Murder of Henrietta Nickens

[Chris_Halkides]

"The case concerns Derrick Chappell, 41, Morton Johnson, 44, and Samuel Grasty, 47, who each were convicted in separate trials of second-degree murder [of a 70 year old woman near Philadelphia] and other charges in 2000 and 2001 and sentenced to life in prison...Tests on the DNA from the semen, however, did not match with any of them, according to the filing...Modern DNA testing techniques, particularly “touch DNA,” have revealed that the DNA from the semen matches several other items of crime scene evidence, including more semen on the green jacket and on the bedsheet and items in the jacket’s pocket, according to attorneys for the defendants."

Aside from the probable misuse of the term "touch DNA," the CNN report is a good article. I had thought that prosecutors would no longer put forth a theory of the crime involving an unindicted co-ejaculator (which is not a strictly accurate term). There is a good chance that Richard McElwee gave a false confession/accusation; his testimony seems to be by far the most significant evidence against the three. The NYT reported that an assistant district attorney is trying to uphold the convictions, writing "'Absent compelling evidence of innocence, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed,' she wrote. 'The post-conviction DNA evidence is neither compelling nor is it evidence of innocence.'" The notion that the jury verdict should not be disturbed and the craving for finality are serious barriers in overturning wrongful convictions IMO.

WaPo reported, "'This is a violent assault that took time,' Keel said of Nickens’s killing. 'If any of these defendants did this, I would expect to recover biological evidence from one or more of these items.'"* This report went on, "Prosecutors offered no definitive explanation for why the semen was on Nickens’s body during the men’s trials. They offered varying possibilities, including Nickens had a consensual encounter before her attack, the defendants found a used condom and deposited the semen on her body to cover up their crime, and a man entered Nickens’s apartment after the defendants left and raped her as she lay dying or was already dead."
*EDT
The question of when the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a difficult one, but it comes up frequently forensics.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

follow the money

The Innocence Project reported, "In doing so [focusing on Sam Grasty], they [the police] chose not to pursue a thorough investigation into two men who had tried to cash in Ms. Nickens’ social security at a deli the month after her murder...The details and time of the crime in Mr. McElwee’s statement did not match the facts of the crime, yet law enforcement and prosecutors built their case around the statement. "

 

[pgwenthold]

"The case concerns Derrick Chappell, 41, Morton Johnson, 44, and Samuel Grasty, 47, who each were convicted in separate trials of second-degree murder [of a 70 year old woman near Philadelphia] and other charges in 2000 and 2001 and sentenced to life in prison...Tests on the DNA from the semen, however, did not match with any of them, according to the filing...Modern DNA testing techniques, particularly “touch DNA,” have revealed that the DNA from the semen matches several other items of crime scene evidence, including more semen on the green jacket and on the bedsheet and items in the jacket’s pocket, according to attorneys for the defendants."

Aside from the probable misuse of the term "touch DNA," the CNN report is a good article. I had thought that prosecutors would no longer put forth a theory of the crime involving an unindicted co-ejaculator (which is not a strictly accurate term). There is a good chance that Richard McElwee gave a false confession/accusation; his testimony seems to be by far the most significant evidence against the three. The NYT reported that an assistant district attorney is trying to uphold the convictions, writing "'Absent compelling evidence of innocence, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed,' she wrote. 'The post-conviction DNA evidence is neither compelling nor is it evidence of innocence.'" The notion that the jury verdict should not be disturbed and the craving for finality are serious barriers in overturning wrongful convictions IMO.

WaPo reported, "'This is a violent assault that took time,' Keel said of Nickens’s killing. 'If any of these defendants did this, I would expect to recover biological evidence from one or more of these items.'"* This report went on, "Prosecutors offered no definitive explanation for why the semen was on Nickens’s body during the men’s trials. They offered varying possibilities, including Nickens had a consensual encounter before her attack, the defendants found a used condom and deposited the semen on her body to cover up their crime, and a man entered Nickens’s apartment after the defendants left and raped her as she lay dying or was already dead."
*EDT
The question of when the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a difficult one, but it comes up frequently forensics.

Bit in a system that requires conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, it's an issue.

Recall the famous cartoon, where the lawyer says, "Did my client do it? Probably. But 'probably' isn't good enough."

How does "they might have found a used condom and used that to put semen on the body" pass the reasonable doubt standard? There is plenty good reason to doubt that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dubious case

Given everything that we now know, I would not even find them guilty at the level of preponderance of the evidence standard. This has many of the hallmarks of a false confession/accusation.

 

[Elaedith]

If I understand it correctly, the prosecution is arguing that the DNA evidence cannot change anything because the trial acknowledged the absence of DNA evidence against the defendants, and the presence of DNA from an unknown male. But the original trial did not link the mystery DNA to other items in the crime scene, including the jacket which the prosecution had tried to link to the defendants but is now linked to the mystery man.

There is no evidence except a dubious confession, an absence of evidence where it would be expected, and evidence implicating somebody else. It seems a clear case of unsafe conviction.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mixture of blood and semen

CNN reported, "Timothy Palmbach, an expert in crime scene reconstruction, testified in a Delaware County, Pennsylvania, courtroom about the new DNA evidence, in particular a mixture of the unknown man’s semen, the victim’s blood, and urine on her bedsheet. The comingling of those bodily fluids shows that the beating and sex occurred at about the same time, he testified, rebutting a key prosecution argument that they were unrelated."

I don't know that basis for his conclusion. Tests for DNA or blood do not provide information on when they were deposited on their own. That having been said, I am still strongly of the opinion that this was a wrongful conviction. I am a little surprised that there has not been a database hit. I have to wonder whether or not the identities of the two men who tried to cash her social security check were recorded.

 

[catsmate]

CNN reported, "Timothy Palmbach, an expert in crime scene reconstruction, testified in a Delaware County, Pennsylvania, courtroom about the new DNA evidence, in particular a mixture of the unknown man’s semen, the victim’s blood, and urine on her bedsheet. The comingling of those bodily fluids shows that the beating and sex occurred at about the same time, he testified, rebutting a key prosecution argument that they were unrelated."

I don't know that basis for his conclusion. Tests for DNA or blood do not provide information on when they were deposited on their own. That having been said, I am still strongly of the opinion that this was a wrongful conviction. I am a little surprised that there has not been a database hit. I have to wonder whether or not the identities of the two men who tried to cash her social security check were recorded.

Examination of the sites where the material was found, layering and intermingling perhaps?