|
Post by kma367 on Mar 1, 2015 13:53:10 GMT -6
Yes, Morton was legitimately innocent. Frankly, the prosecutor shouldn't have fought the DNA testing request in that case. However, a fact that escapes many advocates is that once you are convicted, the burden shifts to you to prove that you're innocent. The state is not under a continuing burden to prove its case.
Yes, libeling and/or slandering the victim is particularly reprehensible. At one point, Reed apparently claimed Stacey was using drugs with him and that was why she was having an affair with him. Testing was done on her hair and found NO DRUG USE in the 32 months prior to her death, which would have been between 1993 and 1996. Reed argues in his latest writ that the tests that were done would not detect "casual" use and he wants additional testing to prove she used drugs.
The "Carla Hall" is claiming to be the same Carla Hall who was friends with Stacey. She's apparently forgotten testing against Reed and saying that Fennell was allowed in her home any time.
I'm surprised that Reed is not claiming consensual relationships with all of his other victims.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 1, 2015 14:56:14 GMT -6
Yes, if "Carla Hall" is the same woman who was friends with Stacey, she is forgetting testifying on behalf of the state (as well as saying that Fennell was allowed in her home at any time); I'm surprised no one's asked her about that. She might be an imposter, though.
Keep in mind, given how long the appeals process takes, it will likely be months before we hear anything more; I hope the state gets its own expert (like they did with Swearingen).
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 3, 2015 21:54:00 GMT -6
She actually deleted her posts and didn't respond when I brought that up. There's a very slim chance that she is the real Carla Hall who has been visited by and lied to by defense investigators, who likely told her that they had Dave Hall's DNA at the crime scene, based on the refuted results of the tests on the beer can back in 1998. It also appears that she may not be married to Dave Hall, so she could have some sour grapes she wants to air out on social media.
If Reed's attorneys try to put her on the stand at any hearing, it is going to be seriously unpleasant for her.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 4, 2015 17:52:50 GMT -6
That's an interesting response, kma367. Maybe it was an imposter. Yeah, she won't be the best witness for the defense. While there are innocent people on death row, Reed isn't likely one of them, IMO.
Just curious, what is your opinion on the two HEB workers who gave affidavits supporting the theory of Reed and Stites's relationship? I find it interesting that they waited for 18 years to testify. If they were interviewed at the time, and they didn't say anything about this, especially given that Fennell was the main suspect at the time, it won't go well for them, I suspect. Lee Roy Ybarra's reason for not coming forward is...odd, to put it mildly. He said, firstly, he didn't realize how important his information was to the investigation and, secondly, that he would have testified if the prosecution or defense contacted him. And Alicia Singer (the last name appears to be her married name, IIRC) said that she didn't tell the police about the alleged relationship because she thought that everyone knew.
That is...interesting, and I will leave it at that, especially given that HEB (as I've posted) had already offered a $50,000 reward for information about Stites. Yet neither of these two employees thought to call in their information ($50,000 would be a lot of money to a grocery store employee) to HEB?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 4, 2015 23:04:23 GMT -6
First and foremost, neither of the former HEB co-workers actually corroborates Reed's claim that he had a relationship with Stacey.
Ybarra says that Stacey was happy to see Reed when he came into the store and not happy to see Fennell when he came into the store. He doesn't say he saw them outside the store together, or even that he had personal knowledge of the existence of a relationship. Stacey being happy to see Reed (which is suspect given the fact that Reed denied knowing Stacey) could have been nothing more than Stacey being nice to a customer of the store. As for the claims about Fennell, given that he worked in Giddings during the day and Stacey worked in Bastrop, it's unlikely that he dropped in on her at work very often.
Alicia Slater doesn't have first hand knowledge of a relationship with Reed. She claims that Stacey told her about an affair with Reed and expressed fear if Fennell found out about it. The major problem with her statement is that it's hearsay. In fact, it's the classic definition of hearsay, i.e. an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It's also not corroborated by any other evidence and is refuted by Reed's initial claim that he didn't know Stacey and the fact that Stacey's mother and sister testified at trial that Stacey did not know Rodney Reed.
Yet another critical piece of evidence missing from Reed's submission is evidence that Fennell knew about the non-existent relationship. Reed's attorneys are recycling the claim made by a class mate of Fennell's about strangling a cheating girlfriend with a belt, but they're not presenting a single witness to say that Fennell knew about the relationship. In fact, the majority of Reed's brief does nothing more than recycle claims that have been rejected by the jury and/or post-conviction court, such as the beer can DNA and the alleged sighting of Fennell and Stacey at around 5:00 a.m. on April 23, 1996. Of course, if Fennell killed Stacey before 3:30 a.m., it's impossible for the sighting to have occurred.
Neither of the new witnesses is any more credible than the other witnesses Reed presented at trial, or during his prior post-conviction claims. The fact that they both waited 18 years to come forward makes them even less credible, in my opinion. They might not have known they had important information in 1996 when Stacey was murdered, or 1997 while the investigation was still going on, but they should have known in 1998 that their information was important because Reed's defense was that he was having a relationship with Stacey.
One of the major problems with Reed's post-conviction claims is that he has never presented a clear, cohesive alternate theory of the crime and he has, in fact, presented claims and evidence that are inconsistent with his claims.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 5, 2015 22:15:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 7, 2015 14:36:47 GMT -6
Thanks for letting the board know about that.
BTW, Al Jazeera in America interviewed Rodney Reed. I don't have the link in front of me, since I didn't read the story (it was on Texas Tribune's link page, IIRC). It's probably sympathetic to Rodney (and might repeat some of his supporters' claims, like the DNA on the beer cans).
And Alicia Slater's saying that she was surprised that Stites was confiding in her because she (Slater) didn't know her well makes me a little suspicious (especially since none of Stacey's friends or family appear to have known, IIRC). Anyway, I agree on you about them not coming forward in 1998, especially since Reed's defense was claiming to have an interracial relationship with Stacey. That makes me suspicious of what they have to say now (and why they waited so long). Ybarra claims that he was never contacted by the prosecutors or defense at Reed's trial, despite the fact that he would have testified; if he never came forward, how could they possibly contact him if they didn't know about his information?
And about the claim about Fennell's saying that he'd strangle his (if she was) cheating girlfriend with a belt; the person who testified to it it, Mary Blackwell, despite being a police officer herself, waited until after Rodney's trial to come forward with her information. Oh, and she initially said he was joking. When they looked into her story, the officer who she claimed Fennell told the story to denied he ever said it, as did every other officer in the class, IIRC.
In addition, outside of the two HEB employees, the only people in the Bastrop (and Giddings) region who (apparently) knew about Reed's and Stites's affair were, apparently, Reed's family members and friends. None of Stacey's relatives and friends, IIRC, have testified that they knew (and believe me, if any of them knew (or testified to it), we'd know by now).
Just curious, what are some of the other lies Reed's supporters tell?
BTW, did you see the Chris Hayes (All in With Chris Hayes, MSNBC) segment on the case? If so, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 11, 2015 21:30:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 15, 2015 12:39:44 GMT -6
Thanks for the state's response. IMO, this will (probably) fail. Reed's supporters are claiming that, basically, every bit of evidence against Reed is a massive conspiracy against him (of course). In addition, they also claim that Reed was going to be selected for the US boxing team in 1987, but that the first rape victim ruined that (of course).
So, basically, it's a massive conspiracy against Rodney Reed (this would do Oliver Stone proud). Yes, they're still claiming that Ed Salmela and Gary Joe Bryant were victims of this conspiracy (those were the officers I mentioned in earlier posts). They're also implying that Fennell might have murdered Mary Ann Arldt (the woman that David Lawhon pleaded guilty (or was convicted of) murdering; if one doesn't follow Reed's appeals, he claimed in a couple of them that Lawhon might have murdered Stites as well).
If you're wondering where I got this from, it's from the Facebook page Justice for Rodney Reed (I am not making this up). Yes, they still have the previous witnesses and their testimony posted.
I wonder what Reed's lawyers are saying about the previous witnesses, given that this time of death evidence contradicts most of the witnesses they had testify in previous appeals.
The thing that makes this case have doubt is Fennell's actions over a decade later; but his attempt to cover that up fell apart. Let me put it this way: if Fennell couldn't cover up his rape of a woman in his custody, how could he have covered up Stites's murder? How come those investigating on behalf of Reed haven't died suspiciously.
OTOH, as I have stated earlier, I do understand why Fennell's rape victim thinks Fennell might have murdered Stites.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Mar 15, 2015 16:50:29 GMT -6
What likely ruined Reed's chances of being chosen for the U.S. Boxing Team was his theft of a motorcycle on June 20, 1986 (p. 115, rodneyreedfulltruth.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/prr00013013_states-exhibits-guilt-innocence-s1-s156_generated-sep-9-1998.pdf). Reed was indicted in July, 1986 and entered a guilty plea to that offense on October 17, 1986. Thanks for the state's response. IMO, this will (probably) fail. Reed's supporters are claiming that, basically, every bit of evidence against Reed is a massive conspiracy against him (of course). In addition, they also claim that Reed was going to be selected for the US boxing team in 1987, but that the first rape victim ruined that (of course). The burden is on Reed to prove a conspiracy and he has failed to do that either at trial, or in post-conviction proceedings. While the "average" person is perfectly happy to accept conclusory allegations as fact, the courts do not work that way. In fact, Reed's attorneys have never proven any connection between Fennell and Salmela (or Selmela - I've seen it spelled both ways in numerous forums). They make a lot of the fact that Davis left his shift after an hour, but have failed to prove that he left for any reason other than the stated reason, i.e. a broken tooth. Gary Joe Bryant is apparently a new "accomplice" identified by Reed's supporters. He's not a valid accomplice because one of the things Ranger Wardlow did during his investigation was to check mileage on the Giddings P.D. patrol cars. None showed a 70 mile round trip at the time of Stacey's murder. According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, there is no "conspiracy" behind Officer Bryant's murder. www.odmp.org/officer/14824-patrolman-gary-joe-bryantwww.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=469914ce-5de3-47e4-a38c-2519a3f28790&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=92508a57-6cc8-49dc-845e-9b1cc901bf33According to the Officer Down Memorial and the Texas courts, Officer Bryant was assisting in the search for the driver of a vehicle involved in a hit and run. His killer was a Mexican national who was apparently found to be incompetent to stand trial and was either incarcerated or institutionalized pending a finding of competence. One of the problems with Reed's many presentations in his post-conviction proceedings has been the complete absence of a conclusive alternate theory of the crime, as I mentioned above. The burden on Reed is to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent and he cannot do that with a scattershot SODDI (some other dude did it) approach. Fennell's actions a decade later are not relevant. They never have been and they never will be. The murder may be one of the factors that led to Fennell's future actions. Fennell's future actions are also not an indicator because all of Fennell's victims were left alive. Additionally, Stacey was not raped. The state and federal courts in Texas, as well as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal have found his actions to be irrelevant. Subjective beliefs about Reed's innocence, or Fennell's guilt, do not constitute clear and convincing evidence. Frankly, the likelihood is that Fennell's victims have been influenced by Reed's advocates and, frankly, I am surprised that none of them has ever claimed that Fennell confessed the murder to them, although that will likely be the next bit of evidence to come out when Reed's execution date is reset.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 15, 2015 17:40:39 GMT -6
Yeah, I looked up Gary Joe Bryant after they brought his name up. Frankly, his family should be offended that they're dragging him into this. The pro-Reed Facebook page says that Bryant was investigating Fennell in Stacey's murder (how he could be doing so when the murder was thought to have occurred in Bastrop and was being investigated by the Bastrop County Sheriff's Office and the Texas Rangers is beyond me), not that he was an accomplice.
If you look at Reed's theories closely, they fall apart if one uses common sense (especially since he claimed contradictory things in his appeals). Of course, on the Internet, you can say anything and it will be taken as fact, even if it's not, IMO (look at the Obama birther theories, the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, etc.).
I've read interviews with Connie Lear (Fennell's victim). Believe me, if Fennell confessed to her, she would have mentioned it by now. She might have been influenced by Reed's advocates (that wouldn't be a shock to me).
IMO, Reed did it, and he (likely) didn't have a secret relationship with Stacey.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Mar 29, 2015 15:40:26 GMT -6
Ok, let's just suppose that Reed and his supporters are right, and Reed was having an affair with Stacey at the time of her death, that it was common knowledge, and that the investigators framed Reed and sent him to death row in part over this.
On the YouTube comments for State vs. Reed, a couple of commenters have pointed this out: how come Reed's name didn't come up in the immediate aftermath of the murder? You'd think Fennell himself would at least mention Reed's name (to some degree) during the initial investigation, especially if he was planning on having his cop buddies frame Reed. But it didn't come up until nearly a year later, when Reed just happened to be arrested as a suspect in another assault case. What was Fennell's (and his co-conspirators') plan: wait for Reed to get himself arrested and then frame him for Stacey's murder (and the other assaults)? If I were one of Reed's supporters, I would ask myself this: why would any conspiracy against Rodney Reed wait nearly a year to put their frameup plan in motion? This makes zero sense to me.
And, on the rodneyreedfulltruth.com page, the page just happens to leave something out: Rodney Reed's punishment phase transcripts (which describe the other assaults Reed was tied to via DNA and the victims' testimony). Why leave those out? If you want the full truth, why not have the punishment phase transcripts, too? You can't have it both ways. Reed also mentions his three children that he said he missed growing up (in a KEYE-TV interview). Then, go and read the state's motion to dismiss, where it is stated that Reed rarely saw two of them, sexually assaulted their mother (this was mentioned in the punishment phase), and had his parental rights terminated. Of course, Reed's supporters don't mention this (big surprise).
Just more of my .02.
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on May 23, 2015 16:30:31 GMT -6
Unknown, I know it's been a while since you posted this and I apologize for the delay in my response.
Yes, if this were a deliberate frame-up, it makes absolutely no sense that a year elapsed between Stacey's murder and Reed's arrest. Of course, Reed's supporters likely operate under the mistaken belief that Reed was arrested immediately for Stacey's murder, because that is the impression that is given by the pro-Reed advocates. Reed has also said that he initially lied to police because he didn't want Fennell to find out about his relationship with Stacey. Basically, it is evident to anyone paying attention that nobody in the pro-Reed camp can get their stories straight, since Fennell's motive for killing Stacey is knowledge of the relationship.
As for the fulltruth page, I speak from personal experience when I say that obtaining and uploading original documents is a very time-consuming and arduous process. The documents currently available were probably obtained at great cost and the available budget may not have been sufficient to obtain the penalty phase transcripts. The owners of the fulltruth page may also not understand the significance of those penalty phase documents. I don't think that the absence of those documents is anything sinister. The page does say that it is under construction, so we may at some point see those documents added.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 26, 2015 11:44:55 GMT -6
You're right about the fulltruth page, kma367.
I also agree with you about Reed's supporters. Fennell's motive for killing Stacey is (supposedly) his knowledge of their relationship; however, if Reed says he lied to prevent Fennell from finding out, this makes no sense. At all.
Oh, and Rodney's attorneys got two new affidavits, including one from Stites's cousin Buddy Horton saying that in either October or November of 1995, he saw Stacey and Rodney at the Dairy Queen in Bastrop, and that she walked out to avoid talking to him. If this is the case, why didn't he contact Rodney's defense team at the time of the trial (especially since he identified him from news reports at the time and, especially, since the victim was his cousin)?
What's your opinion on these affidavits?
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on May 27, 2015 20:14:21 GMT -6
The majority of the information in the cousin's affidavit isn't even admissible, because he's repeating hearsay about Stacey that he allegedly got from his parents, not his firsthand observations. The date is also fuzzy, as I recall. I believe he said a Sunday in the Fall of 1995, but Reed has given conflicting accounts of when he met Stacey. His credibility isn't helped by the fact that he didn't go to Reed's attorneys in 1997/1998 with this information.
As for the attorney's affidavit, frankly, I think he's full of crap. If any of these things really happened while he represented Reed, why didn't he report them to the Court, to Reed's eventual trial counsel and/or Reed's habeas counsel. Reed filed 6 or 7 state habeas claims. He filed multiple state habeas/post-conviction claims during his direct appeal. Not once did his former counsel report any harassment by law enforcement in Bastrop, nor did he report that Stacey's co-workers were initially willing to talk and then changed their minds. I would also expect at attorney to have the sense to provide the names of those employees who allegedly knew about the relationship. Then again, they probably didn't want to do that because in prior claims, when the DA and/or police investigators followed up on what these witnesses allegedly told the defense, the witnesses denied telling investigators anything helpful to Reed. There was even one witness, who allegedly saw Reed and Stacey together, who, when interviewed by police said "The only think I know about Rodney Reed is that he's a crackhead who likes to rape women by the railroad tracks."
These affidavits are no different than the many others that Reed's counsel have tried to pass off as evidence of his innocence. They aren't credible and they don't prove that Reed was having a relationship with Stacey at the time he murdered her.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on May 28, 2015 17:11:15 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm surprised that his first attorney (Jimmy Brown) has never mentioned this before (especially since he was an officer of the court and should have said something).
Yes, her cousin says it was in October or November of 1995 (on a Sunday) when he saw Stacey and Rodney (oh, and the date was a warm day, but not a hot one).
|
|