpertrator of a crime is the criminal justice system? What if the crime lab that judges, juries, and lawyers rely on is the entity that fails you?
Gary Alvin Richard’s lawyer says that is exactly the case and this is not the first time the Houston crime lab has been faulted for faulty forensics and now false testimony. These false and faulty actions helped secure his conviction his lawyer maintains and he wants Mr. Richards released from prison. Mr. Richard is now 53-yrs-old and has served 22-yrs so far for rape and robbery. Both Mr. Richards lawyer and prosecutors agree that tests completed Friday show that an HPD analyst misled jurors at his trial and this individual also failed to report evidence that could have helped him. Based on these tests, both sides will ask a judge next week to release Mr. Richard on bond while they sort out the rest of the details.
“This is a new chapter, among many, of mistakes that were made, of sloppy work at the crime lab.” “Most troubling are the results that were not passed on to people who needed them.”
-Bob Wicoff, Richard’s lawyer.
If Mr. Richard is exonerated, this will be the fourth case cleared due to faulty work by the HPD crime lab. Richard’s case is receiving new scrutiny because of a massive review of cases with problematic HPD blood-typing evidence. The review started in October 2007, days after DNA evidence cleared Ronald Taylor of sexual assault in a case where HPD analysts performed faulty tests on body-fluid evidence, known as serology, a precursor to DNA testing.
Wicoff is leading the review of some 160 cases that an independent investigator identified as having problematic serology tests. Richard’s case is the first in that group to prompt a claim of actual innocence.
Comment: Once again we see a case where law enforcement was so eager to convict, that false testimony was accepted, and exculpatory evidence witheld from the defense. Something to keep in mind the next time you hear "rapes aren't reported because the woman won't be believed."
Link:http://crimesandjustice.com/2009/04/gary-alvinrichard-houston-tx/
Texas man likely to be freed after 22 years.
A Texas man who spent 22 years in prison for a rape that forensic tests now suggest he did not commit is expected to be freed.
Gary Alvin Richard is likely to be released Thursday after prosecutors and his defense attorney ask a judge to set him free on bail.
Lawyers will then weigh what to do with Richard's case.
Defense attorney Bob Wicoff says the new tests based on blood-typing prove Richard's innocence. Prosecutors agree the results contradict crime lab evidence but say they do not know if Richard is innocent.
If cleared, Richard - who is serving a life sentence for a 1987 rape - would be the fourth Harris County man to have his conviction overturned because of faulty forensics from the Houston crime lab.
Comment: If the blood typing doesn't match, based on the DNA recovered, how is it that the prosecution can say they "do not know if Richard is innocent"? It would be refreshing, just once, to see someone say that "hey, this was a mistake. We are working to correct that mistake, as much as we are able, and hope to free the falsely convicted quickly."
Link: http://www.examiner.com/a-1989232~Texas_man_likely_to_be_freed_after_22_years.html
Posts
41 comments:
I believe the lab tests that could have cleared the Duke lacrosse boys very early on, was also perverted. The gender feminist mob will stop at nothing in their war on man/boys/children.
22 years is a ridiculously harsh sentence.
If feminists had their way, every male would be convicted for simply breathing while male and sentenced to life in prison or the most inhumane forms of execution imaginable.
Except for their cronies. Even a fish needs a bicycle once in a while.
From A (2003)Conversation With Barry Scheck:
There are two chapters in our book, one about "junk forensic science," so-called, and another chapter about fraudulent forensic science, because we have problems everywhere. Today, we have lab scandals all over the place. We describe one in West Virginia, involving Fred Zane, whose dry lab didn't even do the experiments in about 330 cases, at the very least.
He just faked the data?
Faked the data. They had inconclusives, or just gave the results they wanted, didn't even do the tests. He moved on to San Antonio, Texas, where he did the same thing. Joyce Gilchrist, whom we mention in our book in the first edition (we have a new one coming out in the fall), has now been caught in Oklahoma City, a known ersatz forensic scientist, who was caught giving results that didn't make any sense, where she may not have even done the work, and she's been fired. Now they're looking at 3,000 cases and [will] whittle them down to another about 300. We have lab scandals today in Houston, Texas -- Harris County. If Harris County, Texas, were a state, they would have executed more people in this country than any state other than Texas. It executes more people than any other site in the Western world. And in Harris County, Texas, we now have a scandal involving a bad, unaccredited DNA laboratory that is getting results that convicted an innocent man named Josiah Sutton; we've now determined it with additional DNA tests. We have a ballistics lab there that is getting unreliable results in case after case. What has to happen there (it's a huge scandal,) is that every case done by the bad DNA analysts, every case done by the people that were doing fraudulent or grossly incompetent ballistic work, has to be reexamined. I mean, that's extraordinary. We're having these scandals in Florida now, in Indiana last week, various places across the country.
The Roy Criner case --Judge Sharon Keller's remarkable theory of how he could still be guilty when the DNA didn't match.
...36 months after DNA tests proved that it was someone else's semen found in Ogg, who was bludgeoned and stabbed to death in 1986. Such evidence had been enough to release dozens of other wrongly convicted inmates around the country, but Criner remained in prison after the state Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the tests didn't prove his innocence.
He could have been wearing a condom or failed to ejaculate, said appellate Judge Sharon Keller, who rejected a district judge's 1998 recommendation for a new trial.
The semen, she said, could have resulted from consensual sex with someone else before the killing, since the victim was known to be promiscuous.
I went to school with this boy:
(Excerpt: An Innocent Man, John Grisham --Ron Williamson, Ada, OK
...Forensic testing was performed on various items of evidence. Seventeen hairs were recovered and were "matched" to both Fritz and Williamson. The semen evidence suggested that the perpetrator(s) were non-secretors, as Fritz and Williamson are. Fritz could not remember his exact whereabouts during the day of the crime due to the amount of time, five years, that had passed.
DNA testing revealed that neither Fritz nor Williamson deposited the spermatozoa found in the victim. Further testing proved that none of the many hairs that were labeled "matches" belonged to them. The profile obtained from the semen evidence matched Glenn Gore, one of the state's witnesses at trial. Gore escaped from work release shortly after testing was concluded and was later apprehended.
Dennis Fritz and Ron Williamson were exonerated and released in April 1999. Williamson had, at one point, come within five days of execution. The two had been wrongfully incarcerated, respectively, for eleven years.
Five years after his release, Williamson was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver. On December 4, 2004, he died in an Oklahoma nursing home, surrounded by his family.
No you didn't. Liar
Sgt. Mom is a troll. Go away.
I think that she's one of the false accusers mentioned in this blog, quite frankly -- and for one of them to show up and try to pull the wool over our eyes makes perfect sense.
So far, I have seen SgtMom claim to be a female Vietnam vet with two teenaged children, one of whom was falsely convicted of rape in spite of his victim having an intact hymen, the other of whom was raped herself. She also claims that her sister in law is a child molester, and that her son's false rape accusation was retaliation for her coming forward. And she was molested, too. And her dad beat up a child molester in a bar for touching her mother. And she was persecuted by Perverted Justice, and spurned by the Nancy Grace show. And now she went to school with Ron Williamson.
The odds against all of this being true have to be in the billions.
I gotta research what meds they're using for for ODD these days. (At least it's not as bad as being bi-polar or schizophrenic.)
Get a grip! Ronnie Williamson isn't exactly like bragging you know a movie star.
It is if you're trying to make yourself look important on a blog about false accusers.
Recommendations:
Individual Psychotherapy to develop more effective anger management, Family Psychotherapy to improve communication, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy to assist problem solving and decrease negativity, and Social Skills Training to increase flexibility and improve frustration tolerance with peers.
I need cognitive therapy because I don't accept your very long train of bizarre and improbable claims at face value? If I were the one making these extremely unlikely and self-serving claims then wouldn't it be reasonable for others to doubt me?
I've spent 10 years researching the devastation caused by false accusations.
Must be what all false accusing 'trolls' do.
I don't see YOU contributing anything helpful or useful on these threads. No research. No insights.
You just want to belittle women - while ignoring the fact that women get falsely accused too.
Sorry I'm too 'uppity' or "trying to make myself look important".
I gotten kicked off women's discussions as a 'traitor to my gender' for trying to start a dialog about stopping false accusations...
... only to get sniped here by the He-Man Woman-Hater's club gang.
Here I've posted three alarming examples detailing how prevalent falsifying evidence is in crime labs...if YOU followed the research, you'd find knowledge of this had been going on over a decade.
Instead of being outraged at such evil injustice, AND RESEARCHING IT TO CONFIRM WHAT I PRESENTED, you chose instead to resent my 'trying to look important',then post inaccurate disinformation about me and accuse me of being a liar -
With a jury pool like you, no wonder so many innocent people are in prison.
You want to know why liars are believed and those telling the truth are not?
Look at yourself.
Innocent people are freed by skeptical people like me. They're convicted by hysterical people like you.
And it's even more interesting how you now claim to have researched false accusations for ten years. Presumably that coincides with your son's false conviction. That must make him at least 25 now, no?
I have to say that Sgt. Mom makes valuable contributions here -- she does know her stuff, and we welcome her comments. I don't always agree with her -- but I don't always agree with any regular commentator. I can't vouch for the life experience of anyone who comments here except for my collaborator, but I have no reason to think that Sgt. Mom is a "troll" in any sense. She is someone concerned about the falsely accused. Name calling and accusations aren't appropriate.
I also think it's unfortunate when people who are largely in agreement on the important issues start sniping at each other. I don't think our readers want to bother wading through comment after commentm of attack/counter-attack.
So I'm asking, please keep the comments directed to substance as opposed to personal attacks.
The bottom line her folks is women and girls are making false rape accusations, (at an unprecedented rate America has never seen before). The gender feminist community has formed an Alliance with the law enforcement community to spread faulty and inflammatory misinformation that is prejudicing against innocent men/boys.
This misinformation Alliance is unconstitutional, and will destroy a civil society.
Enabling and protecting liars is dangerous, Pierce. You aren't even going to let us be skeptical of a feminist's claims on this blog? That's crazy.
Pierce, Sgt. Mom has a right to post here, we all do. But I can tell you right now, there is a feminist out there somewhere who is having some fun right now with everyone here by mocking this website.
Anonymous, I think challenging someone is fine. I don't think name calling is appropriate and it's not especially effective to characterize someone without supporting evidence, that's all.
Regarding Sgt. Mom, I think I smell a 'feminist' in false rape victim's clothing.
The evidence I present is her own series of highly unlikely claims, and the way she reacts to being challenged on them. She seems to be concerned with her status on the blog, not with protecting innocent men.
But I'll defer to your judgment, Pierce. I want to support the blog, not be a distraction from it.
Still -- be wary. Even if I'm wrong about SgtMom, a blog about false accusers is likely to attract false accusers, and false accusers specialize in lies and manipulation. It's very possible that one of them could come in and pretend to be sympathic, when what they're really doing is looking to cause trouble.
The good thing is, Anonymous, that I take each comment and judge it on it's own merits. If we had a troll lurking among us, I have no disagreement with them if they are expressing sentiments respectful of the men and boys falsely accused. The moment they shed their false garb and reveal themselves as hate-mongers, or feminists looking to convict and not help our guys, then I respond in kind. There is not a single "argument" of theirs I've heard that I can't respond to, so I welcome any trolls in hiding to come forth and reveal themselves.
"only to get sniped here by the He-Man Woman-Hater's club gang.:
We're he-man woman-haters? Give me a break.
I don't know, Pierce...
Norm, I try to see both sides. A woman writes passionately about false rape claims, clearly supporting our guys who've been falsely accused. And, yes, sometimes we disagree sharply. But from all indicatations, her heart is in the right place.
I know that emotions run high on this site -- because we see a grave injustice that, let's be honest, strikes men and boys almost exclusively, and most of the rest of society doesn't realize it's such a big problem. So sometimes a few of our readers (and, yes, me, too, every now and again) get carried away and start characterizing women.
Sgt. Mom, I assume is a woman, and my guess is that she's reacting to some of that emotion -- maybe she feels like an outsider because she is pretty much immune from being falsely accused.
The one thing I hope is that some of our readers aren't looking at her as suspect just because she's a she. A lot of our male readers are here because they are interested in men's rights generally and this issue is at or near ground zero in terms of injustices to males. But we get a number of email writers -- and most are women. They have come to us because of a loved one (usually a son) who was falsely accused. I must be honest, when I read these notes where the mothers believe their sons unconditionally, and when I read the love, and the despair, and about how unfair false claims are in general -- it does remind me that most people, regardless of gender, are good, and they are interested in justice -- not gender politics.
Anyway, I don't want Sgt. Mom to think that this is some sort of private club that she's intruded on. We absolutely, definitely need all the women we can get. Especially people who write well and are passionate about the falsely accused.
I didn't understand that comment, either. I haven't seen anybody claim that women in general are inherently worse than men in general. The only claim that I have seen made is that men are the primary victims of false accusations, which is just an obvious fact.
I guess that in the minds of some people to be critical of ANY woman is to despise ALL of them. That's an old feminist dodge.
But from all indicatations, her heart is in the right place.
I respectfully disagree, Pierce. I think that the indications are that she is using our issues to gain attention and (in her mind) status on this blog. She claims to have one kid who was raped and another who was falsely convicted, which puts her in a position to be the life of the party no matter what side of the fence she's currently sitting on -- which can change in an instant.
That's it. I'm done for now. I just hope that others will choose to be skeptical.
"But from all indicatations, her heart is in the right place."
pierce, i respectfully agree!!
Gee, what was this post about again? Sgt. Mom? Been so long I can't remember.
Sgt. Mom = some con out there having fun mocking this website.
Enough is enough.
"there is a feminist out there somewhere who is having some fun right now with everyone here by mocking this website."
I'm afraid you're absolutely right about that.
"Look at this, girls - a traitor - one of the few women willing to step up and break ranks by aknowledging the epidemic and damage of false accusations and ...this...is the reaction. Ha!"
ROFL. No wonder people are gutless to speak up.
I've stated often enough, my 16 year old son was falsely accused 10 years ago. He was forced to accept an Alford plea, which is common in false accusation cases.
I apologize that I seem 'hysterical' to you. We have started the initial process of petitioning the court to have him released from the obligation to register as a sex offender. This entails thousands of dollars for a doubtful outcome, rereading old files, making new explanations to attorneys, retelling and reliving one of the worst experiences a human can endure.
It's having an old gut wound ripped open yet again.
If I was inconsiderate of your feelings, I apologize.
I'm a 55 year old woman. I have a lot of life experience - a lot of 'before feminism and after feminism' experience.
I've met people from all over the US as a Viet Nam ERA vet(you might learn something if you look up the "era" distinction). I worked many years in a high school, ground zero for where he said/she said start.
It's OK if false accusers come here. Let them contribute or troll. Preaching to the choir exclusively is unproductive - there is no growth, no new ideas or strategies. It's usually the person kicking your ass, rather than kissing it that you should appreciate.
How many times has my son flung women's evil and cruelties in my face? I counter balance his frustrations with reminders of other truths - the good and bad, right and wrong equally present in all of us.
He appreciates it --who wants to go around hateful and bitter toward those who DIDN'T harm you?
As far as my 'status' goes, if I was indeed 'self serving' I would have jumped at the chance to blog when asked.
This isn't a pissing contest here. You want to resent me, accuse me of lying, whatever--don't read it. Sticks and stones.
The only time it hurts to be called a liar is when your life is in some Judge's hands - when some prosecutor is declaring 'this is just too much, "a one in a billion chance."
And a jury so sure they know all those billion chances enough to agree - must be lying. Guilty.
People spend decades in prison speaking the truth - they're ALWAYS called a liar.
Do some research. You might learn something.
Q: "The gender feminist mob will stop at nothing in their war on man/boys/children."
I've been trying to figure out just what triggered this heated discussion - how posting articles in SUPPORT of the topic of discussion "faulty forensics" could lead to these resentful accusations of being a "gender feminist troll".
A liar. Someone "immune" to false accusations and life-of-the-partying my entitled ass off. A feminist in sheep's clothing.
I've taken the Wunderlich, guys.
I'm no genius.
I didn't somehow 'arrange' it that the false accuser was MALE, and the feminine element was blameless - raped and murdered.
These posts named both male and female forensics 'experts' who doctored results to convict innocent men. I balanced the evil male prosecutor with an equally evil female Judge.
It wasn't my purposeful intention to back up my claim that false accusations happen to BOTH genders of ALL ages. I didn't have to try.
Q: " Prosecutor Bill Peterson and Gary Rogers sue Dennis Fritz, the innocent man they wrongfully sent to prison for intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon them.
Only in America Folks..."
I've stated often enough, my 16 year old son was falsely accused 10 years ago. He was forced to accept an Alford plea, which is common in false accusation cases.
How was he forced? Couldn't he have gone to trial?
I have no idea who Sgt Mom is but I read his or her post on the website that had the story about the two guys that spent 8 months in jail over false accusations.
I agreed 100% with Sgt. Mom's post on that site and I don't know why anyone would waste their time with stuff like that unless they care.
One point that Sgt Mom makes that I totally agree with is that MALES are involved in false accusations.
Males are usually the target.
But look at guys like Nifong and these other prosecutors and judges. They are just as much at fault. For instance Nifong should be serving a life sentence along with his false accuser.
Women do get falsely accused it's at a way lower rate but it does happen.
I also totally agree with Sgt. Mom's idea that false accusers should be on a sex offender registry.
And if Sgt Mom is just a troll I hope he or she finds something better to do with his or her time.
" How was he forced? Couldn't he have gone to trial? "
There are a number of reasons why someone will plead guilty to either the crime(s) they are accused of or, plead guilty to a lesser crime/ or crimes.
Ineffective council, such as I had (public defenders who just want to clear cases from their caseload).In my case, I was coerced into accepting a plea bargain to a lesser charge.
There is professional misconduct/prosecutorial misconduct which are two other reasons why the accused may be coerced,tricked, trapped or, feel accepting a plea bargain is their only choice. into accepting a plea bargain. In cases where the accused is guilty,they ,as I have learned from doing research, accept plea bargains to receive shorter less harsh sentences.
The waiting period before their cases goes to trail is so long that they risk losing everything they own; their home,personal belongings, vehicle, etc. I almost lost my home, I did lose my truck with about ten thousand dollars worth of personal/government property. I was facing being charged with being AWOL. I also found out I was, until I showed up for duty and an explanation of why I was in jail, looking at being charged with desertion during a time of war.
It is very difficult to understand why some accept plea bargains, unless you are in their position. Each of the public defenders and the one court appointed private attorney I had,made it clear to me that I was going to be convicted, regardless of the fact that no gun ,as the " victim " claimed was used, was found after a very extensive and dilligent investigation was performed.It didn't matter to them,the prosecution or, the state that the so called victim, stumbled over her own words and basically committed perjury under oath. One other reason why men accept plea bargains, in addition to the above reasons; public and media biases. This also includes the great possibility of biases amongst members of the jury judging the accused man/men.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/4E8D6815-1797-46FC-8F8AB242FFE6391A/104/143/272/ART/
I also offer this;
http://www.lawmall.com/pleabarg/
"It is very difficult to understand why some accept plea bargains, unless you are in their position."
Often a plea bargain is the only logical choice for an innocent man -- often. Yes, in theory, we'd all like to fight these terrible injustices, but the reality is quite different because justice often is not served by our imperfect system.
Q: "How was he forced? Couldn't he have gone to trial?"
In the state he was accused, juveniles are not allowed jury trials -- just a hearing before a Judge.
10 days before the scheduled hearing we were told the family left the state.
The piece of 'evidence' they planned to use was sold at a garage sale...(swear to God).
His defense attorney could only interview the accuser by telephone.
The hearing was rescheduled.
A few days before the new date, we were told the accuser had been checked into a mental facility - she was 'retraumatized' after her two year wait to 'disclose'.
His attorney advised him to accept an Alford plea - "Who are they gonna believe, son? YOU? ...or that pooooor beeeutiful little girl?"
...and then they read a statement where you agree you were not forced...
That is completely bullshit. Of course he had the right to a jury trial.
Quote: "That is completely bullshit. Of course he had the right to a jury trial.
5/29/2009"
In WA state, juveniles are not entitled to a jury trial.
If you have evidence to the contrary,
Anonymous, put up, or shut up.
You should make the bare minimal effort to google search a few words befor declaring anything 'bullshit'.
Washington, State, Juvenile, court, jury, trial, adjudication
The Washington Juvenile Court System:
If a case were to go to trial, a minor is not entitled to a jury trial in juvenile court, only to an "Adjudication" (trial) in front of a judge.
--From the Attorney site Steve Karimi, but information available anywhere.
Post a Comment