• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

James Barton

Desert Fox said:
Thought I would post a case which is not real well known

It is the case of Police Lt Jim Barton who was convicted of murdering his wife ten years afterwards based on if he said "I have to call Phelp" not "I have to call fo help" and the changing testimony of a convict witness.

http://truthinjustice.org/james-barton.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scared-to-death/
Click to expand...

Interesting link.

I vaguely remember this case. It goes to your point that a jury will believe anything and does not require evidence. All the prosecutor has to do is point his/her finger and say, "that's the guy!"

The case is ridiculous. The supposed perpetrator's name was "Phelps" not "Phelp." Even if one assumes the prosecutor's outlandish theory is true, why in the world would Barton mention this individual to the 911 operator?

And, once again, the small-town ace detectives locked it down, and brought everyone to justice... except the guy who left his DNA at the crime scene.
 
I got a bit more information on him such as where he is housed. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down if he has a current lawyer.
He has a parole hearing this year. Many parole boards however require one to admit you committed a crime which can be a stumbling block.
 
Some new material with regards to the case
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/us-supreme-court-to-rule-on-barton-case/npKpY/

“The state’s theory here rests on the testimony of a single witness —not even an eyewitness, in fact. That witness presented an unsupported, shifting, and somewhat fantastical story at trial. The state suppressed material, exculpatory evidence from Barton, thereby making it more difficult for Barton to discredit this theory. There is a reasonable probability that such actions affected the outcome of the trial,” according to the ruling.

Looks like the supreme court is taking it up
http://www.news-herald.com/article/HR/20160104/NEWS/160109897
 
The only season of Forensic Files on canadian netflix has an episode that features this case, as well as the Michael Peterson case. Interesting to watch all these years later.
 
Samzilla said:
The only season of Forensic Files on canadian netflix has an episode that features this case, as well as the Michael Peterson case. Interesting to watch all these years later.
Click to expand...

This and some other cases point out that the police go way too far with forensics.
 
Desert Fox said:
This and some other cases point out that the police go way too far with forensics.
Click to expand...

They spend a good portion of the episode analyzing the phone call, determing that the "f" sound could not have been a combined "fo' help", but rather that it must have been a "ph" sound.

However, they totally disregard that even if it was a "ph" sound, he still doesn't say "phelps", lol.
 
Samzilla said:
They spend a good portion of the episode analyzing the phone call, determing that the "f" sound could not have been a combined "fo' help", but rather that it must have been a "ph" sound.

However, they totally disregard that even if it was a "ph" sound, he still doesn't say "phelps", lol.
Click to expand...

I think I saw it on 48 hours. There have been a few forensic files that I have basically gone WTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom