This site is a work-in-progress!
This website was created with the intention of sharing with the public the collected and available case files, transcripts, police reports, evidence, video and photography files associated with the Rodney Reed death penalty case to further continued research, study and journalism on this case.
Please contact the website administrator to provide any additional documentation that you feel is relevant and necessary in order to make this file complete. (See Below)
Background: Since April 3, 1997, when Rodney was arrested and charged with the capital murder of Stacey Stites, a murder he claims he did not commit, the case and case files have been shrouded in a cloud of misinformation, mystery and secrets. Now, for the first time, the original trial transcripts and evidence exhibits (as well as public documents and reports) are available in digital form. It is our hope that in providing this resource researchers, journalists, lawyers and concerned citizens will have the opportunity to fully study and review this critical and highly controversial death penalty case. Our intention is that these materials can be finally and fully reviewed, analyzed and discussed in a public setting. We believe the trial testimony, exhibits, court documents, witnesses and evidence (new and old), and a modern understanding of science, all speaks for itself.
Thank you for visiting this site.
I am re investigating this case for a television program called dead again that airs on the arts and entertainment channel.
I saw the episodes regarding this case Joe. You guys make an entertaining program!
Comment
I was on the jury of one of his rape trials many years before he committed this murder. He used the same motive— his DNA was found because “him and the victim were secretly dating”. I felt intimidated and unfortunately caved to vote with acquittal.
Waste of your time. He’s where he deserves to be.
Am I the only person who reads the court documents relating to this case and it only strengthens my opinion that Reed is guilty? I was doubtful before, but having read the court documents, I’ve come to realise that for the most part all of the news stories in mainstream media about evidence that exonerates him relate to things that have already been done to death in the courts and those which don’t simply aren’t credible.
This is an excellent website and I urge anyone with an interest in this case to read the documents presented here, and to read them critically. See just what has been addressed by the courts and the strength of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense. If you can read them and still believe Reed is innocent then I respect that, but you should read what has been presented in the courts, courts which have upheld his conviction, and understand their rationale for doing so, before jumping on any bandwagons.
I agree and what if the other rapes that dna proved?
I watched the Death Row Stories episide on Reed, but then also read the case documents, to make sure I wasn’t missing something, since I usually side with the inmate, outraged at the injustice….but with Reed….it was the exact opposite.
I feel he is absolutely guilty, a certifiable liar, and has serious issues with anger and violence.
It maden me question the Innocence Projects involvement.
They aren’t seeing the big picture. Very disappointing.
Comment
I was on the jury of one of his rape trials many years before he committed this murder. He used the same motive— his DNA was found because “him and the victim were secretly dating”. I felt intimidated and unfortunately caved to vote with acquittal.
Richard..
I’m from here, I know these people.
1. There was a LOT of evidence that wasn’t included in court.
2. Friends and family of Rodney and Stacey were both harassed, repeatedly. Especially when they were found to be on the list to testify. What happened? The didn’t testify.
3. Cops in a small town take care of their own, and that happened here. I haven’t bothered to read the documents above; but this goes with what I said about the evidence not being included in court. Her ‘loving’ fiance’s behavior was covered up. Anyone from this area with half a brain could tell you that.
5. Rodney’s black. Stacey was a beautiful white girl. There’s no way she could be in a consensual relationship with him. It was Giddings, Texas in 1996. Of course the big, black, scary man did it.
6. It’s well known the crime scene investigation was botched and the criminal trial was rushed. The beer cans from the crime scene had the DNA of her fiance’s friends present, all of them police officers. One of them joined the investigation team for Ms. Stites’ murder. Amazingly, he committed ‘suicide’ not long into the investigation. Or as I like to call it, murder. He was murdered.
7. Let’s not also forget about the fact that Fennell, the fiance, is certifiable.
Girl 1: Before Ms. Stites’ death he was accused of stalking and harassment by a local Giddings woman. Remember, this is at the same time he’s in a relationship with Ms. Stites. It culminated when Fennell’s friend, Hall, (the other officer whose DNA was present on the beer can) asked her to step outside her home one night.
Girl 2: Fennell appeared to move on rather quickly from his fiance’s gruesome murder, and found another local girl/girlfriend to terrify. Just three months after Ms. Stites’ death, his newest victim attempted to break up with for being ‘possessive and jealous.’ Never one to give up on true love, Fennell persisted and stalked her for a month. I’m not sure if she still lived at her childhood home, but according to reports he drove to her house late at night and would shine his police light through her window and scream BITCH. Number 1…. Her childhood home is in the country. Like, down a road, then a road, then a road, etc. That requires a lot of effort. Which makes him extra crazy. Number 2…. In Texas, we can shoot first and ask questions later. Seriously, that’s a law here. I’m paraphrasing a little, but I’m pretty close. The poor thing, who also looks strikingly similar to Ms. Stites, finally filed a police report. What happened when a copy was requested at the local headquarters, where Fennell works? Nothing to be found. I’m also very puzzled why her parents never did more than this. Her parents have a ‘name’ in Giddings. I also think this speaks to Reed’s innocence. They were terrified, and saw what Fennell was capable of. I’m sure there are things that happened that we as the public will never know of unless they call her as a witness, which I hope they do, to speak of what Fennell’s behavior was like.
8. In 1995, Fennell told a fellow police officer during crime scene training that he would strangle his girlfriend with a belt if he ever caught her cheating. Why strangle with a belt? To avoid leaving fingerprints. And, what was wrapped around Stacey’s neck??
9. AND, finally Fennell found himself behind bars in 2007. Unfortunately, not for Stacey’s crime but because he is a predator whose time is finally up. He was convicted of raping a woman in his custody. After the rape, he threatened to ‘hunt her down and kill her’ if she ever told anyone. Unsurprisingly, several more of his victims came forward during the trial.
These are all the things I can remember at the moment, which means there are more. Reed comes from a poor-lower middle class family. Everything he had during his original trial was court appointed. I’m not sure what his circumstances are now. He has also had MANY roadblocks in the state and federal court systems. Why they have refused to review new scientific evidence or listen to testimony from key witnesses is beyond me. Our court system should be ashamed of themselves, and I think they are. How sad they are too prideful to let a free man go free.
Am I the only person who reads the court documents relating to this case and it only strengthens my opinion that Reed is guilty? I was doubtful before, but having read the court documents, I’ve come to realise that for the most part all of the news stories in mainstream media about evidence that exonerates him relate to things that have already been done to death in the courts and those which don’t simply aren’t credible.
This is an excellent website and I urge anyone with an interest in this case to read the documents presented here, and to read them critically. See just what has been addressed by the courts and the strength of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense. If you can read them and still believe Reed is innocent then I respect that, but you should read what has been presented in the courts, courts which have upheld his conviction, and understand their rationale for doing so, before jumping on any bandwagons.
Richard, you are not alone, but as with most cases where wrongful conviction is alleged, the propaganda is a difficult hurdle to overcome, as evidenced by Nicole’s response to your post.
Nicole,
I would be interested to see just what alleged evidence wasn’t included in court. Would you please provide a specific list?
Your claims about harassment are nothing more than uncorroborated allegations. First and foremost, Reed’s attorneys did not report any alleged harassment of themselves, their investigators or their witnesses to the court during the time between Reed’s arrest in 1997 and the trial in 1998. Two witnesses testified on behalf of Reed at the trial regarding a relationship between Reed and Stacey. The problem was that the witnesses were not found by the jury to be credible. Thus, Reed’s defense fell short of proving to the jurors that there was a relationship at all. Without credible proof of a relationship, there is not innocent explanation for the presence of Reed’s DNA in and on Stacey’s body.
It’s also interesting to note that when Stacey’s mother and sister(s) testified at the trial, Reed’s defense never once asked them about an alleged relationship with Reed. Nor did they ask one of Stacey’s friends, who also testified on behalf of Reed regarding Stacey’s relationship with Fennel.
Your claims about the police protecting their own is also nothing more than uncorroborated allegations. The Texas Rangers were brought in to assist in this investigation. Fennel was their prime suspect for nearly a year, but they were never able to develop probable cause to obtain a search warrant, or make an arrest. In fact, their focus didn’t shift to Reed until late 1996 when he attempted to kidnap and rape another woman. He was also linked by DNA to Stacey’s murder and two other rape cases in Bastrop.
My belief that Stacey would not be involved in a relationship with Reed has nothing to do with their respective races. I don’t believe Stacey, a girl who worked hard to support herself and her mother, would be involved in a relationship with a man with no job, who dealt drugs.
That the crime scene investigation was “botched,” is also not as “well-known” as you would like to make it out to be. In fact, Reed’s attempts to prove that to the state and federal courts were rejected.
Regarding the beer cans, Reed’s advocates continue to try to re-write history to erase the whole story about the results of testing performed on the cans. Yes, initial testing performed by the state crime lab and Reed’s expert did not exclude Stacey, Dave Hall and Ed Selmela as contributors of DNA on one of the beer cans. However, the part of the story that Reed’s advocates refuse to even acknowledge is that Reed’s expert performed additional, more sensitive DNA testing, which excluded Stacey, Hall and Selmela as contributors of DNA on the beer cans. Therefore, the results of testing on beer cans were not exculpatory and, in fact, the beer cans were eliminated as relevant evidence.
As for Ed Selmela’s death, there was evidence supporting the finding of suicide. There has never been any evidence supporting the allegations of murder.
There has also never been any evidence, direct or circumstantial that ties Fennel to the murder. He may have been a bad boyfriend/fiancee before the murder. He may have been a reprehensible person after the murder. Reed has still failed to prove that Fennel killed Stacey. Nor can he do so, since DNA eliminates Fennel and Reed has never produced any credible evidence that Fennel had means, motive or opportunity.
It appears that you’re confused regarding the women stalked by Fennel. What you describe is actually an incident that occurred to a woman Fennel dated after Stacey’s murdered. While there was evidence about Fennel’s controlling nature in his relationship with Stacey, there was no evidence from any prior girlfriends to support the allegations you’ve made.
The allegations made by the girlfriend after Stacey’s murder have been rejected by the state and federal courts. The report also didn’t “disappear,” since Reed’s attorneys were able to get a copy of it, identify the complainant and obtain an affidavit from her to be used on Reed’s behalf.
As for the rest of the allegations, they’re not corroborated by anything in Reed’s appellate filings.
It’s also somewhat ironic that Fennel’s behavior is deemed a significant indicator of his guilt, yet Reed’s five prior rape charges and the one subsequent attempted rape charge are deemed not credible and/or not significant to prove his guilt. During one of Reed’s post-conviction claims, his father signed an affidavit detailing statements made by a friend of Reed’s that purported to provide an alibi on the night of the murder. When detectives/investigators interviewed the person to corroborate the statements attributed to him by Reed’s father, the person told them, “I don’t know anything about Rodney Reed except that he’s a crackhead who likes to rape women by the train tracks.”
Mary Blackwell’s statements have been deemed not credible by the state and federal courts, primarily due to the fact that they were not corroborated by anyone else in the officer certification class (it wasn’t a crime scene class, as you erroneously stated). There was also the fact that Ms. Blackwell, in spite of the fact that she was a law enforcement officer, failed to report the alleged statements to investigators at the time of Stacey’s murder.
Fennel is behind bars because he didn’t kill his victim, who knew who he was and reported his crime. Once she reported the crime, he didn’t follow through on his alleged threat to killer her, as she’s still alive and giving interviews on behalf of Reed.
You really should take the time to read the appellate opinions regarding the case, so that you can see just what evidence Reed has presented and why that evidence has consistently been rejected by the state and federal courts.
I did report it in fact i reported it the day Stacey was found..which only family and law enforcement were informed!!! The captain of Bastrop Sheriffs Dept asked me and me to get permission from Constabe Medrano to have me and fellow deputy constables of Pct 4 to escort Stacy’s funeral…and we did the escort. I reported to Investigator Vasquez after Constable Medrano contacted him on my behalf. Vasquez in turn immediately reported this to the DA who REFUSED TO ENTER THE REPORT AND COMMENTED TO VASQUEZ “I HAVE ALL i NEED FOR THIS CASE”. Not only did I identify by our academy photograph who was talking with Fennell when Fennell made that statement, but they kept my photograph! Not once did anyone question me or other deputies that were in this academy with me, that included not asking Stephen Weiner, Chris Frierson, myself, and another African American Cadet who also was hired by Constable Medrano upon my recommendation of hiring Stephen Weiner, Chris Frierson, and two others that were all in the same police academy with Fennell.
The testimony I provided was spread out for over an hour, and my last statement was, “It may not be today, tomorrow or even years from now, but eventually Fennell will show his violent treatment and disrespect for women. ”
Please do not spread information that is not accurate, especially when YOU WERE NOT THERE! Fennell was not talking to me,,,,I overheard the conversation… and he said, “If I find Stacey cheating again, I’ll strangle her.” I turned around and said, “Right Fennell, and your fingerprints will be on her throat.’ Fenell said,, “That’s why you don’t know shit, Best, because i”ll use a belt!”
There,, now you have the whole truth..but it doesn’t matter because law enforcement would not listen the DA wouldn’t listen and yet they accuse me of NOT REPORTING! Hmmm! Do you feel safe in Texas?
I totally agree with everything you have said.
I just watched the Death Row Stories episode about this case.
And as I watched, it was the first time since watching this program, where I wasn’t convinved of the inmates innocence.
So I was stunned when the Innocence Project became involved, especially for a man with a history of raping women, not just one!…indicating a propensity of violence, and anger towards women.
I absolutely do NOT believe Stacey would ever have a “relationship” with Reed, much less consensual sex, and then his denial of even knowing her …which he later recanted to fit his “story” shows his willingness to LIE. And his excuse as to why he lied was ridiculous.
If they were having sex on a regular basis, especially in such a small town, everybody would have known.
Watching him on the show, hearing him talk, his whole demeanor, lacking any emotion and the only signs of sympathy were for himself- not Stacey.
I am very intuitive, and within the first minute of listening to Reed…..I had chills.
There is something very off with him, and its scary.
The whole focus of his “innocence” was on interpreting the photos/crime scene video forensics, when there was far too much room for error, its not enough to pinpoint her exact time of death.
Her boyfriend was a jerk, but wasn’t the one who killed her.
The fact that a rapist with a history of harming women, lied about knowing her after recently leaving his semen inside her, fits the scene. End of story.
Lisa, since you are the only one who reads the court documents. Court documents were accepted to found an innocent man, guilty. What about the documents that the court didn’t want to accept? Did anyone had access to it and reviewed them? Obviously the crime scene was altered by police officers that knows how things work. There are a few things that we can refer here that most people took it for granted and lights up a red flag, that when Stacie (R.I.P) was placed in the truck she was dead. First, the other sneaker shoe missing from her was found at the bed of the truck, meaning that she was killed and placed on the truck bed and drove it to where her body was found. The position of the body (C position) and the scratches on the left side between underneath her breast and waist (about 4 inches) notated in the autopsy report, suggested was caused by thorny or sharp brush branches, clearly is an evidence the body was dragged to the place found. If she would be alive as she was taken to the woods, there was a knife with metal holder from back floor of her truck (see TX DPS items collected as evidence, page 2 top). If she would be abducted and alive, she would use it to defend herself.
The reference to court documents was actually a quote from another poster inadvertently included in my reply above.
What documents did the court refuse to accept? I think you may be confusing the declarations and affidavits attesting to an alleged relationship, or withdrawing prior testimony which were reviewed by the state and federal courts and not found to be either credible, or reliable.
What testimony, or evidence proves that the crime scene was altered by police? Again, I think you are confusing the conclusory allegations of Reed’s counsel and/or advocates, neither of which have ever been presented in court, or proven to have merit.
That Stacey was dead when she was placed in the truck is not at issue. In fact, I agree that when Reed placed her body in the passenger floor board, she had been strangled and was, in fact, dead. One tennis shoe was found inside the truck, on the passenger side (and not in the bed) and the other was found on Stacey’s body. Reed then drove her body to the location in which it was found. After dumping Stacey’s body, Reed drove to the Bastrop High School, where he abandoned the truck and walked to his mother’s house, which was approximately 6/10ths of a mile away.
The positioning of Stacey’s body and the scratches are not material issues as to Reed’s guilt or innocence, so I don’t quite understand why you’re bringing them up. As for the knife found in the truck, your assertion is entirely speculative. Based on the evidence presented to date, Stacey did not have an opportunity to attempt to defend herself. This was typical of Reed’s attempted rape of Linda S., which began with a blitz attack that stunned her.
Just going to reply regarding the tenis shoe for the moment, see State exhibits 72 and 105a. The tennis shoes was found on the bed of the truck. Thank you.
Righteous Justice, unfortunately, the only photos available of the trial exhibits are black and white and of very poor quality. Exhibit 72 is a picture of the tennis shoe found in the truck. Exhibit 105(a) is a poor quality photograph of multiple items in the bed of the truck. If you look at Exhibits 62 and 64(a), however, you can make out the tennis shoe in the passenger floor board of the truck. The substance on the passenger floor board of the truck also corroborates the theory that Stacey was transported inside the truck, not outside in the bed of the truck.
A state DPS lab report, dated May 13, 1998, analyzed DNA taken from two beer cans found near Stites’ body. For reasons never satisfactorily explained, that lab report was never provided to the defense prior to or during Reed’s trial. The analysis excluded Reed, but two other potential suspects — former Bastrop Police Officer Ed Salmela (now dead, apparently by suicide), and former Giddings Police Officer David Hall, a good friend and neighbor of Fennell — could not be excluded. Had they been aware of that DNA evidence, Clay-Jackson said, it would have enabled the defense to offer an adequate explanation of how Fennell could have traveled from Giddings to Bastrop and then back home by 6:45am without the pickup truck, when the call came from HEB reporting that Stites had never arrived for work. In short, Fennell could have had help.
Fennell testified that Stacey went to bed before he did, but that he was asleep and did not awaken when Stacey’s alarm rang or when she left for work — only that he knew she would have done so around 3am.
At 6:45am, an HEB employee called Carol Stites to report Stacey’s absence. Carol in turn called Fennell, who came downstairs to borrow the keys to Carol’s car — since Stacey would’ve had their set, although those keys were never found — before leaving to try and find his fiancée. Fennell’s red pickup had already been found, at 5:23am, parked at Bastrop High School, but that was before Stites was reported missing, and it wasn’t until 8am that investigators made the connection. At 3pm, Stites’ body was found.
By the time she was found, Texas Ranger L.R. “Rocky” Wardlow had already been notified, and he later became lead investigator on the multijurisdictional case. According to Wardlow’s testimony, Fennell “immediately” became the prime suspect. Wardlow would later inform the court that the four or five police interrogations of Fennell were “very adversarial.”
Yet Wardlow’s investigative report — as well as the numerous other reports filed by investigators from both the Bastrop Police Department and the Bastrop Sheriff’s Office — fail to confirm the intensity with which Wardlow said Fennell was scrutinized. Fennell was interviewed once on April 23, by then-Bastrop Police Chief Ronnie Duncan; once by Wardlow on April 25; and on April 29, Fennell stopped by the Sheriff’s Office to tell investigators about some items he felt were out of place in his truck. On that same day, six days after the murder, the pickup truck Stacey had presumably driven was returned to the man Wardlow referred to as his “prime suspect.” As a result, defense attorneys were never afforded the opportunity to confirm any DPS test results, nor were they able to conduct any of their own forensic investigation on the truck.
Investigators met again with Fennell on Oct. 3, to administer a polygraph exam, which Wardlow reported “indicated [Fennell] was deceptive on relevant questions.” Finally, on Dec. 18, investigators met with Fennell for the last time, to administer another polygraph exam, with similar results: Fennell’s test “reported a deceptive finding … relating to relevant questions” — specifically, whether or not he had strangled Stacey Stites. Wardlow notes that Fennell was interviewed following the second failed exam, “but maintained that he had no involvement in or knowledge of [Stites’] death.” Fennell said he failed the polygraph because he was so distraught over his fiancée’s death, then asked for an attorney. According to the police reports, he was never interviewed again.
First of all stop being a reasest mother fucker its 2017 number 5 is way out off order second all the info withheld was all the info that proved he was not guilty he had a witness with him when her partner the dirty cop aka the killer tharetend him when he said he was home third the time of death was fully incorrect it was placed at 8pm when reed was drinking her partner was driving around when he said he was asleep y lie dirty cops do dirty things with power pined to there shoulder all u see is size and black skin open your eyes most of the time evil is right there standing in front of u wearing a badge all the info gos throw there hands that’s how the truth gets lost not in cort.
It’s “racist,” not “reasest.” My opinion regarding Reed’s guilt has nothing to do with his race, my race, or his victim’s race. It’s based on the DNA evidence found in and on Stacey’s body that links Reed and only Reed to her murder. It is based on the DNA evidence found in July, 2014 that identified DNA from Reed on Stacey’s pants and back brace, which connects him to both her body and the truck.
Reed did not claim to have had a relationship with Stacey until he found out his DNA was found on her body. It’s no coincidence that he did the same thing in 1989 when he was accused of a brutal rape in Wichita Falls, Texas. In that case, he also claimed not to know the victim until he found out there was DNA evidence. It was only then that he claimed to have had a relationship with that victim.
Reed’s evidence of a relationship has been consistently rejected at trial by the jury and by every appellate court that has been presented with varying claims/witnesses over nearly 20 years of post-conviction litigation. It is the absence of reliable and credible evidence of a relationship that is fatal to Reed’s innocence claims.
As to the accusations against Fennell, they are unsupported by any reliable and credible evidence. The witnesses who came forward during Reed’s state post-conviction litigation were deemed unreliable and not credible. There’s no DNA, or any other physical evidence linking Fennell to Stacey’s murder.
As for the claims of evidence withheld, that is a convenient excuse, but I have yet to see anyone present a reliable and credible list of such evidence. Reed has raised several Brady claims in state and federal post-conviction litigation and each of those claims have been found to be unreliable and not credible.
You’re a despicable racist and a hypocrite to boot.
My God,
I cannot begin to understand what you are trying to convey….
Use spell checker.
And to make an argument, a valid one, skip the anger, and especially the insults….as those are sure signs of emotional and mental immaturity.
This case isn’t about race, its about facts.
Reed is a rapist. Fact.
Reed is a liar. Fact.
Nicole that’s for y
From unknown
I’m presuming that “Anonymous” is Mary Best/Blackwell. One of the things I don’t understand is why Vasquez, who was working for Reed’s defense, wouldn’t provide that information to his attorneys, who could have then called you to testify on behalf of Reed at his trial. I also don’t understand why you wouldn’t contact Reed’s counsel in 1998 during the trial with that information.
Don’t continue to vomit lies and presumptions…you do not have a clue about the truth of this case…and you don’t have the common sense it takes to put it together.
Ad hominem attack does not reflect well on you, or your position. I am not impugning your intelligence, or character. I’m merely providing alternative facts that have been proven at Reed’s trial, and in his subsequent post-conviction claims.
My statements are based on your testimony and the testimony of Mr. Vasquez given at Reed’s hearing in Bastrop in around 2006. Were the two of you perjuring yourselves?
You are a frustrated liar and your posts are embarrassing. Bring on a list of all the left out evidence that shows his innocence or let it go. Your insults only show that you have nothing.
Lisa O’Brien you must be under cover working for Fennel. You make me sick.
I’m not working for anyone.
The sad thing is that Rodney Reed is worse than Fennel, but his supporters continue to ignore that fact.
No, she is too stupid to pull that off…and you can’t fix stupid
Ha, ha, ha, She has completely DESTROYED your lies about this case. face it Reed is guilty as sin and should be executed ASAP!!!!
My God,
I cannot begin to understand what you are trying to convey….
Use spell checker.
And to make an argument, a valid one, skip the anger, and especially the insults….as those are sure signs of emotional and mental immaturity.
This case isn’t about race, its about facts.
Reed is a rapist. Fact.
Reed is a liar. Fact.
If this case happened twenty years prior I could be convinced that a substantial portion of US society would be unwilling to accept that a relationship could exist between those of different races, but this case happened in the late 90s, not in the 60s or 70s.
A phone call between the two parties, or some evidence of the alleged relationship (love letters, other correspondence, etc.) would be conclusive. Prior to the online era that emerged after this case the telephone and pencil/paper were the only social media people had.
Tonight, the American Idiots Podcast on Blog Talk Radio will be discussing the Rodney Reed Case. Please join us.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talk_radio49/2018/01/09/the-american-idiots-show-state-of-texas-vs-rodney-reed
Any chance we can take a look at the punishment phase transcript?
voEj)((‘.((“),
If Reed had a relationship with the victim prior to the murder, as he now claims, there would be ample cell phone records to prove it. Had any existed, either his original defense attorney or the new one would be waving them high as exculpatory evidence. They simply don’t exist.
Actually, cell phones were not as common in 1996 as they are today. Based on the records and testimony, as well as the pleadings and court opinions, neither Reed, nor Stacey had a cell phone.
Exactly.
Thank you for stating a fact, and one that supports his guilt.
I am disgusted with people playing the “race card” when the issue and focus is on his ACTIONS and lies.
Enough.
We weren’t discussing the beer cans, but okay, we can change the subject.
I see that you only have half of the story regarding the beer cans. Yes, the DPS lab performed HLA-DQ Alpha testing that did not exclude Stacey, Salmela and Hall as potential contributors to the DNA mixture found on one can. The other can yielded no DNA.
Reed’s DNA expert, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, also performed HLA-DQ Alpha testing on the beer cans with the same result, i.e. that Stacey, Salmela and Hall could not be excluded. HLA-DQ Alpha is not a “unique” profile and unrelated individuals can share the same HLA-DQ Alpha profile. Dr. Johnson went one step further and performed additional, more sensitive testing on the beer can and her results excluded Stacey, Salmela and Hall as contributors to the DNA mixture found on the can.
Stacey was dead by the time she was dumped off the side of the road, so it’s impossible for her to have been the female who contributed DNA to that beer can. It’s also highly unlikely that Salmela and/or Hall would have stood around sharing a beer after being involved in covering up Stacey’s murder. Dave Hall and his wife testified at a habeas hearing that he was at home all night on the 22/23rd and, therefore, he could not have been at the dump site and could not have left DNA on the beer can.
Salmela’s death was ruled a suicide. I know that is difficult for his family to accept, but no one has produced any credible evidence that it was a homicide. The theories are nothing more than rumor, innuendo and speculation.
Having the May 13, 1998 DPS lab report would not have had any impact on the defense, or their strategy and it certainly would not have exonerated Reed, given Dr. Johnson’s more discriminating results, which excluded Stacey, Salmela and Hall as contributors of DNA. The beer cans always have been and always will be nothing more than red herrings. However, it interesting to note that in testimony in one of Reed’s proceedings, both Mr. Garvie and Ms. Clay-Jackson implied that they would have attempted to mislead the jury by not calling Dr. Johnson and using the DPS report. However, the courts did not find those claims to be at all credible, given the attorney’s ethical duties not to present false or misleading testimony.
Given that Stacey’s schedule required her to be at work at 3:30 a.m. and she was known to be a prompt and conscientious employee, Fennell’s testimony is not unreasonable. Actually, both sets of keys to the Ford Tempo were in Carol’s apartment on the night of April 22 and morning of April 23. Carol had her own set and Fennell returned Stacey’s set to Carol on the afternoon/evening of April 22, prior to leaving for little league practice. That is very clear if you read Carol’s testimony at the trial.
It is important to note that the Bastrop High School was only 6/10ths of a mile from where Reed was living with his mother at the time of Stacey’s murder. The Bastrop High School is 35 miles (or perhaps more) from Giddings, where Fennell and Stacey lived at the time of the murder.
Wardlow’s testimony has been corroborated by Fennell, who stated that the interrogations were adversarial. Police reports generally aren’t considered evidence in and of themselves. I also would find it highly unusual for any detective to document an “adversarial” in a written report. There are tapes from the interviews and likely also transcripts. The tapes would convey tone of voice and inflection that would support whether an interrogation was friendly, or adversarial. Transcripts, to a degree would also convey a sense of whether an interrogation was friendly or adversarial. For example, an adversarial interrogation would likely include direct accusations against Fennell. I suspect that you haven’t listened to any of the tapes, or read any of the transcripts.
I have tried to explain the return of the truck in multiple forums. I suspect that you will not accept my explanation, but I will try to do so in the event that an undecided and/or unbiased reader is following these threads.
The DPS crime lab processed to the truck to the limits of their scientific capabilities by April 29, 1996. They took extensive photographs to document the truck and its condition at the time it was discovered, as well as during their examination. From the testimony of the DPS personnel, I have inferred that the DPS crime lab did not have a facility sufficient to keep and preserve the truck for an indefinite period of time. Additionally, private property in Texas is practically a sacred right. Had the truck not been returned, Fennell could have gone to court and obtained a court order forcing DPS to give him back his truck.
Additionally, Reed’s identity was not known for nearly a year, when DNA linked him to Stacey’s rape and murder. Therefore, it is unreasonable to complain that he did not have a chance to have the truck examined by his own experts when he failed to come forward and admit his alleged relationship with Stacey after she was murdered.
Once any suspect invokes their right to counsel under the 5th Amendment, police are prohibited from speaking to the suspect again, unless the suspect initiates the contact and agrees to waive his/her right to have an attorney present. Fennell was within his right to assert his 5th Amendment right and there is nothing nefarious about Wardlow, or any other investigator not talking to him again.
Reed has asserted his 5th Amendment rights throughout the proceedings in his case by declining to testify at his trial, or at any post-conviction hearings. Were I to cite that as a reason to support my belief in his guilt, you and others would have collective cows.