About changing facts in another guy’s case

This is some stuff I read in this guy’s brief he allowed me to read because we both had Joseph Chu testify in our trials. But I read a few things that I found noteworthy.

John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind.”

Our system trust juries to make life and death decisions precisely because we try to give them every piece of evidence they need. Yet, due to advances in science and reasoning, often new evidence becomes available with the passage of times surely in deciding the ultimate penalty science, especially new science that makes a relevant mitigating fast available cannot be kept from them.

To me that sums it up and cuts right to the heart of the matter. I Would like to say this, when whomever wrote this, they talked about advances in science and reasoning, that is just what my case, or rather this new DNA testing is based on, new science. Y-STR testing wasn’t available back in 1992. So it is new science.  Then they wrote about how ‘we try and give them every piece of evidence they need’..that is hard to do as in my case the Prosecution intentionally withholds the every lab report that showed different blood. And failed to correct known false testimony, not once but twice. My trial DA failed to correct Joseph Chu when he falsely testified the results were inconclusive, but also when he failed to correct Dr. Belles who testified that from the photos he observed and the position of her body, that shows – he told- the signs of rape or attempted rape. The prosecution knew very well she was not found like that but placed in the position due to Eric Benge attempting CPR.

With the passage of time things do and have changed. Things that my jury should had been aware of. I cannot ever say it enough, if my judge, the judges of the TCCA or  my prosecution was in my position, they would be saying the very same things I am, they deserve a new and fair trial where the jury is presented with ALL the CORRECT evidence and testimony.

Here is something else that was written in his brief I found very enlightening.

“Kate Worth, the surprisingly imperfect science of DNA Testing. The Marshall project (June 25, 2015).(“Today, most of us see DNA evidence as terrifically persuasive. A 2005 gallop poll found that 85 percent of America  Nevada, Yale, and Claremont McKenna College found that jurors rated DNA evidence 95 percent accurate and between 90 percent persuasive depending on where DNA was found. That faith could  -be shaken. But only when lawyer made a convincing case that a lab had a history of errors.”

That is rater powerful don’t you think? More so this part of labs having a history of errors.”  And as we all know, the HPD crime lab has many. They have a history of helping the prosecution like lying about the results. But not of contamination. That is a big difference to me. I am not actually aware of any cases where the lab was found to had actually used contaminated evidence.  Although they did allow old and new evidence to become contaminated due to being improperly stored, a leaking roof ect. But I am not aware if they actually used contaminated results to convict someone.

No the HPD Crime lab has a history of helping the police, the prosecution and lying on the stand, misstating their finding to help with convictions. I think mv jury would like to had know just how many cases Chu lied in.

Now this next part is about Joseph Chu when he testified in this guy’s case. It to me is very interesting. I wish I could get his actual lab reports to see if it was similar to mine. The antigen part.

Serological Research Institute in California is the lab that did my testing. (The federal District Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his conviction or sentence constituted a fundamental miscarriage of justice because, while the DNA retesting established that an unidentified third person was at the complainants apartment at same point, retesting conclusively established that the appellant was present at the scene and ejaculated.)

Okay, that is what the Federal Court said about his case. As where in my case, I can conclusively establish that my DNA is nowhere to be found on any of the items tested that should had yielded some DNA. But it is a fact that a third party DNA was detected and that DNA was found on the finger nails of Mrs. Franklyn and it is from BLOOD. So there is a very big difference between this guy and me.

(on cross examination at trial, HPD serologist Joseph Chu testified that there were indications of another DNA contributor with regard to the sample take from the beige sheet: that there was a letter in Chu’s records stating that stains from the being sheet ware compared with the DNA of G.L. Williams and the result was that it could possibly have come from a close relative of Williams.)

Well, we know for a fact in my case the blood detected was not from a relative of Mrs. Franklyn. Also, in this case Chu testified that there were ‘indications of another DNA contributor’…Two things about this. First, he saw from the Antigen in the test results that he did on the fingernails of Mrs. Franklyn that were ‘indications of another DNA contributor. (But yet he still falsely testified saying the results were inconclusive. Something he knew damn wall to be false. And something my DA knew to be false. Why else would he withhold the lab report? And second, I really believe that

the only reason Chu testified that he found indicators of another person’s DNA is because he also conclusively found this guys semen at the crime scene where he ejaculated. As with me, he found nothing to show my blood was found. So what does he do? He takes the stand and lies.

(And that testing of a semen stain on a blue sheet not admitted into evidence revealed DNA that did not match the Applicants DNA. Therefore, the applicant’s jury WAS aware that there was a possibly another DNA contributor on the samples taken from the beige sheet, and trial counsel was free to raise the possibility of another individuals involvement in the primary offense based on such testimony)

The difference in this case and my case is 1. My jury wasn’t aware of any other DNA, they were told the testing results ware inconclusive. 2.  My trial attorney wasn’t aware of it because the lab report was withheld and there from he could not make an argument of another person’s involvement.

(Regardless the DNA retesting results did not rule out the applicants quilt, a point that the Federal Court and the Fifth Circuit noted in denying the applicant’s Hebeas relief and COA.

The Federal District Court remarked that DNA retesting ‘unequivocally’ proved that applicant was present and ejaculated in the apartment. Further, such evidence was not newly presented in light of the trial testimony of HPD Serologist Chu.

Finally, the applicant relies on article 11.073 of the TCCA In arguing that he is entitled to a new trial bases on the retesting of DNA evidence in 2003-2004. Article 11.073 applies to relevant scientific that was not available to the defense at trial and contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the trial prosecution.)

That is a mouthful 1. the retesting in my case conclusively ruled me out as a contributor. 2. I too feel I am entitled to a new trial based on this retesting of evidence because the new test ‘unequivocally’ prove this DNA from Blood, is not mine, 3. and I feel I am entitled to a new trial because the results were not available to my trial attorney. And 4. The Prosecution did in fact rely on Chu’s testimony which now is contradicted by the new testing at the trial.

(As noted above, however the DNA retesting results did not contradict the prosecutions scientific evidence from trial; i.e., the trial testimony of HPD serologist Chu.)

Well,  I feel in my case his testimony since it is false and retesting DOES contradict the testimony that prosecution relied on at trial.

(Further,  article 11.073 does not provide the applicant with an additional bases for hebeas relief because the applicant does not show by the preponderance of the evidence he would not have been convicted if the DNA retest results had been presented at trial. Compare with “exparte Robbins N0.WR-73, 402-02-2014  WL. 6751684 at *8 (Tex Crim app 2014) (holding that defendant entitled to hebeas relief under art 11.073 bases on medical examiner’s port trial reconsideration of autopsy findings).

Getting passed that ‘preponderance of the evidence’ is a had thing to do. And the only thing they are using against me is the statement I gave to the detective. But hopefully they will take into account the preponderance of the evidence l am presenting about the statement and about the fact I live in the neighborhood, will even things out. But one can never tell with the TCCA.

One thing else about this guys case, it said in Chu’s notes that he ‘thought’ the third persons DNA ‘could possibly be from a close relative of Williams’. Okay when they are talking about killing a man, executing someone, they should not rely on ‘could possibly’ to hell with that. They need to be for sure! Just as in my case, the DA said it ‘could have’ been one of the grandsons friends DNP,. . .again, all that ‘could possibly, could have, may have might have’ should not even be considered when they are talking about strapping a man or woman down and pumping them full of drugs to kill them.

Let’s be absolutely 100 percent sure. I cannot say it enough, if they were the ones here or it was a loved one of theirs, they would not want to have the courts rely on could have could possibly, they would want the court to make damn sure they have it right. I as a reasonable thinking man expect no less.