accowwtable for ber copy. T1 1s uy understaocg AT biatg te CUE
be lest or dastiogéd. To muy writ tssues agarast cose! lt pu0cth
The Page aud Lue bers, wh fle barls antside Le record asert crtlitlef
1 the Mlidlatrts + the Medical Toate letler, hich were weladed, These
a lacts thal law? be dened, 00 att hoe) reach Core as Passed.
3, Fhe Stale carted Hat I ded sot offer avy ektuse as © ag delay 14)
til 4 Ae appheaten, yet Edd. Qu Wlober 2 Y, 20/4, the Clerk
recieved rey appheatiod ad, every Hhiay pW) Support ot ney Clai ret,
mecl copies o€ lem aud relumel Hom br. Fis are astelluass:
A. Letter To Uerk. Ask le “o Please tle all dean en card Copees ote D.Ay
B, be out Fede, Asked puvusscoa) to ble Wert.
C. Motos for Mating To beleive Fubdrags ot Facts -loulusows of Lacy,
D. Motion Repuestearg “brbes ”% Parties 75 Prsdece Dowratals.
€, Mdaust 06 Zisdigentey.
F Wnt Apphtatior laler TOCP, Ahcle 07,
6. Mercoruitban's Trtroductiod Piige Tible o€CouteCs\pse til. Skoos Hey
Clybt Hi Aidan t OF Dee Msevct, 7. EceatS(-pyasYolecleconss wey
due dlegene ‘ssae) ead Table ot Alyrifes ¥q Crowtd Wander.
W. Apphcowts Merinracdac, £0 pages as 13 Me law.
E. Appeardices Contests Faye sobich Shouts Ste rTenss “Appocices buts
Lage Sy ApplcantS "ay mate Declarations, “7. Cisnets,0pyse)s F*Lithibyt #4,
Mi dant, Me, loot, Oplonena st, [5 pages)y © talghyt #2, Fevas Mecfire) Buel
Letter [a Pages, letter vealehpe; Oe Eb 43, Athdail, Me ise; /OCABIC 5
Expert, (2d pases)j end © Ech 4, Aldean! O€ Pat Digrace, TL Zita,
[il- pape «) A tur © 6A shows ry title page br they lea allaclied
Ge IeA,
Al, AZ ABA LAS AG, are there, as hesttibell apase. Flea AIS
cleatly rcleatelied 13 te places add 18 lowes! ons Pye 6A, Laddrtssed

ta.



Answer 8: Re all of the victim's clathing, etc. Answer: Yes.
Although detergents of other brighteners may interfere, biological

stains can still be located and perhaps, identified.
ek *

Evans' Letter:

Evidence Submitted To The D.P.S.:

As mentioned above, at the bottom of this Supplementary
Investigation Report, made by Srg. Noel Stanley on 6-15-86,
he has made a follow-up investigation on "6-17-86", which is
quoted here in the following:

FOLLOW-UP_INVESTIGATION:
On_6-17-86 at _4:30 pm, I packaged up the following items

of evidence d_turned them over to Detective Eva Ca

for transportation to DPS lab in Houston. .
ek .

Now please refer to the enclosed D.P.S. File, page 2,
which is the D.P.S. Physical Evidence Submission Form, dated
"6-18-86", that has no signature, but is presumably made by
Deteative Eva Camp. This "6-18-86" date shows that evidence
being submitted to the D.P.S. a day after Srg. Stanley gave

her the items.
ek

The next page, (D.P.S. File, page 3), which is the same
type of form, shows the items of evidence gathered at the
hospital in the sexual assault kit being also delivered.

There is no date on this form, but if you will please turn to
D-P.S. File, page 5, which is the Evidence Record Sheet, (Used
for the Chain of Custody?), you will see that these items were
"received" by the D.P.S. on "Jan. 18, 1986", and no time is
indicated. This is a day after Det. Camp received the -items
from Srg. Stanley.

kK

And again, in D.P.S. File, Page 7, (of a two-page form,
7-8), which is titled "Texas D.P.S. Criminalistics Results",
Ms. Sondra Denney, the D.P.S. Chemist, has written a Submission

Date of "6-18-86", submitted by Det. Camp in person.
kk

The items were clearly given to Det. Camp on 6-17-86 at
4:30 p.m., and were not delivered until a day and night later
on "6-18-86".
ee

estion 9: Should Srg. Stanley ‘have allowed these items to
‘leave the security of his lab a day and night before they were

intended to be delivered to the D.P.S.?
. x & *

~ oy”


File, 86-14560", which is 4-pages. He sent me a color copy of
some pictures as well, but I spilled some water and two small
dots landed on them. If I can't get a new copy I may have to
send these. :

On page 1, you will see a form made by Srg. Noel Stanley
titled "Supplementary Investigation Report", dated 6-15-86
at the top. On this form Srg. Stanley states that he arrived
on the scene at "3:15 a-m.", and that he "photographed the scene
as he saw it". In the trial he states that another fellow, (Mr.
Jerry Jackson), photographed the scene "at his direction", (S.F.
Vol. III, page 356, lines 6-20; and page 360, line 25, through
page 361, lines 1-12).

In this: Supplementary Investigation Report, Srg. Stanley
also states that he was contracted at "2:35 a.m." by the
Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept. Dispatch, and that an
Identification Officer was requested by Srg. Billy Rogers, to
go to the scene. In the trial, the D.A., Mr. F.M. "Rick"
Stover, is questioning the victim, Ms. Maury Lynn Stryker,
about these photos, and after Ms. Stryker identifies State's
Exhibit No. 7, which has a clock :in:-it, she assures Mr. Stover
"twice" that the time on the ‘clock is correct and shows the
time the picture was taken. The time is described as "2:30
something a.m.", (S.F. Vol. III, page 309, lines 11-25, through
page 310, lines 1-3).

Needless to say, if Srg. Stanley was contacted by phone
at 2:35 a.m., and arrived at the scene at 3¥15 a.m., and the
pictures with a clock showing the time to be 2:30 something
a.m., is true, then Srg. Stanley did not photograph the scene
"as he saw it", and the statement he gave in the trial that
these 6 pictures were taken by Jerry Jackson "at his direction"
is not true. In this case the crime scene wasin the care of
Mr. Jackson from at least 2:30 something a.m. until 3:15 a.m.
At the very minimum Mr. Jackson walked around the crime scene

taking pictures for 36 minutes. :
kek

Question 4: Does Mr. Jackson's place in the ‘chain of ‘custody
of all the evidence matter, if he was there alone with the

evidence for 36 minutes or more?
ee

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 4: Re Jackson. Answer see #3. Anyone who enters the scene
should be available as a witness. In California, the photographer
may not be called if he didn't collect any evidence and an
investigator testifies the photographs offered accurately
represent the scene as it was first found. In this case however,
if Jackson was alone and the scene was unprotected at first and
later guarded by a civilian it may be an admissibility issue.

Ask Mr. Canlas.
te

Evans' Letter:

-4-

eae ue


D-P.S. LABORATORY RESULTS:

Hair Analysis:

Enclosed with these questions.is the previously mentioned
packet of D.P.S. related documents I've titled, "D.P.S.
File, L2H-54833". It is 22 pages, including their cover sheat.
At my request, this information was sent to me by the General
Counsel's‘Assistant, Ms. Pamela Smith, (Austin), in March
2003.

This packet ‘contains, in part, the Hair Results of the
comparison tests run against my hairs and those found at the
crime scene and found on the victim, Ms. Stryker, in the
sexual assault kit.

As already mentioned, this Statement of Facts has been
greatly edited, and in some places it now shows statements
being made that didn't even occur.

Ms. Stryker stated in my trial that she had been divorced
from her husband for nearly two years, and that"she'd not had
sex with anyone in two years,"(S.F. Vol. III, page 312 lines
24-25, through page 313, lines 1-8), and that"no person had
so much as walked into the bedroom portion of her apartment
in those two years, (edited out)."

I shoudid mention at this point that Ms. Stryker stated
that her front door was locked when she went to sleep, yet
no person with access to a copy of the keys were ‘considered.
Did her ex-husband have a key? The security guy?

All of the evidence gathered at the scene was believed by
the police to be the link between Ms. Stryker's assailant and
the crime. This belief was supported by Ms. Stryker's statement
that only the assailant had been in her bedroom :in nearly two
years. From a police point of view, this should be the ideal
crime scene for linking evidence to. an assailant. Only. Ms.
Stryker and her assailant had been in the room in two years.

Hairs,-fibers, fecal and semen stained sheets, were all
sent to the D.P.S. for analysis, and when none of it was
linked to me in any way, the State and its officials changed
up their "words" and went around their original belief that
it would be a link to the assailant. I was the only suspect
and they made no attempt to follow up on anything contraryti
to their belief that I committed this crime.

As mentioned, the D.P.S. Chemist, Ms. Sondra Denney, did
testify in my trial, but the Hair Specialist, Mr. Randy Snyder,
did not. I've also found a case in the law books where the
chemist was allowed to testify for a hair specialist, just like
my case, which was reversed because of this, and the guy's name
is 'Warren' R. Snyder, (please see Cole v. State, 839 S.W.2d
798(Tex.Crim.App.1992)). I've considered the possibility that
this hearsay testimony given by Ms. Denney was edited because

-13-


uote that Mr Suryde, wes sibpoeiach the sub, care up vuisscag toon Fe -
tle, tht D.A. stepped up to Sty hedidut kiow aogrtcag abou see
rssinlg Sub. Buel hal our WiTWeSSES wee “ov cell “wud Mar he
pleanxd % have Mea on @5 he> avtesses! My witewesses Med
becane State orwesses, aud te oY ote to Shox up gave telse
testirowy about fat turdelgs of he svbar, (daw cetoicereut officers,
such as DPS. peopl, ace wat allot t clo His >) The, Compare

“7 atedant by Mr Kadle, add agree Hal Z ha rhe gal
Fat Fle DPS. Yaw Seals G Mr. Seyler, wave vest, UR
GAT furorable & nt a3 t Why he etcledec/ et e576 Bewd/ OF
OM flee hatrs, bowed we he a-plawals bed. Ste seve uatler On}
Het 20 peo bad beew ta) ber bed ed abou ® year s,) Dyes Mis
Vilat bey 1G Lt ts atu Hal © Gould Hi appeal arPorwey have
path les No matte bows oll the case 13, THESE fact, abwg i Ab reg
altdautt tron My, lagle, 15 €asily prover. All My, Kage bas doue th/ ret 6s
enslares He stett Leow wot whe slow, Unik U varies ( 9A6o%e-
vuetval peels » Oxt Gore kwors (15 wrong 10 5 ObvedUS .

WE The DNA test feeTaled Ac but, 21th My letastS Culace to define Tle
odlds(pa1c05)antl, @ alative ts also astipect I began) te search tor a aay C
hax muy Tatler tested bie.) Ue test care bal Loses reore heteom uel © dotles
thas ete. Thad aeaslope ont tas DIA 0 Uh lap but hes doer rade sf lad
for one 0 pustily. Tsinph couldur lgure 21 las te dort

Mg Masoud € ties way bthlieg are nony, Mg tetlee nolested ms 9st,
tlew Sls ve, Coase Aaayletes (fop-daachi/ur), Whey he usted rr he
reberred % Me complervact as Hat b tel aed He ble os the Lesees
her asd hee character briloeg. Her srigiatal stalerteut Wes ha ted hawtef

ads bavred iil servcal dys gst of beard, 5 Fete, aes ket
howd hur bot blue eyes, strantyrond Could, dol god a beara. Sle test.
é.


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19

SOL

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

For what purpose do you analyze those?

In some cases, and I would say relatively few,
you can find important traces of evidence in
fingernail scrapings, such as blood or the tissue
samples, if she may have scraped the assailant;
or sometimes find microscopic fibers which can be
linked back to the assailant.

And there was none in this case?

That's correct.

Returning to the Item H, pulled pubic hair. am 1
correct, was that hair that was found at the
scene?

No. That would be hair that would be pulled from
the victim.

From the victim. Would you please read to the
jury the description of that hair that you have
on your report.

This is a microscopic examination for my notes,
not by any means a hair comparison. You must --
broken, slightly kinky and curly.

Pulled hair, Item I. That is also from the
victim? ~

Yes.

All right. And would you read the description of.

that hair?



a

_~

E nly #4
(owt OL Owed Aypool

CAUSE NO. 19,180

APPELLATE NO. 09-86-C0240-CR
P.D-R. CASE NO. 1382-88

PORTION OF _ STATEMENT OF FACTS
VOLUME ITT, PAGES: 365-- 389

Sondra_Denney's Complete Testimony:

365-373, Direct Examination.
373-386, Cross-Examination.
387-388, Redirect Examination.

389, Recross-Examination.



Ragle, J.L., Suchey, J. , A Human Jig Saw Puzzle Match, American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, 1985.

Ragle, J.L., The Elusive Elastic Crime Laboratory, Presented to the American
Society of Laboratory Directors. FBI Academy, 1989.

Ragle, J.L., Togneri, E. N. , Needs Assessment and Management Study,
Consolidation of the San Diego Police, Sheriff's and Medical Examiner's
Laboratories, Ruth and Going, 1992.

Ragle, J.L., Togneri, E. N., Needs Assessment for a Regional Forensic Laboratory,
Contra Costa County, California. 1992

Ragle, J.L., Crime Scenes, The Value of Forensic Science, (tentative title) New
York, Morrow / Avon, In publication, to be released October 1995.

oki

oe


10

11

12

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

2e

What type of work did you do there?
Serology.
Would you explain to the jury what serology is?
Serology is the analysis of body fluid stains to
determine the type of stains, i.e., semen or
blood or saliva. In other words, what sort of
fluid it contains, and also to determine the ~-
origin as being human origina. And, also, to
determine genetic markings present in the stain.
Would you explain to the jury what you just said,
please, so they -- I'm-not real sure I
understood; so, let's start again.

You examine blood stains, serology?
I examine all’ sort of blood fluid stains.
Blood, -- including, blood, saliva, semen or any
other body fluids.
When you say "blood," do you doa test to
determine the blood type?
Yes.
And when you find seminal stains, what can you
learn from examining a seminal stain?
You can determine in some cases ABO blood group,
and also determine a couple of other genetic

markers, provided that the stain is strong

enough.



10

ll.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Q.

the stains on the bedsheet, the only thing that
you can conclusively tell this jury is that there
was seminal fluid present; is that correct?
That's correct.

But you could not tell them the blood group of
the person that the seminal fluid came from?

That is correct.

Now, were any tests done by the DPS on any of the
hairs that were submitted?

Yes, there were.

And you were submitted known head hairs and known
pubic hair samples of the Defendant, Thomas
Evans; is that ‘correct?

Yes.

And the tests and comparisons that were made of
the other hairs, were any hairs found that you
could conclusively say belonged to Thomas Evans?
No.

Were there any tests run to determine whether the
hairs belonged to Maury Stryker?

No, there were not.

So, the tests that were run, the only thing you
can conclusively tell this jury is that the hair
samples that were submitted that were collected

at Maury's apartment did not belong to this



PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

California Association of Criminalists

President 1973

American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Fellow.

California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
Emeritus

American Society of Crime. Laboratory Directors.
Emeritus

APPOINTMENTS

1986-1989 California Criminalistics Institute Advisory Committee
California Department of Justice

1986-1989 CAL-ID RAN Operational Advisory. Committee
California Department of Justice

1985-1989 California State Epidemiology Work Group.
California Department of Health

1987-1989 Forensic Science Operations. and. Program Committee
Federal Bureat of Investigation

1988-1989 Attorney General's DNA Advisory Board
California Department of Justice

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATES

State of California, Commission on Peace Officer's Standards and-
Training- Advanced Certificate

State of California, Department of Health
Licensed Supervising Blood Alcohol Analyst 1966-1989

State of California, Department of Education.
Life Time Special Designated Teaching Certificate

1a


ams sutton tage (EEE Von a) wen 3
73, Medical leat [Sls exh) MAT Mechsep 4s, west to fcbesol Pasyuls te w/t) 5-15-03
14, Steck ll Keguest Rene Medical Lecords 3-29-03
15. Healt Srrcesfirbudes Sure teas Jz aotHs at glosses I-33
Hy County Cee Salareh Seal opies 10, 901-A-t6 foal OS bd adele | 62-03
791 Par Pase/Recaidsfttstats Gal case er Ysnosel” ov IO-AT-8 — |--1D
Wi Mes Lesprsa — |Get Dake Sheetsflty Par UHV 1s sorelos-tursd OTH) 6-605

WM, Jest dutloop|
4, avete He. Casle, Lap. I
I. Wrote M, Las le
gas Kesle Respoatts
53, Attidant,A. kage
24, Leporter 4 wrfes
8°, Cle Keprods hut-d
Bb Yatl bousel By Lal
BO. Few, Coahitiaa
ah Response
BY, Met Ni book, Oplorel

1 Foike Ttvecttoee dae
q, Me corote back.
99, 4.$,Prstd Save /p
+, Dn Aisher
°, Dy, Fears dfiohe.]

te . farts bot lek

jexeees Mail | help wut od ety How Ge
Hore Questo
Apsucred Pa

te Aekech or help tle. Htraer

‘| Bese} do wnts.
List Ashe hw. tovead teal recfagreed pre Ao
90, APechaurt Loe MOE states DA, 4 Ms. Eagless probably Hel |

Mls: Sed te Bel oy¢ af ay ppers

seel e go Here adyuley (02 way >)

by, olleye Sane as Fidler, TD. studh fur HDL
a6, De. wells ftowa Spe uw. Sane Aas fleet b ste fp 72podSe
£1. Dis Paves. Sehtnod ld, Stabe Sinetbns filer, 21st /v0 repsdsé

Evers f big jwoloatdete (fe seu lector)
Aged thed © astel Lotte
Geece renarouwd, Nera ditt Us.

Ask oi belp wt CIAL FS eo ruc

Lis Tokay Krticle H

4 Wy, Fishe [ted br alee ol fengtrn 5095-Fo Del
bade wt prrissad

A
-tleose es) My redease dale 3rd of PK Yes regpotel) 614-05

JA-)-03
3-/SOY
4-4- 04
/-3I-0K
a7 Ot
bss
3-3-03
726 07

\7-12-04
|

-0¢
/- 6-10
G2 OF
20-64
2-270 S-
1-17-05”

Deed ptor % prove dales ete.

7-22 -0Y
209
4-104
\F- 4-05"

99 - Hams lew Kapode

Pesied, ov. code S52
ie

4-9 -0s-


Ragle's Letter:

Answer 9: Re Stanley allowing evidence to leave his lab. Answer:
Biological and suspected stained evidence should be, at least,
refrigerated (better frozen) while not being examined. There should
be a logical reason why it was removed on the 17th and an

explanation as to where it was with Camp over night.
. eek

Evans' Letter:

Question 10: Does Det. Camp's place in the chain of custody
matter, especially in light of the fact that she had to put

the items somewhere overnight?
ke

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 10: Re ‘camp's place in the chain. Answer: Absolutely,
for your reason stated and that the items remained sealed in their

packaging.
ek *

Incomplete And Contradicting Forms:

In the enclosed D.P.S. File, Pages 2,3, &4, which are
the D.P.S. Physical Evidence Submission Forms, presumably
made by Det. Camp, you will find ithe following contradictions
and omitted information:

1. On pages 2 & 3, there is no signature.-.

2. On page 2, the Submitting Agency No. is "86-14560",
and on pages 3 & 4, the Submitting Agency No. is "TX 1700000".

3. They have my age on page 3 as "19", but on page 4 as
"20". 7

4. Notice that on page 3, which contains the sexual assault
kit evidence gathered off the victim, ms. Stryker, at the
hospital, has my"name" as the suspect. The evidence was
"received" by the D.P.S. on 6-18-86, (see the Evidence Record
Sheet on page 5), which is the same day that I presume the
other form must have been filled out by Det. Camp. I was
already the suspect at this date, yet the handwritten form
made by Det. Camp does not have my name on it as does the
one that is typed up, (D.P.S. File, page 2). The way these
forms are filled out, they look like they were made by either
different people or at different times. One person wouldn't
sit down and go through all the trouble ito make these forms so
different, in my eyes. :

5. Page 3 has no Submission Date.

6. Pages 2 & 3 have the Zip Codes in the spaces labeled
"Submitting Agency" and "Send Report To: (Agency)", as "77301",

-9-

Ww


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

380

percentage of the population are secretors,
meaning you can get ABO blood group substances
from their body fluid other than their blood. In
this case this would not be the case.

Item G is a loose evidence collection
envelope. And this is usually used.to collect
any loose evidence which is found on the body at
the time of the doctor's examination. There were
four pubic hairs recovered from this envelope.

Item H is a pulled pubic hair sample of the
victim.

And Item I is a pulled head hair sample.

Item J is a loose head hair sample from the
victim, which, again, is usually selected from
the victim's scalp at the time of the examination
by the doctor.

Item K is a nasal sample.

Item L is a blood sample from the victim,
which I determined to be Type Oo.

Items M and'N are right and left-hand
fingernail scrapings which contain soil and no
significant trace of evidence.

When you say "fingernail scrapings," are those

taken from the victim?

Yes.



for your towsideratioa art each of Gartnes, TE parctased sy apy o€te Agpoa/
File, 13 lading Me tral testieoares gaoted by, Volant fase oud lve Hhdoulout
Hy MNT, Et es ow faullot reg ows) Pact te Cet coud ot torre Ce Terns
wet, her loss each, of he Heres Lefer vl Wil Mh. tral tatioav'es
hue rs He appeal tele, He Huth of ay 1sstes adc yusl as obirous, A
Copy con be obtured for J0e g page at te Ste Mouston) Kazi!
Low Libary, + Kestatt Ceated 00 tn) Liberty TR, TH is eg
auderstasdraly Hat te records aré Te veer be destroged. Asan
jotarcte ated, (Pe koed awl Ort Btews wth les being “ey fell?
+2, The State Cltwred eat L feuledl te akdrtss ray Melay ea) Blea AE
lore, ley atas cl Zwas nxaciuatd lawyer Sus sat arte ml Salis
Tere pais )As ty ah hAust toy gous Court shids, Z also tacleedecl oa)
aficleurt br ten, Wes LheleAvey wit te Clik staaped ry stave
tiled add ve ties pres Ee. Lda Lvous arhy Hey failed
POs ov vey wtidas{. THsd had tare otter attchants 1a) Here, One
tron Lary Kagle, ateensec special sf, Crotuss, He Stale avd 103 Cues hedf
LA) ety twcal, ete); owe Wor Curtis bok idhib bes, beta) te Le eye Hhearyrleto,)
Fad bor over YS gears (ruce he axes a kid workers toi as dadyedlo sad

He States wortvess Leck tad ry Pal about ao ot Jlas PSC pHs, athe
htter 1 tosHedical Toad pote sud tity bad 00 bslrg tr Ce SECS
wihess a a docior, ev auy oter paclo¥ 1a tell, Th DA, lA re
Jebe cob doteye Maat she wos aa) optthabradosist, ce Master 0¢ ber todd,

Ded fhe erk veal l al ot Lee theves G gow as Ordwed by 1 jase ?
A she did wot secd “t 4 Qpy ote hile Z have <© hea,

#3. Mh, attorwey & Aerib/y O85 4% Gyn adclecr thd cof poss iM,
be et'tachuled é re. It would be 2.nvthery of te justee systeer for
Ais guys rercotg to be the bases apo hil my wycfers Aesel, Zwes
joes Court appoiatted Cease wed had woven Jota Dey tHe! oud

3.


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
“22
“23

24

25

3BS

Item No. 3 is an envelope labeled. "pillow
sham," which contains one broken curly, possible
pubic hair.

Item No. 4 is a aiploe bag containing a few
broken, curly, kinky, apparent pubic hairs.

Item 5A is an off-white fitted bedsheet.

And Item.6, there are two stains on this
bedsheet, which I tested for both acid
phospatase, which is a preliminary screening test
for semen and P30, which is mentioned earlier,

which was positive.

The inhibition test mentioned on here is,
again, the determination of secretor status of
the stains and the results on this were
inconclusive. There were a few hairs -- I'm
sorry, the wrong one.

5B is an off-white, flat bedsheet with
eyelet trim, and there were a few hairs recovered
from this bedsheet.

Were any analyses run on the hairs that were
recovered from the bedsheet?
Yes, they were. That would be in the hair

results.

Okay.

Lis
This is only the preliminary result of the



10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

SBS

A.

Q.

Q.

Brown, dark brown, straight and medium in length.
Okay. Item J is loose head hair. Was that also
from the victim? :
Yes. There were a few hairs that were
microscopically similar to the victim's head
hair. :

And I believe one that says nasal sample. Would
you explain that?

Yes. Nasal sample is something that was included
originally in this particular rape kit. This is
a prepacked rape kit and it has since been
dropped from the rape kit. It is not used and
not working out the way it is supposed to work.
In other words, it has no real value. But these
kits are obviously older kits which still had
them, and any instructions to take samples; so,
the doctor took it.

Ms. Denney, Defense Exhibit No. 4, would you
please read to the jury each of those entries?
No. 1 is a light brown toothbrush on handle Omni
2. I'm sorry, O-N-N 2. There was no trace of

evidence. detected on this item.

“Item No. 2 is an envelope which was lab

dusted roughly and it contains one small red...

fiber.



10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Q.

microscopically observed, blond and curly.

6D is a pulled head hair of the suspect,
Thomas Lee. Evans, which is microscopically
determined to be blond; ‘very fine, and some
slightly wavy.
Defense Exhibit 9, case report handwritten on,
was that-the hair analysis?
Yes.
Would you please read the contents of that to the
jury?
No hair present in Items 3, 4, 5A, 5B or 8 that
was similar to the suspect's pubic or head hair.
Ms. Denney, Defense Exhibit No. 10 are
handwritten notes regarding hair analysis done in
this case; is that correct?
Yes.

/
From those notes, can you determine whether or
not an analysis was run on the hairs that were
found at the scene of the offense and hairs taken
from the accused, Thomas Evans?
Yes.
‘

And what were the results of those tests?
Excuse me. As I said, the notes are just his

notes. And they do not contain a conclusion that

I can see, that I do see some evidence that the



answers are excerpted from those two letters:

Mr. Evans' Letter, 3/15/04:

Page 2:

"NOTE: Nearly all of the following questions are critical of

the procedures used by the officials mentioned. I can't help

doing this. Though I would like to know your opinion based

upon your full range of professional knowledge, in all

fairness I have asked these questions with the Limits in mind

of the technology and understanding available to these people
, between June & October of the year 1986. These are the days

between when the crime was committed and the trial's ending.
- &

"Crime Scene:

Patrol Officer, Mr. Robert Paul Dunn

On the night of the assault, June.15, 1986, the first
officer on the scene, (Mr. Robert Paul Dunn of the Montgomery
County Sheriff's Dept.), interviewed the victim, (Ms. Maury
Lynn Stryker), for about 20 minutes, and then escorted her and
her friend, (Ms. Shirley Jordan), back to Ms. Stryker's
apartment so that he could secure the scene, (S.F. Vol. III,
page 315, lines 11-20).

Upon arrival they each noticed that the apartment door
was open, and had been open’ for approximately 30 minutes.
Officer Dunn told them not to disturb the door, (S.F. Vol. III,
page 314, lines 21-24), and. together the three of them entered
the apartment and walked around to see what was out of place.
During the course of their search they found several items of
evidence inside the apartment, (S.F. Vol. III, page 324, lines
10-17), and after realizing that Ms. Stryker's purses were
missing, found them outside the apartment by a sidewalk and
some trees, (S.F. Vol. III, page 268. lines 16-25, through page
269, lines 1-18).

Sometime during this, a man showed up at the scene and
‘Claimed to be the apartment security. This person did not
testify, and the fact that he was a black person, and his name,
have been removed from the S.F.. I would also like to point
out at this time that Ms. Stryker's windows were securde, the
sliding glass door was secured: and with spiderwebs on it, and
she said that she always locks her door.

Though the S.F. has been edited for-the most part
of the following, Officer Dunn and Ms. Stryker both stated that
Ms. Stryker was not bleeding or in any need of immediate medical
attention. Though not in need of immediate medical attention,
Officer Dunn left the crime scene in the care of this guy who
is said to be apartment security, (S.F. Vol. III, page 344, lines
17-21), Though ‘cailed, no other police were present at this

Page 3:
-2- :


issue of te laches, T choo bwous Why He Stete cleined Smale wo ofr
behplarn the 1s5ut. Did Hey he? Del th Cert egare lose ads tenl
ra x

As thes ACichunt OF Due Dikgerte Fo: Curt OF (7 10a Appeals has covered
tle (Ssué, T dors belice thal the 1ssue ot laches has sou beove out otwvlauersey
Hat neds to be resoled. As T have raised He tase law ot hclaids ¥
Ruastemen S78 F. Sapp. 2d B49; 2005 US. Ds! LEtTS tédal, T kebeve He
sur could be rove readily addressed 423 a tyir heasiag Sl cocwsel, thhere

Bot sides art heard, u0l Me State gluse,
4 toot

CHROMLOETAL TABLE OF DUE DILTEGH EVEVTS

EVNTE BRIEF SAMMARY: DATES:
L Thal Ended Tudge Fok Zudgency + lansyes DIB3-36
A: Bey Tal Coos Fe hy) Ov 2974 Bay She Fizged My Siguatert To Wotrce 1-a1-¥6
9) Mess Tiras Motants|"No bel," Tire Expired, 30 days M-2R-ae
1 Tal louse lites "gi wet Appecldtircur, Slee ested Iadgatey fearatg |a-3-27
F. tral lousel Tleliidh biter adigeet fears ques eiguel her diune As (Que siysntecs |a-3-87
6 Tague Meanoly Rutt) Todse Marion Jernecl Ages (Stal! Tactics) 3-Jo-¥7
7 Tra Covasel tele 6M "a5 wet gor lays oer Walp Ot leary 0 ther Tamas! S-7-87
8: My letter Apped Cet Leoalt poduse SF, Jredee 13 proekied for towel objectisws | 5-13-87
% Gt plows OrlisTHd 94 lavurt Brclertd Fabyt Marts b be Flgeateg. (snouts) 6- 3-87
to: Mypeal lowrase/ lebheh Couastel Checked feiort said Hed Beer) fassgered Was Back a) 2-9- 87 | 7-6 -¥7
Ws Ete ssa OIF Repoctir Maes Pagan Eleasian Uti W-3O-BT 7a 7
12 dud Gxt of Pre [SF | Mees Sais backed up fEdertion lat! Y- /- ig I -23-87
% SF. Filed ot beers Faty WO? 705 Cited & Nes Glubrs Missierg 3-2E-8
4 Ettersed Ot lire | 76 File Appea) Bre tft. Tuely AV, 19 FE fda CR
IS Bret Fikd Owe Evter + This Out Not Lustel lor rectly 7-2G-E9

Mi Slate Extes ue pasag) Atk bee Rater sft 2488) hut fils quest VAEKG 4 -dags late \F-26-8E
3


EVST: przer

15%, Ctuk Resppltows | &E Lee to “Sesearl te essue” C114
(S84, Tex@a> nfo Aanuers 1286 spay Cp Lee peceg df Bc ds. Exylish 3-66-77
ish. Stute Bar Abo et DA MA Stores yeu ° , S-/3-/y
(SS. Sat Bar Saud Flaled to wary aleage [Mog(t le eles «leager) |3 "27-17
18k, Filed et Ma7 Stat Clerk writ {Med Pronk letterforize Mioosifccks dtd fig Hed. V-AG-1¢

197. She Filed E1

IBALEF sunny;

Filed wrt froth ods,

i States Moped Desiswatiow CF Zsiues ¢

Afidat © ENS lameped x Kelaited GpeNZb6-29 AY

SE. State jiles 2. Tudoes “Destguatod O€ Issacs? Lt AI-17

IU. Fitsbge Sized Judge sieges Howe tiled tar hur. (30 days he yt AQ) VL 29-7
c : ¢ dys , hee. Fails % File ~

HO. Thile. Melon Foe, ofbocusel (US cad hyp lod St Heb te) LIS

th, State Files Aut Feb Prurduays OF Fate bouel, of bans” 6-26-18
2, TadseSigass Tadse Legs Hh on for hen o~ 29-Ls-
sue seut File te rsa bu U{T regeved Vbys let) |
132, Wethied by Care She seotre LO cope ob Met Sle seat (Ons 0546 caauobdd) bP -LS~
C04 Comet c€ Corr Appr (Dow'e Glen rig&t proctclurey

64. The: Motion for Ext. of Tee % Rageod % Dit. CowS Ballet Deas! 7 - &- IS
Dist) Gust Destrict (ort ” Qeitbses ryt prdedurs)

lis. Dh: “Objtatow & Ral P-MdS
COA. Metcos to Respro) ; k

Mb. The Mtrdaut [lxteasw Coserrye oF Dee Dl. CLG 2) Pel P-AS

+ ce a

AS mtatisved, Here were people 7 arote witleat making copies, bad Sorctires I
Logot put dates, All of % above wes becauy fia! + appte;/ counscla failed re. Zs
regards Shs laches essue may Bue dgence 0s oburdas. Zi, wot th sucartest, (perso ea
the bach, bul at leas Ftned, ost sapeslaat three bot ries Show) dates wot Hatt loalg
g0 awl Hey art Hilal @ %4 States cost add ay lain oC acteal woocensce, bad Pets
wternatioa) bee veade ty tral aod appeal coaistls, bod had tly vot beew art yporwred
te cuttone of guilt aad sevtect would Lavt beey dA berert, Fon te mometto€
He letter lon the Teces Mediea! Joard stat 2g be 1256 Mates te Me Slates allied
Lget, March, 6,201 aot blew CM wut I Seplorber 27,2019, 63
oly about 7wwrks,

The only Ming T could add to cty sovertgatiod) would $e «a Craast’ ipfirg)

of te brood July Heanwg Vere Zz sure He DA. Mi Stover, (00 wild; ast
+4.


LUBRVT:

OPE LEP SLAMARY

% kespouse Aust-s DPS|
ws heprectcL agusfuste
aa espoused is, bes bd
«7, Artised ay agiest|
uy, Keuewed

69, Teerak soe le rtee
8+ Houstorl lab
1M 1, hale [oseare
ba. Mr agle Responts
53. DPS, Gxrxral louse!
54. bar Cet |
7, Out Cert
sb, « Deputy Respoit

$7, Repuest ‘Tors "ah Gt ete.

st, begquose trom Saleen}

5, wrote Mou

b DPS.

bel fyproied —

At

} 41

Bred

30 days [DPS Kecords Dept.

they awed He cost

DPS,
Back of Forty Messery rv Aldisses Mes syads
vate bed Keokedl peints. to write

0 POWO$
Wek ts ore | eal Aoceecea©)

Refuse all help
Reguet Keveaxed apolar Lbles Mit Ciel cattle

60 hays /t askay. J
Puce for Slateacel ot Facts

cy Awan) hat Deav?l}
Lead, hat SF

PATE
(4-3-OR

1-2SO3
Q- /8-OF
3-0-0903
7 -Rl OF
[p-27-OF

F-AZ-O3
4-30-93
S-3/-03

cuclosed lefta astez

she paged #13) Soe ne agece)

6. Stall Cowl Fer Dikedhrs Mr. Brstlers Wg Lely re.

. Gust let

64. eHote Kyponter
63. Wiole Apseel Cote
&4. ote Ayeal Gousse |

Le veaese pass 1b feed nile rye boule
At bee ha. alle fess laces 6 galery
TePuce fasted tee help - Aocarted Ts

laine

Wo OSDUSC

65+ Thal Cocase te Lacele [54 1690uds Wd vrerter iy (der fest tial 2)

8, Ege glasses of
‘67 harsy Mart Eye (as
6 Eye Charc [s.
62, Classchcatoy> T.D|
904 Stiles dud Medea fe

esd

Wl, Ses Mod [Ae Ag

Tp

Pells ont J) Asked for tect resell

Sine the “g.

Bagist Sates so-raledl eee 1 feipi ot resus et,
UT Lcore

Ms hard tolled hie. doe. Gace Hey
ee pleses nile

Savrce. rege ar
Ss

{9-03
j--—_
S19-06
10-22-DQ
/- 7-03
1-%-03
19°03
(29-03
27-07



time, the door was left open, and there was two purses laying

outside somewhere.
etek k

Question 1: Should Officer Dunn have let Ms. Stryker and Ms.

Jordan waik around the crime scene?
ek

Mr. Ragle's Letter, 4/7/04:

Answer _1. Re Dunn allowing Stryker and Jordan back into the scene.
Answer: No. The scene should be examined and photographed first.
After that, only the victim should be allowed to enter the scene,
and then, just far enough to inform.the investigator where events
took place, what items are not hers, what has been moved or
‘changed and what might be missing. In general, this :is not a fatal
blunder but certainly ‘could compromise some investigations. A non

:involved person should never be allowed into the scene.
. ek *

Evans' Letter:

Question 2: Should Officer Dunn have left the crime scene in the

care of this civilian?
xk *

Ragie's Letter:

Answer 2. Re Dunn leaving a ‘civilian in care of ‘the scene.

Answer: No. However, it's not a fatal error. See #3 below.
ek

Evans' Letter:

Question 3: Because the security guy was left alone with the
evidence, does his place in the ‘chain of custody of all the

items of evidence matter?
. ek *&

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 32 Re security guy breaking the chain of possession.
Answer: He is in the chain of possession if he had sole ‘control
of the evidence for a period of time. If the DA failed to call
him as a witness, Mr. Canlas (or appropriate counsel) can explain
better than I, how it effects the admissibility of all the

evidence.
eek

Evans' Letter:

"Crime Scene Investigator, Srg. Noel Stanley:

In October of 2000, Identification Investigator,
A.B. Carlisle, of the Montgomery County Sheriff's Dept., sent

to me a-copy of the enclosed packet I've tilted "Montgomery
~3-

ww


TL Here Address State + Judge
keasows For Denial

Ow Tene 26,2015 He State filed sts owe “States Aveo Te Applcatess Fe,
Postcontetioas Wret OF Habeas Corpus, aud thle one ter Writ Judge tMled,
“Fusdoigs OF fact dard louclusnus OF Lach” Tas lastoo Hay made or He Tudge vA
signed Seve 24, 2015,

Ob jection) B Kulesso,
Thes 1s a Deb dilgence Mhedaurt preseted here becaust the Writ Court

dA aot allo ret the chaoce speall aad preseet eden iw) ary ode bela,
L was bared Corr de hearing 30 all F cas Ao Bel 63 adbiess Phe

essats Ma Sete aud ont judge nade ov these papers, whicl, do wet
prevent there tro addressed say wrt issues.
e+ oF

Richards _v. Quarteman,

S78 F, Supp: 2h F4T; 2008 U.S. Oist. iAUS RI,

The fests 105 the fachards case are tractly ike mat: Z tiled my wert on Olobes
24, 2014. The Stee. ceated 1ts o0wW ‘States fopesed Pasgunctond ¢ Issues “gud
oveker Mahl Tidge tlle, “Desiguateod OF Tesues,! 04 Naerbes 2h 20/4.
The Fudge made bis as Order ow Aouercbe; 24, 3014. The Tages arks clact ly
states Hat he has ousihered He applica tis, a He tle ww) Me case, aah
frds thet all fay Mechue asste of reverse | darrs 065 appeal, shoud
be resofued. To resoloe Mase fact esses he Orders appee! coucrel ty 5 provide
aw aftdaui7 15 20 days. Atter HE days T tile @ Motes Que LY wd
attsruey t help rt wih He case aud ask vf Coucsel bas deeded & tolete Ihe
20 day order. The appeal corel Paes Produces ad atbdan? leming 7)
merory.

le.


10

11

12

13
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

364

Q.

A.

serology report and collection of evidence.

Okay. Defense Exhibit No. 5?

Item No. 6A is a blood sample from the suspect,
Thomas Lee Evans. Tt waa found to be blood Group
A. . :

And Item No. 6B are some smears which are
labeled "oral."~ There was no. P30 present. I ran
this test primarily because the submission test
semen. sample was present, and I could not find a
semen sample. And assuming this might be a semen
sample in that case inhibition test, again, a
test to ABO blood group of detected and against A
and H. Type A secreted, which told me that the
suspect isa Type A secretor,.

Again, on this I ran the amylase test.

This is to determine the component of saliva.
And I found a large amount of amylase was
present, indicating a fairly strong dilution of
saliva.

I also microscopically observed smears

again, just to determine that they were indeed

not seminal stains, and determined no sperm where

present.

6C is a pulled pubic -- pulled pubic hair

sample from the suspect, Thomas Lee Evans,



10
ll
12
13
14
15
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q.

Q.

in.

Did you at a later time receive further items of
evidence from Detective Camp?

Yes, I did.

And what were these items?

The additional evidence submitted included a
blood sample, some apparent oral smears, a pubic
hair sample, and head hair sample from the
suspect.

That would have been the suspect, Thomas Evans?
Yes.

What type of analysis were you asked to perform
on these items of evidence that were submitted,
or what type of test were you asked to perform?
On the. items originally submitted, we were asked
to determine the presence of semen or seminal
stains, or any type of foreign trace of evidence.
Did you have an occasion to perform a test upon
the fitted bedsheet, either 5A or 5B?

Yes, I did perform a test on 5A, which was the
fitted bedsheet.

And would you.tell the jury just what that test
showed you?

The preliminary test from a couple of stains on

the bedsheet indicated the presence of semen.



Tral counsel, Ms. Gustaare Luedicke, had sess bea jury tal, thowagh she Aad particypated
HW) @ voir dite belore.. My case wes very telmical, wrfl, caper t tees, aad Sle wus ep agaunt
a very expeneuced tean of Dstact Atterdeyse She aught uuder He deleose act He
endeace was facteally wslicieot t prove gull, but Aclaorts I wees ave prot teat
the DA, wud his wituesses fyedl w wy trial, wader oath, ancl the Hese lees, ushich
are The only evilerce to substustate He dhegationss, weut rg ht over all of our heeds.
Whee He traleided te Judge took ny utlgeregaod Aerobie, case.

Whes the Burt of tppaals twetlly made Ha judge give e a leayes Fhe cout judge
assigued Tee Price, hat cllalt ell hr of te ppootueet for about tue nsu7hs,
Gis hitters & He Appeal locrit ae 10 tea tole 1 obtauseel trove He Sarr bectstos Regosa!
lass lbrary «esearch tocter over ud beberty.) Mr. ht bad ab iodlelye of Me
October 1986 tral, yet he allowed a record & be produced Hat hed bee) carehally
edfted aid rewrites as sore key tetrones ail ddlevt have ay of he.
ehitbsts rade part of hc hile. Ths gy ddl woxtles awl 6 nee, Ad ae aloe vt
Ste Ake records (could have kuodd thew ch het dad), we oueday Txeply reutved
his bref sleoieng & sragle exror latstd. T pave the appealtile shounag Caso letters
6 there out Ob astack conpliits,tw wey wo, wdeducated bashed, heat heeled t
addiess wey acteeal umoceoce clan, They AA wot help vce, Thar sevst learacd
Hat Ms, Pree ded vetlle bus oy tor correctly ,w0l AA be addess thee oer
UsueS 3 raced wv Peg ce Custer wellechue assistact ot: cocoate
oppeel athrvtgya Suse he way wot tte xotibed of his appreotcest wot/ about

tive vos tlt later, Hee tere tor Yileag Hhe ded Thal Motes lad passed.
+ + v

Zo Become A lasyer
Twa daedilgeice case Ike mae rt comes cheers) to-We erocot of He st has

Aalto me te learn Hhe lars,aud get possesstea) et the facts Hat proves that-He
ouly encleree Hhe Shite could maanpulate betbre fhe jitg rad judge, u/as

alse testimony giver) euler oath. Thetegh wushilled, avd art. a sortudhat
a


EMPLOYMENT Curriculum Vitae

CURTIS COOK

MASTER CERTIFIED OPTICIAN

Education:

Apprenticed Under My Father, Beginning At Age Fourteen
Master's Achieved In 1979

American Board Of Opticianary

International Academy Of Texas

Certified Ophthalmic Association Of Texas

Employment:
Self-emploed For Forty Years, Certified Optician's Office

kk

"I. under both Federal law (28 U.S.C. §1746) and State law
(V.T.C.A. Civil Practice & Remedies Code, §132.001-132.003),
CURTIS COOK, TDCJ #1585493, incarcerated at Ramsey One, in
Brazoria County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury

that the foregoing INITIALED pages of this Affidavit are true
and correct.

Executed on January 6, 2010. ae

INMATE'S DECLARATION


10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25,

376

Q.

Q.

A.

Q.

examinations expert.

Has that been in your file since it was prepared?
Yes.

As part of your case report?

Yes.

And Exhibit No. 10, what is that?

These are Randy Synder's personal notes that he
prepared at the time he was performing the hair

examinations.

And are those notes, have they been in the case
file since the time of their preparation?
Yes.

And were they prepared at the time of the

examination and analyses in the case?

Yes.

MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, we'll
offer into evidence Defendant's Exhibit 3
through 10.

MR. STOVER: May we approach the
bench, please, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STOVER: Your Honor, the state
has no objection to Defendant's Exhibit 3,
4, 5 and 6, and although I think Exhibit

No. 7 is -- 7 and 8 are just absolutely



10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24

31/8

Q.

Q.

This is a sexual work sheet which we use in our
laboratory. And this was the work sheet that I
used when I was examining the items of evidence
in the victim's sexual assault evidence kit. It
is a listing of the items and the corresponding
columns from left to right, are numbers of tests
that had been initially run on the sexual assault
kit items and the results of those tests, if they
were proved.

And I'd like to ask you now if you would, please,
to explain to us the entries on the sheet, the
results of the tests that you performed on it,
starting with A.

A is a set of vaginal smears which were in the
sexual assault kit. And I looked at them under
the microscope to attempt to see if spermatozoa,
which are male reproductive cells, male
ejaculate, are in the semen. And the results
were that there were no sperm detected on the
smears.

Continuing on, what was B?

B is a set of anal smears, which again I examined
microscopically for the presence of spermatozoa.
And no spermatozoa were prsent.

€ is a set of oral smears which was



379

1 examined for spermatozoa, and no spermatozoa were
2 detected.
3 Q. All right, Ms. Denney. D is vaginal swabs.
4 Would you explain that for the jury?
5 A. D, the vaginal swabs -- may I just demonstrate
6 this?
7 Q. Please continue reading.
8 A. And E, anal, and F, for oral swabs, and all three
9 of these items were tested for the presence of
10 . P30, which as I explained earlier, is a component
11 of semen which is exclusively found in semen. If
12 I had found this component P30, I could state
13 that semen was present. *
14 All three items tested were negative for
15 the presence of P30, indicating that no seminal
16 fluid was present on these items.
17 Item No. F, the oral swabs were also tested
18 for amylase, which is a component of saliva, and
19 were found to contain amylase and therefore
20 determined to be conclusive. So, therefore, they
21 were also tested for secretor status. This was
22 to determine the secretor status of the victim
23 and it was to determine the origin nonsecretor,
24 meaning she does not secrete her body fluid in
“28 her body fluid ABO blood group. A certain
F



employee for the State as part of its criminal investigation, a
"Record kept in the normal course of business of the Texas
Department of Corrections."

ANSWER: No. I have been associated with the opticianal
field for about forty-five years and I never heard of an
optometrist, or an unlicensed, self-proclaimed"Clinic Supervisor"
in charge of "dispensing glasses," conducting an examination of
criminal evidence and then holding a Comparison Test of those
results to our records. The analysis of evidence and the
Comparison Test are not part of our"normal course of business.”
The prescription made while Mr. Evans was in T.D.C. is, the
analysis of evidence and the results of the comparison test are

not.

Mr. Evans also pointed out to me that he was not in prison
during this Comparison Test, but in the county jail. I don't
see T.D.C. being in control of Mr. Evans in any way.

3. MRS. NANETTE ENGLISH, Walls Clinic Supervisor:

In addition to the above, I made several independent
observations regarding the testimony of Mrs. English, a
"Supervisor of the Walls Clinic of the Texas Department of
Corrections"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 403, lines 18-20); whose job
description is "I run the eye clinic there dispensing glasses"
(S.F. Vol. IV, page 403, lines 23-24). The District Attorney,
Mr. Stover, before the trial began during a pre-trial hearing,
stated that she was an "ophthalmologist from TDC" and that she
had:"come down to testify and said it was the glasses
prescribed to him and given to him while he was serving time
at TDC." The Judge responds "Okay." Since the trial has not
began yet, I presume she testified in a Grand Jury Hearing.
(S.F. Vol. II, page 183, lines 22-25, thru page 184, lines
1-3). At any rate, I question whether or not Mrs. English is
an ophthalmologist, a Doctor,qualified to make any observations.
She made several statements to the lawyers that showed a lack
of experience in the opticianal field, which in my opinion is
misleading to the lay person, and would wrongly support the
State's claim that these glasses were positively Mr. Evans'.
She specifically states, "the glasses match the prescription,"
(S.F. Vol..IV, page 409, lines 8-12," as if she is an
authority on the subject of testing a pair of glasses found
at a crime scene, and then comparing that analysis to a known
prescription. As I'11 show, I have reason to believe that she
is not an authority in the opticianal field. I also notice
that the lack of opticianal knowledge by every person there,
including the judge, allowed Mrs. English and the D.A. to
introduce a false statement as if it were true. A truly
skilled practitioner, such as I, could have easily discredited
Mrs. English's testimony, or verified its authenticity.

¢a) QUESTIONS FOR MRS. ENGLISH:

1. Did you test Mr. Evans while he was in prison? At
(S.F. Vol. IV, page 404, lines 15-16) she states that

a "doctor" does the testing..“At Page 406,.lines 10-11,

-2- - Eo



10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
“21
22
“23
24

25

209

BY MS. LUEDICKE:

Q. Ms. Denney, I believe when Mr. Stover asked you
about comparing hair samples from the same
person, the best you will: be able to trace is
perhaps similar origin?

A. That's correct.

Q. However, I also understood you to say if they did
not come from the same origin, you could
positively exclude one from the other; is that
correct?

A. That's correct, if the microscopic
characteristics were obviously dissimilar.

Q. And is it your conclusion from the
notes that you have available to you that Mr.
Evans’. hair is excluded from possibly being that
that was found at the scene of the offense?

A. That's correct.

MS. LUEDICKE: Pass the witness.
MR. STOVER: I have no further
questions. Thank you for coming down, Ms.

Denney.



ascisloure tor taaleay G awestyate Llow, A lrvl od Cordon ordered a heativg T
Aeternese He facts. Regarcloag the “ne issue, He prior Cor Tordads 1294 puliay
WAS ta) LEFF rad Loutsiada, about 36 years Preor..

Some of my ofher 1ssues art right oo fu page. Th DA, compared my right Ce
Coss-ekceritole the tanplawtantt as beng assautted tor a setoud trvee. [oud hark
sit for “he Stare % book ow te page readrey case lac) aud agree “v7t
pty 18SHe« ? At puueshreot Yhe DA aga, Consfaatly violated rey reg ht Ce
reriia) Sileat cltrialg puistreee?, by lormitodg od sey tars , Ate
Plasons for ater Doe hts beds tagenatiee >, eb asked dle y7g
guetioys they should ask rt. Joo so-cahed experts led, att vow J
4ave proot, Look ont 14 payes Z guted, Lure ts “y afidants
adh compart ticton) eo vealiy, Please, please dou torte at te
beatv the aes aud lsd prasish ree to Leercli tty 11 Ceo slows, I

Cans Haste dishes, tit cals WOU The lac).
ne

Contclees20 Witay er

Fa coaclustony, ms Kichatds V. Buartneest, 573 F.Supp. Ad BC! 2008
48, Dest, LEXTS 660, the owe-Sseded, (peer hears wos adetsed. Asn)
Phere, My tial judge ts diflereat Thay wh) tyahye ew Hh State was
allowed Ce subsart all of the eudeuce (eks clan, ledges ate dalit
aud Ke jee av ing excerse)acl te (oud called Suche actious a mockery,
Atde “ry leas tt oo my prayt’ that you wll held a heatidy on) Hels
(3st $0 Hat 7 ted at least present phe real tacts ws My Koord oben,
dat dlewet as ts tudsd tw mg aidanit, hart attached,

That gou tr your australia.

RespecWla lla subsitted,
=



ont otter Vow ave of a ptry ports ot tls cerewtbec y Vttlnni ce 4 tos actors
aed thy atler She wes tated oft vey tase day give we Hes appe/a@ealse/
who file aut eHor ter ete (wevrectiy) ead LA wo cvclede aug of He
ahh ty ta 4 appeal tile, Kttacse oth fudge, DA, aa
Chk, Z bave beer here all Hise gears thy lg Hs lear) “E lacs ecerag4
6 rane sorte of ty MSSUES Ww my puest Br penacesce, jhe Coa)
eng body say Hat I die lead He lees last evvcegl, P= waste!
Ashe; aad served bod. T bad arrousde 15-7 9 grade average art,
aELED L4adav Wa VG Lwesd¥a. bavyee add Lue ABC owt
NOW, Fire been B-dg rey best wv7l weg limited rovtal ail iles,

44. Phase rele Co an ehhdant. Lor tned 6 tebe Son pags eral alt
of 1A, Tver <Dhy wouldnt stl bere vd) pYsd0) HD sassr bored ©,

aA ot

Cx pacte Sart, ¥63 Sw. 2d Ue

Tes Sart, above, He. background ot der wempenenee 1s atarl, ekeecT. There, er

He tire tg mdctoeal wes reterucd Beust rel, 2 was lO gcar oF age way
wad gent sot witkptitsced « legal reattess , E recveved ad achuce bor ox ty Ow
oppo coeasel,o/ actpoase 80, Il refeeske Co 14 wusttickdvel a (gal
SYGLES 12> 2 C2, sal thal YE shod be eed co hobeas pu) rehe t ox
Ground of cutheectise wssystevie vt baeel, Iu ackh fis.) ths © lad ahouta 75-
297 grade eUtrRGL , add wasled da les acel seid bod ele ve 7 AVES, Ela
a bED oy, add wo lar Harare.
wt tL x
St pele Gorda, 87? 9.0). If 6/
Cre. Cin Ay, /eey)
One of He issue rhe State clues 11 car adbess 15 tect obo pias

CONYCLEOWS. Ta) and Ckac/ sure ploes Guestida oolong sathecticle
4.



Thea, 0? Juue a6, AOI, Phe State Files tan nove docurebs, rts oa “State 5
Awsusel %- Applitalioe far Posteommetiod writ OL Habeas Grpes F eral aut er
the Bit Sidye, 'Finddags OF Fact tod busclusiaels Ob Law.” The wit Tadge
SiIgas hes as Oa Order 00) Fane 24, 2015.

As us te kickass case , He Wret Sadye is deertart tees te Mal ywdge,
fre appea! towsels abhidar? 1s He onl, pce ot tidtere otsicle of Ly
record alowed uw» ts He heasivg , aud I wes vol alowed & parheypere
of show all ble eudevie D5 Chor'0G hee, Fas He Kiclarels case

He heghee court calbed Fhis Systir te: Adeuyevg a hvacle,
a ao

The essaes us te State ok Tudyes Yores ade big He Stele, Shou He
follosisg reasons tor daly alg 4 appleatiod .T atoul addiess each o€ thy,
becacse te tach chur te be a plroblin because ofthe lattwess OF veg wh
Filaog t ;

1. Court Ayprunted Appeal ossel§ Lass OF. Merely? As cos expected, couse!
has lost lus nirwrg about werytiurs (lated ty my cast, Tact ew e912
“b ueders tat how be ass Say Had word Mat tS rey fault, Zcr bere
because of hic, tor Zhe veost part aud lis lack ofveacory dies wot alte/ ay
Al CUSATCONS, as pK) 109 Me tial records, fhe case lac + UC + Texas
bustitalos, asd vey AbhAaurh 10 suepport.

3. The State cleeres Hal te Clerk claws (180 afledeurt wo support of He
Statereo) Mal He reporter’ ror bon H, apples’ dial rs useable,
awd hes wot beed ws Me clerk é POSé5St0-) Suse at east LOOK. They
0 buy, 25 I oll, Hhe ett Appeal File, wth, Mee thal testwrves re§
tae Appeal boise! tiled, frorr fle Seoz Housley Kegodal Las Lebrt/y
tKesearch Cevter wer w Liberty, Teas, as hd 2b Jobs prye
Ts tle State sugges Ug peal Als ty wwadegeate br @ wT htaliug
but oly to“ Mey appeal F Agave, F dow? Loo.) Jo Ztaw fe kelp

“ae


EXHIBIT #1.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Ex Parte Thoonas Lee Eves S$ Zs The WOTA Dstrict Goer
Tra) Court Dorit Munbec1UB0-(K-G) € oF Movtgoners, Couvty ,
& Tethas

AFELDAVIT OF DUE DILTCENLE
FOR COURT OF (RTMTUAL APPEALS
My wame 1s Thomas lee Gas aid Zam before the Gurl of Gimval Appeals
foday to share ths Attdant OF due Diligeuce w support of | my defese qgavst
Hoe allegation of the State, and the Lit Judges atcytauce of the allegation, Prat
_ ag ret of habeas corpus applcateoa), prtswv ted under the T.C.¢.P. Ar. UD7,e00s
wot tnely tiled, which prevents the State trom addressing avy of She issues
reused there, asl should bere all Yuags deaed because of Hat factor,
Lan prestutly houstd at He bhywwe uct, Waller Geusty , Taras, aad I
sertre under the thar of the pewalty of pejeury frat ellocwug nrtormatiea

ts True.

* a 7

Lacchiect stave OF Couaisel
Fumary beason for blay Zs Fildo,

The reasous tar my delay rat tleary oy eorrt are many , but they all ll cater the
primary tact that my courtappaated tral aud appellate cawusels bot tasled me. Though
declared ndigeart belore aul daraly the tral, He origrsal Heal judge, Tadge. Martusot
the Aad fith Destict laurts, took my mebgercy bllosisg ny Heal wart wusistecl Hat Tt
Pag %e Muy cee) lawyer aad pey tor He stcords 6 be produced. Eve) telowetg o barely
t shoes ney extrere poverty the judge stl refused t rewstate my saligeut stats,

a stall tactht thet et ob adlacd of ews phat bested aletost Cero years.
4



DETER SHMAARY,

EVENTS ©

100. Hasfis bwt
toi eorote Tastee Dept,
102, Bladst) Lag Shoot
123. Beds toves Response
«07. Zouc, Pryyect
WS* Tedd0o Pryed
2G Juwo. Cre, ect
467, Lddo0ce Faoject
was, Atteyary [its Stephens
sop Court App. Taectgeted
tio. renscs Hyp
We hayes, plland
U2, Legel Sereues (07 be
43 EPs acass hesecibe G
aid Poly gs agh Repaes)
bs, Cael kespooded
Ke, Poly grupa Kepeest
war, Stall louse! Apacs
ww, Sabtlowsdl Aye, J
1%, Loud Aeprtedfizoy tts
420, Hartes lomry
ta, Marres lovwty
62a, Harres ums kespas
43, TU, Proyer! 4
21. Iw. Project

0s: Fava. Pre eet :

uo.
fstiapo fo Se hesst ni us repeats)
Repouded 6-29-08 tat I shoud seek local help (2D
aus thay toa ae Lier classes Jz aed © leared
Mo loads.
dlp v2.
Help ve.
help xe,
Ulp xe.

Wo beelo/sugsests 2 eat wtsters (ood)
hocated My aldby arrtoesses 1d BE
Tack Duntel’s legal Sypot Seruces (Wo Mesyrese my)
il} -S tar fhaw, Stereo, et fuclp nad- bo ray tecletael teres
Movedh [he tearas ry Sesdker [Ont kelp repeat.
Hs. lax face [eo spr se
(120 More Biess ass o/ gopulatieis case fe)
OE Mor beagle oft of Wet /pasped bug teeze
Kezuest Pacesftleses ee “pee test
Mot Autlerized 7 Seesses€, Cc.
Kuodften) Associates fos st Yo espouse

Ms, Mattinez (oot sus 1s help us. A Pe)

Ms. Macowee (we lewd veote/Vot keto.)

<4 lawect avd plese

To poe priel arog dates yet.

Vlae (LOO

R008 levees Genrelted “all help (4-4 os) ane
eu help rt, Witt or Le Rlecler Bs
Housterd /kelp

How stoni/be. Do /te Ip

sab, Zune Projet

DATES 1

4-1-0 -
S265
6-10-05
7-15-05
~~ S~os—
(0-L0-0$~

1 -¢-os-
4~ 7-06 @)
//-£-03
i2-~2P-03
2-22-93
42h-2 2-63
2229-02
e-S-ay
[A222 2-03
IV9-07
2b -0Y
3-£%~03
Z-3-8D
[-2a-os
A 7-03
Y-/1-63
ey -7-6S~
7-124 g
U-4@-0S~

3 27-06

M3. Tay lor (Uo tel) Mes) Bik
“a. :

3-37-06


yl Su?
Thorrei Lee Evuws
OCS #YZSAN 0 ba
¥ID FA AFA
Heotuille, Tees 77399

Filly Ub, 2018

G@urt bE Gameal Appea!s Y RECEIVED IN
Clerk, Mr. Abel Acosta COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
2.0. Box 12308, Capital Stafion) JUL 21 2015

Austir, Tekas 787i Abetacosta, Clerk

"RE: Bx parte Chovess lee E0eos , HOt Dstacl out Mowtgorrtes Lovely, AAse
Na. 1U30-O, Fahged Dertal O€ Yt (xe.F,Ar1 MOD) wrteoct alld vs et & seebnrt eadutt

Wheanwg,

Te The Honorable Clerk, Mr. Abel Acosta :

Please fad eaxtesed ant firs leer, He Aollosinlg uotetatcoa) ss respoatst to He
tral judeps blowket hearral of vey writ Losed upos H tae Ht bas tebed ret lear Xe
lads and hle reg writs :

1. AppheewtS Lessouse % Distact Garth Mastet Peswal OF tit Lased Upos
Lachees, 6 Ptges; Jl. Lanate’s Dedaratiov;

2. tht BL, Abhelait OF Due Di gerice oc bart OF Crraoal Appeals,

20 pages, with Lmeate’s bedaratron

3, Exhibit #2, Affidavit of Mr. Curtis look, Exp! Ege Gant’, § pages , wi7t
Gath, dedetal os

rm Lab *3, MMadart ot Me. Carry Legle, Expy om te lestes bor Me Porewsi ¢

Screuces,, 24 pages ocleedealy oa fefeclaratisa;
a



Enclosed with these questions are a condensed version
of some of the issues I am raising in a Texas Writ Of Habeas
Corpus, (T.C.C.P. article 11.07), under my ineffective
assistance of appeal counsel issue. They are titled:

a. Factually Insufficient Evidence;

b. Identity, which is the identity portion of the Factually
Insufficient Evidence issue;

‘¢. Chain Of Custody on the Eyeglasses, (because it further
addressess this item of evidence);

dad. Suggestive Photographic & Physical Identification
Procedures, (which shows the steps to my being arrested

and identified).
tke

These 36 pages have been included to aid you in
answering this Question 17. If my lawyer can get the whole,
unedited version of my trial, then I will try to have that

forwarded to you because it will be more specific.
es kk

Question 17:

Based upon your professional experience can you please
give an opinion of the value of the hair results? In other
words, what type of impact would a hair expert defense
witness have had on a jury, under these facts of evidence,
if one would have testified? Could a'reasonable doubt' have
been put in the jury mind about my being the assailant, based
upon the hair results? Should these hairs, gathered under the
‘conditions previously detailed, have positively excluded me |
as the assailant?

Though edited out of this record, Ms. Denney, the D.P.S.
Chemist, stated that a hair is always going to be pulled from the |;
Groins of two people having sex. To my untrained mind, Mr.

Snyder, the.D.P.S. Hair Specialist, makes it look as if my
hair is unique because of the looping and triangular segment
ithat is not found in any of these other hairs.

In your book you state that hairs can occasionally be
raised to the level of a print. To my mind, here are all of
these "prints", believed to be the link to the assailant,
(until not linked ito me), and. they were -ignored by the police.
They were found either on the head and groin of a person who
had not had sex in two years, or in a bed where no person had
been in two years.

. How strong of an impact should the hair specialist's
statement that "No hair(pubic or head) similar to suspect's
hair present.", have made on the jury if spoken by an expert
with firsthand knowledge of the reasons for this ‘conclusion?
To me this is like undisputable evidence. If it would have

-15-



sold he S4 isolh! of papers she lowed 10) He DALele, Sore ot Ke letters, as Lnedtraed,
weve wotcopied at Mes early staye, bel Z of ten wet retawed by te. Appeal borl,
aw athena T eveatitally bad a asec Aypee! bet Merk stud re 6 tO Sac howted Retedal
la-JS Library + Lesearth Ql r over 10 Liberty, Hey be B of. wey lelers cas oppeel
bile F bought hor fo a paye. (there mary be otkers T cant locate rf veguveds) Equpped
wetl, He appeal tile, aud fe tual teslieroanes Me appeal athrves allowed % be
tld, Z bak sunbers avd wanes of people eed places T coutdask tor docamerl
hulp prove Tee facts. Sore helped ausdhothers Ade.

AESs Hang learved Hrough acs mate Hat I have to exvtually tea ant & hut my case
heard Z begav © do restard, 4g rtadbug aig cases Z cod fia, lost, obey igolik
wot relate > sy Stteatien), or had Hey beed reversed ¢ Mey wert Sila, Tevertaally
raw across a relerentt by a Judge & Ensraus Rursible Errors aud ry roa tuk
at a.used copy ott of ebay. Tt had sovre Hhags ressigg aod stypid ts syplorenh
at 2000, hil navy of aeg 1ssaes bad bed ploreaghly woercd by He vartous curls
Selore heey, T eveotaally touwd a care Hat easily etplautch Ae Fecleal Zosatbieer
of thee Exxdecre ballacie oud thus epuyped I tegaw puttiog all oF the tects dbsa)
adh coutactos places w stares of Ayal kelp. Done helped re, perco, but bu lf
1p rey hopes oud ll ree acy Here. (tavceets lajects ove @ beg part of Mle
delay BECAUSE al eaforatcall, Slt oC. flees, ace gers © set festice atllosts
Wi, esi. Jee last place he receuty covste ue slated Heel Vl, wrod get
eoead to vce tw about (Sowell. 2 1hees Hektor ausey ) oot place
Scared ney vcore oat ot Fes .5 6

6. thes He DUA festiarg pagers uttre hauled out cad here Z put togelar a rote.)

hase the feo stacas aud ty bars lated, ererher, eeue ot of Ylecr ata nee
te 1486 We the Yao "led nubtipheck, bul wel williatg % belreve Lh. Sete o rts
tolouorar 3 would Larepe- ant eudasct, I aMecwsed br Ke Atog ~_TV acateled,
but art 0 etplesato. about odds (aunbers) when) He DUA is taf v4
ulatoe, Lastpated hitting vey teller tested. lew he deh )T also Fae CaS

7


slouser ability to carprebead the neading of the Various lass, Thave maweged bo
do whet my attoruey s released to ho. LE wot te best but at leat z trede
ZA Sorry that L could Jearas quieter, aon

The geuden tactors aad tears that eblected the tine vt has takes *£ are as bllous:

#4. In Teeas ,we have a writ of habeas cocpus systere Mat assures the cuuicled Hat
there ts wo tert luart ter tileoig, bat then) deep wsto vey guest Z lazral flat thas tact
63 musleadead , aud that here rt takes ove © perkec! te lard cord bat flerr tors aduellg
actilecag Me wert begoud tihasg aprece of paper, as the State just shoued xe by

fauna He Tadge stud ree away followiwg a. weghiag steviderkt Leva wot

even allowed t Garentel on.
#2. 1 add to fhe pressure of forciag av uoedutated dishwasher ad ood server te
becone aw attorney, I read that every 1ssue Lewteod to racse wuust be racsed the
lees teat, because flere art £2 two bites atteagl. Lar stl/aot raucug lotrry
issues because Tee stl coushesedt by thactly Mat ced be raced 1 2011, wd sleet
Gas be ratsed mice appeal. T asas prayesy tet a xtcS apptal uould be gras ted
aod Heat Z could har @ real cowsel help ret rad Hla.
#3, Tesl/wot reberate appeal coarels actions bert, but all bullet z hast goue thiogh
es because le ade? claus up and do dla ares 1g lor He beyarelg - This 1s a suott
Klos evd Ltadt mage bir «ot bsecsalg Har ke wos wot reprises thalg Ht od ty
test appedl a) ans advotae.'

#4, ted Ttned ts get He lets © prove ney pwiocerce, he treal fesheroant’,

He photos proved She wapercusstbly suggesttse Photogeap hic aud ofler deat hafird
procedures, the stateresh Hat contradicted taal testlnon1eS, Cle, Fray wha
call 1a) Moagoriery Guoty, As the sector of tes aledant titled “throne logical
Zable OF Rue Iiligest Evasl “will shows, Hheg beat aroaud the bush , seat re te

2 ther pacel refused  ywe re whet Lasked tor, tned & sell ne slalh TAcey ask
bt, respouckd bet tailed & asses voy guatoas ed atless just iguore doy

hetders ahogether. The Clerks one boldexy reor Heat all He appealbeles were ast
3


10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

Do you do the same type of work for the Texas
Department of Public Safety?

Yes, I do.

I believe you said you worked in the Houston
office?

Yes.

Did you have an-occasion to examine some evidence
submitted by Detective Eva Camp from the
Montgomery County Sheriff's Department?

Yes, I did,

Do you have a case number on that?

Do you want her case number or my case number?
Both of them.

The Montgomery Sheriff's Department number is
86-14560, and my laboratory No. is L2H-54833.
Do you have a list of the items that were

submitted to you for examination?

Yes, I do.

And what would that list consist of?

The original evidence consisted of a toothbrush,
a fiber sample, two hair samples, a fitted
bedsheet, a flat bedsheet, a sexual assault
evidence kit from the victim, a pair of sweat
pants, a sweat shirt and a white paper sheet

which was used to collect the victim's clothing



This is not true. In his "primary" 2-page report, that the
officials will not let me have ‘copys of, and in the portion of
his trial testimony that has been carefully edited & rewritten,
he stated thatya partial and/or a whole print were found on
the edge of the glasses and on the knife. :

. The D.A., Mr. Stover, also held up the glasses in court‘
and said that an overzealous.officer would occasionally pick

up an item to inspect it, meaning. Officer Dunn, and indicated
that this is where the print came from. Mr. Stover just put this
in there on his own, because there was’ no evidence in the trial
to indicate that.any of the evidence was compared to any other
person. than me. As he did ithroughout the whole trial, when

faced with an obstacle he just made up something and from

then.on it was the new fact.
eek

The following is all that is left of Srg. Stanley's print
testimony:

S.F. Vol. III, page 357, lines 10-22:

Q:([BY D.A., MR. STOVER]Did you have an occasion to try to lift any
fingerprints from State's Exhibit No. 1, the eyeglasses?

A: Yes, I. attempted them.

Q: Were you able to get any readable prints from State's
Exhibit No 1? .

A: No.

Q: Did you attempt to lift any fingerprints from State's
Exhibit No. 2, the knife?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Were you able to retrieve any readable prints from State's
Exhibit No. 2?

A: Yes. a
tk

Question 13: Should a partial or whole print have been followed
up.on by the police?

kk

Raqle's Letter:

Answer 13: Re partial prints. Answer: Yes. Standard operating
procedure is to compare every recovered friction ridge information
to all parties, suspects, victims, every one who is known to have
‘been in the scene. (the friend and the security guy) including all
officers, investigators and civilian personnel (Jackson). Any
amount of characteristics (minutia points) on the Knife and
glasses should have been compared to all of the above, at a

-11-


from a point to fail to meet in a focal point resulting “e
in_a_ blurred and imperfect image. 2:a defect of vision

due to a stiqm sm of the refractive s em of the eye

and _ esp. to corneal irreqularity. 3:Distorted understanding
suggestive of the blurred vision on an astigmatic person."

Mrs. English's only attempt at technical jargon associated
with my trade proved that she was not a skilled practitioner.
Had a truly skilled optician been called upon by Mr. Evans'
lawyer, such as I, to question Mrs. English, her inexperience
would have been easily revealed and the outcome of the eye
glasses testimony and the admissibility, would have

possibly been much different. Nothing in this entire
testimony convinces me that the glasses tested, if they

were tested, were the exact same as those issued to Mr.

Evans while in prison. I quit practicing two years ago

after forty-seven years in the field, and I can in good
conscience make this claim based on my own extensive

qualifications.
ek

-4- : : “Zz



been hair "similar" to mine, that fact would have been the
dominating point made by the State to justify convicting me.
(Please remember that I am asking this from a June-October
1986 perspective.)

kk

Ragie's Letter:

Answer _17: Re calling the hair expert. Answer: absolutely, you
should have been allowed to call Snyder. His factual report was
entered into the record by your attorney and Denney said, at
least twice, you were excluded as being a source of the hairs,
but then the DA did another questionable trick. After he got
Denney to answer his tricky question re his stating "Evans' hair
found at the ‘crime scene" he dropped another bomb, asking the
question about pulling a hair from you now and then later
comparing a known hair (from you). He asked, isn't it true

that the most one could say is the hairs ‘could have ‘come from
him (Evans)?

That was true at the time, matching hairs in every possible

-test were not an absolute :identification. Is he trying to

confuse the jury into believing that exclusion is not absolute?

And then he mentions your blond hair for no apparent reason.

This entire line of questioning should have been ‘challenged.
ek *

AND_FROM PAGE ONE OF RAGLE'S LETTER:

Perhaps the most shocking statement in the transcript is found

on your page 387, line 4, where Mr. Stover recalls Denney's testimony
45 minutes earlier and concludes, "....hairs submitted to you

that were collected at the scene that belonged to Thomas Evans."

How did he get away with that?
etek

My over-all impression is, you are a victim of, 1. I11 prepared
investigator's who failed to process the scene properly,
2. Serious defects in the manner in which the physical evidence
was handled: and the results presented in ‘court, and 3.-A

prosecutor who misstated some critical issues.
tk *

~16-



she says that the Ramsey III Eye Clinic conducted the
examination (another prison); and confirms the State's
question of whether or not "the order actually issued was for
the glasses that the doctor ordered for him,"(S.F. Vol. IV,
page 408, lines 11-14); and then "the eye clinic actually
ordered the exact prescription that the doctor had said?"
"Yes, sir."(S.F. Vol. IV, page 407, lines 20-22).Who are
these doctors? Are they licensed? Is the document even
authentic? I wouldn't question this but for the fact of
this testimony being deceptive. (Her and the D.A.
testifying as if she is qualified, an ophthalmologist

(S.F. Vol. II, page 183, lines 22-25, thru page 184, lines
1-3) qualified to give a professional opinion, when she

is obviously not.) If. she will mislead the layman in

this manner, then what else would she do?

2. The D-A. asked Mrs. English if she has a "machine" she
can test glasses on and she says"yes."(S.F. Vol. IV, page
408, lines 18-21.) She then admits to testing the crime
scene evidence on this machine and coming to the
conclusion that these glasses were exactly the same as
those ordered for him,(S.F.. Vol. IV, page 409, lines 3-15).

My question here, is, what qualifies her to do a test
of these glasses on a lensometer? Is she a licensed
optomitrist? Where did she get her training?

3. Had she told me she knew how to use a lensometer I
would have asked her to demonstrate the procedures. It
would be easier for the unexperienced person to "say"
they have made an exact finding than to actually recieve
one by proper operation.

(b)OVERALL there is no "professional" analysis here, and
the only "proof" I see here of "her" conclusion is her
"own" opinion. The most glaring example of her inexperience
is found on Direct and Cross-examination. When asked at
(S.F. Vol. IV, page 406, lines 12-22) what kind of vision
problem Mr. Evans had, she simply said "Myopic," which is
a legitimate analysis, accurately defined as "nearsighted,"
which the D.A. defines as "he can see close up, okay,

but can't see things far away." But, on Cross-examination
at(S.F. Vol. IV, page 413, lines 14-25) she is asked the
same question and states, "Myopia with an astigmatism"
which is a completely different prescription. For example,
a person with myopia could not even see through a pair

of glasses of someone with an astigmatism. Which is it,
myopic, or myopic with an astigmatism? And then she
falsely defines this prescription as, "That means he's
nearsighted, can see close up; but can't see far off.

An_ astigmatism reflected has to be put in to correct
different angles," and Mr. Evans' lawyer says, "Okay."
This is not okay. An astigmatism means an "irregular
cornea," not an "astigmatism reflected has to be put in

to correct different angles." Merriam Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines it as:"Astigmatism:1:

a_defect of an optical system (as a lens) causing rays



10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

375

Q.

A.
Q.

A.

Q.

A.

investigation of this case?

Yes.

Were these prepared by you at the time of your
investigation and analyses in this case?_

Yes.

And the next exhibit?

Exhibits 7 and 8 are my copies of the official
report in this case.

Was that a report prepared by you in your office
in connection with this case?

Yes, it was.

Was it prepared in connection with your analyses
of the chemical work that you did in evidence in
this case?

Yes.

And Exhibit 9, is that --

Exhibit 9 is a handwritten copy of the hair
result, which would be put into the case report,
which were prepared by the hair expert who
analyzed the hairs.

Was that also prepared in connection with this
case?

Yes, it was.

Was it prepared by you?

It was prepared by Randy Snyder. He's our hair



Zhao vas Let Evaats

TCT #4 3SAN Jelyatoe “nf
810 FAI 2A)

Huwts ile, Tuas F734

aa “Domates Declaratio~ %

7 sasart wader the fear ob Ha pedelty oF peje’ foal wengtheaty
ws Flas Respoust old Dur Mgesce albdarrt are tut ts Me best oberg ab/lity
6 twos. Tahay’ dates Taly Ib, ADIs;

Sigatat: —eHhas He Co

Phovzes Lee Eveals

T hope Hhir 15 wot mprope’ bet at the covclusior of each of rig wyrt essues Trade
tee statevrctot flat eves wrth tus last cater of | eviddexe Hirose cect because bney aflelatres
by dace experts, Lawuld shi attempt to exgge te Sale po a neavidgtd plea aytenetl,
T dot woul % ge © @ nid tral gad subject Be completa aad my farrly
te dat agaic. Z lout aseut to sue Me state or bacl rote dies te avy way. AUT
Waales get out, get % wrk, suut modey aud pass ey ASTTES Yeats w/ilialg 04)
wey books gurl HeaMeaty bed by vty treedove.

Zeek pou Ser yore Cowsideraliou .
kespecfeall, subry tec,

> ae


S#ENT BRLEF SUMMARY DATES.
1. My bettas DAs | Coorghew of laser J etter, Kijled 7 bot My Aetval Sasol. F-2-BY
VL FM loud App bert No State, brand ¢-7 -66- 1-7 -8e~
A. Witte, App lout Deeps §— Feadgrzd Aflirmred Wek SB
AD, Motion Fer Lheendig Stl bees et Argee Ettot Costectl, Vtle-&B
Al, Motos fe/ Keltan buts ruled WA2-8
Re DR, loud Gurr, hp Subrratted The Stu LUO Aseectiast “385 BK ABBE
23, PDR. Retused A-da-&4
m2 DR, ORDER, Final haley, Lekeseh 3fro/g9 3-/0-89
Vedeved Camit, Tid % bet Records, geucted Keades Rearlo.n|

asAtlepl blot tolls m heb sce vo by Whe S857 fhe oc PA Hew IS
eect, Sa ny, PG Bn TGSA | ry
FD Nasheed bay LVL | Suid Hy dgaed af POS Comet Nyp $-22-0/
AY GU bauer Apts) Mes lech Sead Deherd stot ty Sar Ketlod bass bibiny ud brherrty | 5-30-08
Me Mom Paged — | 100 0 pase Ebert, SRY 02
30-ReUeRd SF Fema out edetedorerlab1ts art de le bor oppte body fess eMetiedd 772-02
Bh Auster bars cobrera| bturaed thie Latafedion reed” Record; edteh aig?  |7 - 02
R bbe 7K heord 1% edhct lly Pfawore ee 1s eV we5taue, 17-02
SO ag jy tert oy Beans oh: ellen uses 1 pave #5 aohplees Erase: wre V-/7-02
FF Most. los Zp, DHSWD  Kepuest Tresipto) Tot. 24-02
RSiansh sole larlok esp §— Paces, Loot OUbO2
3b. You, Bought Gt what rey hak 0-20-02
3, fentared Gast Per MoSia6 Piterus 2-6-03
© Carlesle Repled Wo Help. Ke fusect -7-/0-03,
32. Uovt bras, hecords Diisew Asked for dl of ef. Lay-n2
40. fesgou st Lt Lousy dewréd. 9-402
“ Rerresed hoguest hevtwed hep. T Trualg + B-0(p)
2, Res pense by Stroud bt fuvg chouged job [stud dined, 4-10050)
DPS Asset, Gourd W- 7-024

laxse( (toasted Lab, Reet tor resale
M4,


10

ar:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

366

A.

Q.

Q.

A.

Q.

Crime Lab?

For almost three years,

What years were those, do you remember?

Let's see, that would be, I believe it was 1981
through 19 -- of 1983.

Who was. the director of the crime lab when you
started work there?

Floyd McDonald.

And is Floyd McDonald one of the recognized

experts in the field of chemistry and toxicology

To my knowledge, he is.

And did Mr. McDonald leave during the period you
were there?

Yes, he did.

Did Pete Christian then become the director of
the lab?

Yes.

Did you receive on-the-job personal instruction
from both of those recognized experts?

Not at that time.

Did you later -- or what type of training did you
receive while you were working there?

I received instruction from the head serologist

of the laboratory. we are



ELLIS, L.L.C.

ArrorNeys& CounsetorsaT Law

Mr. Thomas Lee Evans

TDCJ #435211

Beaumont, TX 77705-7635
Attention: Thomas Lee Evans

Attorney-Client Correspondence

January 2, 2004
Re: Writ for DNA Testing, Update

-Mr. Evans: ~~-- none - noes, Lo —_

Progress on your file is slow. | have read through the entire clerk’s file. There appears io be ‘a loi
of documents which are missing or never filed.

have also spoken to some of the attorneys involved in the case. Rick Stover, the prosecutor, had
a very good memory cf ycur case. He voiced his opinions. However, he just passed away
recently. Jimmy Price your appellate lawyer has no recollection of your case. He is not
cooperative at this time.

facts from the court reporter. His only point of error was the parol instruction. | don't know the
reasons, question how a lawyer can write an appeal with all valid claims with only the
statement Sf facts from the punishment stage. If you had any valid errors during the guilt
innocens@ stage then he would never know.

| still need more-time to locate evidence and orgami 0 as k
Court for retesting. Today | was submitted the court reporter’ ‘Ss record,

“As for your Writ; do hor ao anything on that issue at this time: Forward alr information tomy office:-~ ~~~

| will inquire from the Court if | am to assist you in that matter too.

urther questions please send me.a letter or have someone call my office for you.

Richard Martin P: Canlas, Esq.

Texas S&S Louisiana
‘Richard Martin P. Canlas

. a , Voice: 281.444.7580 ‘Telephone: 504.525.4361
43100 Veterans Memorial Drive» Suite 264 ‘Voice: 936.788.6999 "Wireleas: 504.569.2971
Houston, Texas Facsimile: 936.788.5999 Facsimile: $04.525,4380

Richard_Canlas@CanlasElliscom



10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

BY MS.

Q.

Q.

A.

just a moment to look this over?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

LUEDICKE:
Ms. Denney, in connection with your analyses of
the evidence submitted to you in connection with
this case, did you prepare any other reports
other than this criminalistic report which was
submitted to the Prosecutor here? Do you have
some other records with you?
Pardon?
Do you have other records with you?
Only my laboratory notes which are covered in the
report.

MS. LUEDICKE: May I approach the

witness, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.
(By Ms. Luedicke) Ms. Denney, may I see those
notes, please? Are these legible?
They're legible. I don't know if you can
interpret them. (Handing to Ms. Luedicke.)

THE COURT: Do you want to review

those?



*poth" of her purses outside, (S.F. Vol. III, page 269, lines
15-16). :

The picture (State's Exhibit No. 10), of "two purses",
one blue and one white, as "they" were found outside are discussed
by Ms. Stryker again in (S.F. Vol. III, page 310, lines 22-25,
through page 311, lines 1-5).

Ms. Jordan then testified that there was only "one" purse
found, and she's looking at the same picture, State's Exhibit
No. 10, (S.F. Vol. III, page 326, lines 2-11).

In officer Dunn's Direct, Mr. Stover, the D.A., refers
Officer Dunn to State's Exhibit No. 10, and says "purse or
purses", and then "purses", (S.F. Vol. III, page 344, lines
5-11).

And in Srg. Stanley's Direct, by Mr. Stover, the D.A.,
the D.A. asked if the picture actually depicts the scene of
Ms. Stryker's apartment and her "purse" outside the apartment
as Mr. Stanley saw "them" that night, (S.F. Vol. III, page
356, lines 17-21).

I can't remember if Srg. Stanley recovered both purses,
or if one was missing, or what. I do remember that there was
confusion about this, but not the specifics. It has also
occurred to me that someone has further confused the amount by
rewriting some of this trial. testimony. (I know for a fact ithat
this happened in other places, unrelated to this.) If I can
ever get the correct, unedited trial testimony when I will be
able to add to or take away from this question.

Though edited out of the record for some reason, I do
remember that Srg. Stanley stated in the trial that he didn't
attempt tp print the purse(s), because they/it was of a type
of material that he figured wouldn't hold a print, and though
believed to have been handled by the assailant, no field test
for trace evidence (such as semen) was conducted.

It is my understanding from your book that even under the
most ideal conditions, the color and type of materials things
are made of, as well as what kind of soaps they've been washed with,
can help to hide trace elements and should not be solely relied upon.
As mentioned above, one was white and one was blue, and made of

a type of material that couldn't be printed
kk

Question 7: Should Srq. Stanley have taken these purse(s) into
‘custody so that they could be sent off to the D.P.S. for their

professional analysis?
ek *

Ragle's Letter:

Answer_7: Re the purses going to D.P.S. for examination. Answer:
Yes, absolutely. :
ek k

~ ee


10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

(386

hairs were indeed compared, but an analyst's
notes are generally readable to one analyst, if

you understand what I'm-saying. In other words,

to “himself for this case.

See
he was making note

These were not no es made to any other analyst.

“Oh: does havea conclusion at the bottom
that says: No hair, pubic or head, similar to
suspect's’ hair present, but that's the only
conclusion there is. No analysis of his notes.
But it does say there is no hair of the -- of Mr.
Evans similar to that found, either pubic or head
hair, as to that which was found at the scene of
the offense?

I would assume so.

I'm sorry, I can't -- I didn't hear what you
said.

I would assume so... I can't interpret his notes
for you. I'm sorry.

MS. LUEDICKE: Pass the witness,



Evans' Letter:

Evidence Found In The Apartment:

In the previously mentioned Supplementary Investigation
Report made by Srg. Noel Stanley, (Montgomery File, page 1),
you will see his list of the items of evidence that he "did"

take into custody. They are described as follows:
Montgomery File, page 1:
Item 1; Knife believed to belong to suspect.
Item 2: Eye glasses(sic) believed ito belong to suspect.
Item 3: Blue mesh shirt believed to belong to suspect.
Item 4: Shirt and panties of victim.

Item 5: Blue tooth brush(sic) recovered from master
bathroom believed used in assault.

Item 6: Bed lennin(sic) from master bed where assault

took place.
tk &

And then at the bottom of the page he has written the
following: :

FOLLOW-UP_INVESTIGATION:

On 6-17-86 at 4:30 pm, I packaged up the following items
of evidence and.iturned them over to Detective Eva Camp
for transportation to DPS lab in Houston.

1. Bed linen from victims(sic) bed
2. Toothbrush

3. Envelopes containing hairs from victims(sic) bed
tk *

As you''can see, the knife, eyeglasses, blue mesh shirt,
all believed to belong to the assailant; and the shirt (it's
also "blue" in the picture) and panties, of the victim but -in
‘contact with the assailant, were not sent off to the D.P.S.
for their professional analysis. It is my understanding that
the colors and types of materials, as well as detergents, can

disguise trace evidence even under the most ideal conditions.
tke *

Question 8: In all fairness, I am asking this question from
a 1986 perspective. Should Srg. Stanley have sent all of the

above items to the D.P.S. for their professional analysis?
. ek

Ragle's Letter:

-7-



T have read pages 1 through 16 prepared by Thomas Evans and have reviewed my
original document of 4-7-04 sent to Mr. Evans. Each answer attributed to me, #1 to #17 is
taken, word for word, from the document of 4-7-04 that I prepared in response to his
questions in an earlier letter. He has accurately positioned each answer, except answer
#11 (see below), in relation to a question. These questions are in Mr. Evans’ own words
and are based on information from assorted documents (reports and transcripts) relating
to his arrest and trial. I have read those documents and believe each question is relevant
based on my recollection of the facts, although I cannot attest to the absolute accuracy of
Mr. Evans’ narratives between my answer and the next question.

All of the answers and statements attributed to me are based on my experience as a peace
officer and a forensic scientist. I have examined similar cases. I have testified in
California courts hundreds of times on a wide variety of crimes with absolute confidence
that the lab results and the testimony given were fair and accurate.

Answer #11- Re backs of reports: Answer. Absolutely. If this is a discovery order you
should receive every written document that could implicate or exonerate you, both sides

of all written notes
ee
x L. (Larry) & .
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on L/3 l ,2008,
to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.

| ae ie E
‘Commision
i Notary Public - Calitomia §
‘Orange County iq
N

Notary Public
State of California

County - Orange

-22-


Be locate Ha. local ageatery whey conducted ta wuestgatis oFay tal sedge, Tudge
Mal tia, 1 part dutralg vey 1956 tral, ordered by de Tastee Dept, lor bo voolatiod
of ev winlated, pessoal s rights. T reasons Hoet pwestsators ot tes sate record
fhr0gs AS sort of Tadse Matt vi ocleous 000 10) Me Covet S00 EZ wetted te
seotply ask ond woestsater bly bad wadirtastly rtcdhd te, Local, That
would prart Hal Iz telliarg Ae tue,

Thavk you ber gous tint aod cousiheratir.) tw just radedg vtis leagllly

decactut.

Be specttell, submitted,
Phovee lee Eva?

goes FY 3N edge koi!
B10 FM 282/

Heteille, Tekas F7LCF

at v
zosuates Declatation,

zasere uke de tear ot rte ptdall, ot peipery teal ety theadg tl was
Atkdlaurt of Dee Mgexe +s tue avd coitecl my ada pereoaal
koosledge, Tokay date es: Taly (8° 20/S.

Sgoatae ; Zak Cree

Yio reas Cee Lads


10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

SONDRA _DENNEY,

a witness, called by the State, having been first duly

sworn, was examined and testified upon her oath as

follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. STOVER:

Q.

Q.

A.

Would you state your name to the ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, please?

Sondra Denney.

How are you employed, Ms. Denney?

I'm employed as a chemist by the Texas Department
of Public Safety Laboratory in Houston.

What training or education do you have to qualify
you for the position you now hold?

I have a Bachelor's of Science Degree in
Chemistry, in addition to which I've undergone
on-the-job training both at the Houston Police
Department Crime Lab and the Texas Department of
Public Safety Lab in Austin, in addition to which
I've attended school, The Bladter Serology
Research Institute in California and FBI Academy
in Virginia.

How long did you work for the Houston Police



lo
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

374

Q.

Would the jury please go back to the

jury room.

(Jury leaves.)

(Jury returns.)
MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, may I
approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
(By Ms. Luedicke) Ms. Denney, I'm going to hand
you items that have been marked Defense Exhibits
No. 3 through 10 for identification, and ask if
you can identify them?
Yes, I can.
And what are they?

Exhibit 3 through 6 are work sheets which we use
in the Serology Department of the laboratory,
which I used primarily in this case, which would
be serology examination sheets for all the items
of evidence.

And are those reports written in your

handwriting?

Yes. bigosrs :

Were they prepared by you in connection with your



RICHARDS Vo. CURTER MIAN)
578 F Sepp. A GUL; ROOK Uh §. Orst LES M62)

Zw a mirror image of fhe above Kichard> case , Fat Guet receved my
Writ, fourd previously unresolved cs$ues taf adspute asd order he
court apporw tic! appeal attorety te nakt av attidant adlvesstg ay
clams ev7%ia 30 days. After UE days £ ask tv @ nolo (Qlettialg
bgal assistantt f torte has vielatedl He 30 day orler, he Hed
respouds avtAr vo “16-20 UY), ” Tle State fhew files rts chert, avd
Ha Tage accept te Stales dam, phat Jeg carat 1t5poath ©
my att because ot re lag Jal tag Hla Wiel la le,

The reasows the State gave tor deayeng He hole writ wes He Werk
sad she heswt Steal te report’ poe seatte about 2005, Mal te
bayer hes vo AGrory ol ety alesatiodS agaist hiet, aud = wart
0 bog axrtlout avy ttplariation abort eteg et has Taker $0 bvg-

Tu a Richarcls type htarug Twas wot allowed ty presene
aug ebtakce ta) rey Cun) belall, wot allased “© be preseot oath
Sus object to He onesided prestetrtat teandeake. Trakdrtion,
pot like ay beliads, My Wet padge er dierent haan mg Fel
jeg

Objectod
Aad Erderce 7 bho Pave Lastted

Tv a hearrog t cloterrrnse Fhe Bt of Me etlects ab all Che above mevtaued
State presented edeare I world respecHaley ask Mat He cotvaverted es Sie
be resolved 1 my Yavor hut ty Ae tollosinsg facts.
$b T coutected He Teal Lek oud her @ustifnwwt wuncrous Heres about oblacsedy
a trauscripton oft, wotes add Hhey never once told vee Hat itioud wot be bocca,

T have retawed werg letter aid us reg Alidant OF Due Dilgenct, atached fare
a.



of this case. That someone has tried to hide it.

At any rate, I had a right to have a hair specialist
there to testify in my behalf, and because of that, this is
probably the single most valuable group of questions I am

asking outside of Ms. Denney's perjury.
ek *&

Question 15: Based on the enclosed hair results, found in

D.P.S. File, pages 17-22, does there appear to be any hairs
not similar to the victim's or my own, that should have been
followed up on by the police?

ke

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 15: Re hair follow up. Answer; In 1986, until there was
another suspect, un-excluded hair had no great value. Today, it
is possible to identify one or two forms of DNA in hair. What is
important here is that none of the hairs matched you so there
were hairs that didn't belong to you or the victim, if I read
your info correctly. So, someone else, male or female, was in
that bed during or before the assault. Today, if there is tissue
(skin cells) on the root, the sex of the donor could be
established.

kk

Evans! ;Letter:

Some of the hairs were Macro compared, but not Micro
compared. I'm not sure why, but I presume that they were not
Micro compared to mine because they were obviously not
similar. I can understand this. But, some of the hairs were
also Macro similar to Ms. Stryker's, and not Micro compared.
It seems to me that Macro similar hair should be a reason for
Micro comparing; to make sure. Some of these head hairs are
even longer than my known hairs, and shorter than the victim's

known hairs, (please see D.P.S. File, page 18, Item 7/J).
kk

Question 16: Should any of the hairs that were Macro compared,

have also been Micro compared?
x kk

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 16: Re Micro exams of the hairs. Answer: Yes, if they
‘appear similar to one of the key people. It appears that the hair
expert did properly examine all of the hairs and you were not a
donor. -The DA confused this clear picture with his misstatement
of fact in his question to Denney. Yn my non-qualified opinion
that alone should have got you a new trial, solely on that

‘prosecutorial error.
ee

Evans! Letter:

-14-


minimum. An unidentified latent ‘could indicate another. suspect.
Pa eek

Evans' Letter:

In the following you will see that there was some type of
"smears" on the doorknob. I'm not concerned with ithe fact that
the smear was not a readable print, but what‘of the smear
itself? Wouldn't a smear have tobe. made by some type of

substance? Perhaps semen?
e+e *

S.F. Vol. III, page 361, lines 18-23:

Q:[By Mr. Hall, Lawyer Assisting My Lawyer ]What did you find
on the doorknob, if anything?

A: Nothing that would indicate somebody might have itouched it.
it was just a smear across, like it might be-two hands slipped

or_something like that, even if it was a hand. Butrit was just
a_smear.

et kk

And again, to the D.A., Mr. Stover:
S.F. Voh. III, page 363,°'lines 4-11:

Q: Sergeant Stanley, you described smears you found on the
doorknob. Did you find smears in the other locations in the house
that you attempted ito lift prints from?

A: There was an indication that there was some type of touching
or could have been fingerprints, but it was nothing that I

could distinguish as fingerprints.
. ek *

There is something here that he can actually see, if I

am correct.
kk

Question 14: Should or could these "smears" have gathered

and sent off to the D.P.S. for analysis? If it would have been
a smear made by bloody hands it would have been obviously
collected. Why not semem? There were two semen stains on the

sheet, so the substance was present.
et kk

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 14: ‘Re smears. Answer: Your point is well. taken but in
1986 only a skilled or experienced investigator. would have the
foresight to swab the smear on the door knob. It should be

standard procedure today.
tk ik

Evans' Letter:
-12-


10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

377

rank hearsay, I have no objection to them.
But Defendant's Exhibit 9 and 10, as the
witness has testified, are handwritten
notes prepared by somebody else. It is
hearsay, and I object to that on that
basis. And these are not reports made by
her or anyone under her direction.

MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, if she's
testified as to the hair samples and
analysis of the hair sample, analysis
tests --

Your Honor, we have subpoenaed Roy

Snyder.

THE COURT: Overruled. It will all
be admitted.

MR. STOVER: Thank you, Judge.

(Defendant's Exhibit Nos. 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were admitted into

evidence.)

Q. (By Ms. Luedicke) Ms. Denney, I'm going to hand
you Defense Exhibit 3 and again ask if. you would

explain for the jury's benefit exactly what that

is?



sud her assailant wes ws bs late A0s, but Hed as te ofticer started
eesliontisg fer pased ons bet» bebet Hal L aka He susped ale Hage! Ae
desrpteens © pete s [G-20, (My Parther and T look yourg for oa/ ages.)

Al ot th abovt takes tent to rtcover torr ach Atti hal ep weet

#2. Ty Novimbea War ret a Ma Curtes 0 wld had worked ws Ake ye-
tanuatioy tel for about 4S gears ors0, Lasked hin 6 r0iecs oy Lnal
testirtaces avd he agreed % Hho so pro bed. He wrote vee ae) efiihtorl
ont Tew. 6, 2010 Sllodg Hat Le Salt’ so-called ebperl was 4y09 » dhe
SOE hurdles path, Hat Mae ylasses, fouwd Ul ve Crieit GibUL Dee A.
Pelee! watt te 10. Me Cook ported out % xt Haat Ms, Laghh gave
owe prestriplided 20 Dirtst that was Kereut flian) Hi. de Gite) Od)
Cass. Hes questo, wes, UNrcleis 0° Tt ay be sete. “obedy
10 xy Tal pu@tialed Hee wtgrts ot Hes waste’ of ber freed, “te, (ole
fowedtr, Pere oct Oo vee Het he hele the DA had led 0 th
Tache add Hy the, ltenyec Wh) ASC iy bier OS ea) chpert.

#10. Vor! 23 Tart vwuthedts, 72) howl dared oY 10 bs wie He
Board ot Medial Lhavawtss b 80 1 flog had a listary for her back ro)
MW%b avd Hey wrote bak and said Hey had wo hstedg Yor bir ow) ante,
kuel of Ke field. Texas Mediceel Board letter +s date Matce , A014,

+ OF
CON STOW OF YEARS OF BESCAKGH

Thad by Hes time actunulated about 100 (bs of paper YY bags) aud teens
time t try atd weed call dow 6 seething Mat woul UF p03 S4e
SO page ral: Ltwouldct so TF bad & ge nd of avy tssuve I feared
tooutd be igavred becacese it sheuldfpave hee Uled wa wrt. Le
You will ouside the Hire tron vty most pevertal, preces DE ne) tdi jae

Yow ull see Maat st 1eally fas wt heey hat bag: foresees Exgert,

tarry lagleé Affidavit, Fan 31,2008; Mr. Carts Cook, Eire Execrvationy
2



I do hereby certify that the following 750 pages are
true and correct copies of the Index To Instruments,
Volume One and Two, Opinion "Convicted", Opinion
"Delivered", Hearing On Motion For Indigency,
Transcript of Trial, Brief For Appellant, Brief For The
State, Appellant's Motion For Rehearing, Appellant
Petition for Discretionary Review and the State's
Response To Appellant's Petition For Discretionary
Review for Case No. 09-86-00240-CR, in the Court of
Civil Appeals for the Ninth Supreme Judicial District of
Texas at Beaumont, The State Of Texas vs. Thomas Lee
Evans, now on file in the Sam Houston Regional Library
& Research Center of the Archives & Information
Services Division of the Texas State Library & Archives
Commission.

Witness my hand and Seal of Office at Liberty, Texas
on the 8th day of July, 2002. L

Efeif >

eo Schaadt, Director
Sam Houston Regional Library & Research Center



10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

370

The stains were collected and I ran what is
called the P30 test. P30 is a substance which is
found, exclusively found in semen and not in any
other substance. It is a test which is specific
for semen. And there was P30 present in the two
stains on the bedsheet, which would indicate the
presence of semén in those stains.

And this is seminal fluid that comes from a male?
Yes.

Did you run any further tests or were you asked
to run any further tests?

Yes, I did. I made an. attempt to determine the
ABO blood group of the semen present.

Was there sufficient semen present to make this
test or to give you a positive or negative
reading on it?

The test was inconclusive. And I also attempted
to determine the amount of semen present. From
the determination of the amount of semen
present, I concluded that there was not enough
semen for the test to be conclusive one way or
another. There has to be a certain amount of
semen present in order to determine ABO blood
group or genetic markers.

So, I gather, based on the test that you ran on

ft



* om a
parte Gordan), 879 S.wW-Id b/
leer (n-~Appp, 4994)
Please wote the dates of te eurcleoce % be lawl ns His VIIY case. Ta
Torda. the lourt held that te petitane cas evttled © tthet ute respect

16 bes clacr that counsel was Wethetve tor tailug © uvestgate He
Validity ola prior uptd bor cuhascerent purjoses at puwishereat
phase otis teal, The pior was tor LISS, (about 36 years PIL,
Wavoter slave, Loulsiaaa,

T raised ts saree tact essat, but tor a diklerevt baclgfotuh asoal,

asd vey pPlors are Lrorr 128 ¥/08E, Loot Masts + MovGorerg Qwtes,
+ ror

Carlos Ferwo v. Thaler
(u. $.Supreee our, May 20) 3)

Za Fas Treva, aS, Supreree Bent rukag, td a 4 rahag He Court
clecided ts hear os wihlective assistant cast les Halerst tte ba a
Fedeeal Out, Haug wat raised aad appeal out o¥ [ak@s. T put vhs bere
because oC he. stalereuts nade by Me Justices Migaidedg Jakas appeal
sysfer regediag wellatve assist Chetres ‘, Becacese tle rules oF
Texas procedure rade it nrteally empossihle br hur te case Llal eS6U€
busywg ex apped eS state couct, asd pata systert like oat
7exes dees wot otter post detukawS a reavringtal opprteity
preset a claire of wtlbectiue assistakt ot taal cocdcelrs a) egpeal.

What tas i) rey cast, its a clair agawst bot. co.wse! bi Taal
aud appeal” 7 sve ace stale dud Zhe Great lent, but leafiensg G use
Has systerr as a loag, dikicald process. 74, wot a conplete Aanmey,
but watol he guys wher art ° Reres Wo help orieg, wer.

a xr x



COURT OF CRIMTMAL APPEALS :
APPLICANTS RESPOVSE TO DISTRICT
COURT'S BLAULEL DENTAL _OF WRIT,

GASED UPOW LACHES

et

Ex arte E& Te Zhe Asincl Court For
Thowas ee Evans & jue WO1h Fadual Lstact,

$ Aovvgonery Coumty, Teka s

RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Applicant. ‘s ResponS@
TUL 212015

Te The Horsorable Court of Cimaal Appeals: : Abel Acosta, Clerk
My wane ts Thories Lee Evadss, phe Applicaas ts Lind of Habeas Corpas,
Mader Article H.07 o€ the Teka) Cocke 0€ Grane! Procedarts , brought

belare the aboue styled court. Lv muy Apphcatie) ZF brought seta)
sssetes betore Ake cous alleging meHective assistoke ot appa (couedbe/
for tatliasg -o raise the 1s$ut buy behall org testappeal, FE will
wot reiterate fhose tssues raised wo wy writ aed He merroracdity
bat will addvest fle Judges Blattet Deasal te Kear Al Of Mg Issues
Because OF The Aout Of Fine The? bas Passed, As tle atleched
Abiihaut OF Due Whgeekt will prove LT have dattally atlerpteAS
fearw Aa aw, getie akidai©s G (Prout veg davcz of acteea!, PARIECELILE,
Hod preset wey, writ withied J reestees ot rey Last ety. (Tebleed
a letter Frere te Texas Heda! Brac, e garded my 86 pogittry about

owe of Le Sates sliged Experts “wud 1ey bad uw listtas ov Mares,

b 2014.)

a ae
1.


Question 5: If Mr. Jackson is inside the apartment at 2:30
something a.m. taking pictures, then the purses are outside
in the custody of this security guy, or not in anyone's

custody if the guy left.

Should Mr. Jackson have left the purses outside in this

person's custody? (This is the same thing Officer Dunn did.)
ek *

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 5: Re the purses. Answer: Yes. The purses sjould have been
photographed in place and the ‘collected, protected and packaged.
Carbon dusting doesn't always work on odd surfaces but procedures
for locating fingerprints on almost any type of surface were
available in 1986. Superglue (cyanoacrylate) is a simple procedure
available in almost any location (for example, at the local
police station or at the scene). Further, most state labs, by
1986, had some type of laser or alternative light sources for
locating prints on almost any type of surface.

ke

Evans' Letter:

Question 6: Srg, Stanley is the one in ‘charge of the crime
scene investigation. Should Mr. Jackson have been walking
around the crime scene alone, taking pictures, during the

time Srg. Stanley was not there?
ek &

Ragle's Letter:

Answer _6: Re Jackson being alone. Answer: Stanley or Dunn should
have maintained control of the scene, however, Jackson I assume,
is an employée of the PD. If so, T don't see an issue other. than
what I have already hbisted.

tk

PURSES:

Evans'Letter:

In Srg. Stanley's Supplementary Investigation Report,
(Montgomery County File, page 1), he states:

"I picked up the victims(sic) purse and contents from
outside the apartment next ito the concrete walkway and put it
backiin the victim's residence."

He is talking about only "one" purse.

In the Statement of Facts, Ms. Stryker states that she,
Ms. Jordan, (who is Ms. Stryker's friend), and Officer Dunn,
returned to the crime scene, (which is before the above mentioned
"2:30 something a.m." in the picture Mr. Jackson took, and
before the "3:15 a.m." Srg. Stanley arrived), and they found

-5-


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. STOVER:

Q.

Q.

Ms. Denney, just ‘so. there won't be any question.

I think that you testified on direct examination

about 45 ‘minutes ago that the analysis that was

run there was done of the hairs submitted to you
that were collected at the scene that belonged to
Thomas Evans; is that correct?

That -is correct.

Now, just for curiosity's sake, let's assume that
I went over and pulled a head hair from Thomas
Evans and stuck it in an envelope and didn't tell
you who that head hair belonged to, and then you
went over a week or a month later and pulled a
head hair from Thomas Evans; so, you had a hair
in your hand that you knew came from his head.
And when you made that comparison, what could you

actually tell the jury?

In a hair compar

ison case, it's generally a
matter of excluding someone from having

contributed the hair...

The strongest statement

which can be made in a hair comparison case,
something to the effect if the hairs match my

copy, that they could have come from a common



EvewT: BALEF Surevary: 16

2, Ton0c. Project &. Scheck [Aske her dew Lh GHO

1B bayer Git Pathan Fee help please liane as bis otter case by aly wetutss W2-2-10

a” ra

“«
139, Parole Ditsioa Matprer Co forustedk prt Mealy 4AM, A prlalee 220 710-6 S-
we Houstoy Coank | Ask ante toe del. 462-3-10
Beshice Dept etdewd seneoul 75 wivert. Tabs ellallel lp?
St, avert salots | Zrice te locate Cf etlice ot penton oto etwEes Ket | —12-/
OO LON EE Ec EES res tg 2

132, ReSpouse HALO lee do he #70. Foe 0d address! EF tove we P) J0-?-72

133, “alo Folloseh ap | Waots Vng— fey 0) addicts, L-/E-TE
ae Me Bourget (Carats lesser) OM he 4elp. a4. Rurclased el popes tie. p] 2-$-/3
wt Mat joncee (5 Verh | Keyuest for docuterle . b-0 7-05-
1%. Mody, Clerks Askecl tir Bechet Sheets ve uA S-to-0s
we Maaity. Llets | Fou. Ocoee frpeeted ets (Eby bits) S13 -65-
ae hespose Sad Gluble WMpler5 tbtoy seve bled yy fed. 6-2¥-05-
7 Ketis1 tho Utowe lalate sekeuil, asc. Geen Hts)
110. Woe we 9fbeved help ced a layer 639s IMA3
WW, Wrote rloen She paged Beeg- ; 2LE/F
We They wrote Paree leriers f hoeak, bey SI7-L3
43, Theg wseote Ferg leters{drouny Jorbealy S61
0, Tey wrote fora tettcs dees vstladg Creclzvesg “Ba sten| 7-1-3
ves: Tas, 78 Forex lerrers ~ rash (Sle ay rons) | xy
we. Oro Ue Aye, | CS Cree sev yor rove; Ce hes 7

_ 4a, We t/bel. Bra. Be ar. (For wed People Hy saa 7
1 Court M bron App |Brok sad ty Oct obj Pak (wnt 15 deve. 9-14

Meal Md Scant HEL he ool if ed ots

re COA. Resppai5@! App layed PDR File 1968 fue obers allrted 9 7-14
158 Hodlgoray lout lek Crowd Jin Miasates file. Caghsd Test Jad OA, he tetee? | 7-30-14

181. Mowty Om Merk Lashed Specilics F-Dh-1Y
f
152. Kespowse Have) | Scere 4) pec page, bul ast Pase Out; K-19

34


4, Ext ty, Portiow o€Stelecrer? of Facts, Volure Tt, Pages 265—
389, te helleastication form tort Deecter, Robert Schaadt, Sarr Houstos
fegiostal Libtary - Keseard Cooter, sas Liberty, HEA: Thes cS eal Stygpoef”
ot Ms Kagle § atidaurt Sloss te State adh otS Stetlwess he
oubhatte DPS, Cherist was alowed S gwe hearing Cestrror)

Ohout te Kate ewe hsth Eodeigs .
ft a a

Sie, coould yor please allocs be Co have Copres ok Hese bers? £
noe idger] pUSa) wWytl, Wl ULES & LOPEF,

Please tle Hhese papers wit He Corl a) respodst te Le Lrcel culs
cewral obey Wil, HOT, TR

Thea Go Vet vuack tor gouc MLSCESCE -

Kespecttully gubrctted,
Ave Cz

Aovees Cee Lads

FOCI HUSA Jidlwooe ay 7

910 Fra 23R/

Haesteintle,JRWS ZIBVG

PS. T bepe lis stthecs ae wot wtorg- Pease ere te et Ge 2,
Zsixeph cout ct to be easser b (nate,


EMPLOYMENT Curriculum Vitae

JOHN L. (LARRY) RAGLE
FORENSIC SCIENCE CONSULTANT

EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley, Bachelors of Science, 1959
Major-Criminalistics

Califomia Peace Officer's Training Academy, 1957

EMPLOYMENT .
1990-2006 Center for the Forensic Sciences - Consultant in:
Management
Facility Design
Needs Assessments
Case Review
Trial Preparation

1976-1989 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California
Director of Forensic Sciences
Directed the activities of the Criminalistics Laboratory, Toxicology
Laboratory, Coroner's Investigations and Pathology Section,
Identification and Scientific Crime Scene Investigations and the CAL-ID,
AFIS/ALPS. ,

1960-1976 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California
Criminalist
Responsible for evidence examination in a variety of crimes, crime
scene evaluation, testimony and interpretation of evidence for the
Grand Jury and in Municipal, Superior and Federal Courts.

1956-1960 City of Berkeley, California
Patrolman/Investigator

VW


Exbipit "3 *

AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ;
COUNTY OF ORANGE §

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, .on this day personally
appeared Larry Ragle, who being by me duly sworn, upon oath
deposes and says,

"I am Larry Ragle. I am with the Center for the Forensic
Sciences.

1. My professional credentials are included in my ‘curriculum
vitae which is part of this affidavit.

2. Thomas Evans contacted me by mail dated December 1, 2003.
He had obtained a copy of my book, Crime Scene, Avon-
Harper/collins, 1995. Evans indicated in his letter that
he had read the chapter on serology, specifically the
section on secretor status and ABO typing of semen samples.
He asked if I would review the laboratory and police reports
that he had obtained regarding his ‘case. I agreed to review
his documents, pro bono.

3. I have reviewed several documents submitted to me for
review related to Thomas Evans' case: a) Scene and
Investigation Reports from ithe Montgomery County Sheriff's
Office regarding case #86-14560; b)Texas Department of
Public Safety Laboratory Reports-Case #L2H54833 (1)
Serology Examination by Sondra Denney. (2) Hair Examination
by Randy Snyder; (3) Transcript of Testimony of Sondra
Denney at trial pages 365-389.

4. The serology report by Sondra Denney of the Texas Department
of Public Safety indicates the presence of semen by P30 but
in a quantity below the sensitivity of the inderect ABO or
secretor status techniques, used in 1986. There were two
stains, however no attempt was made to combine them. No
ABO activity (detection) is also explained when the sample
is that of a non-secretor. Evans was determined to be a
type A secretor, the victim a non-secretor. These results
obtained do not implicate Evans in any way other than-he is
male. This is an opinion based upon these 1986 results only.
The ABO typing system is, today, totally obsolete for forensic
Purposes. At the time of Mr. Evans' trial it was the only test
available. At best, ABO type, secretor status and PCM typing
could exclude possible donors but could never be specific. In
Evans' case, the results, as described. above by the analyst,
were inconclusive.

“5. In a March 15, 2004 letter to me from Mr. Evans he asked

several questions that I answered in a letter dated April 4,
2004. The following background information, questions and

: we


and on page 4 it is 77385".
e+ & *

Question 11: I tried to obtain the "Backs" of these forms but
the General Counsel's Assistant, Pamela Smith, (Austin), would
not allow me a copy and refused to assist me without an Order
to do so. The copies they gave me didn't have backs on them,
and I wanted to see exactly what the "Detailed Instructions On
The Back Of The Sheet", stated, and to see what Det. Camp
wrote under the "Note: A Brief Synopsis Or Offense Report
Attached To This Submission Will Greatly Enhance Our Ability
To Assist You With Your Investigation." My ‘curiosity about
this last was raised by the note written on the bottom of
D.P.S. File,-page 5, "Refrigerated only-6 days She is most
interested in hairs", which teels me this was written at least
four days after the evidence was submitted by Det. Camp, and
that somebody is probably reading this from some other place,
not remembering what Det. Camp said; and I was curious because
the Chemist, Ms. Denney also testified in my trial that one.
of the hairs was short, with a slight curl to it, as if from
the armof a man, yet this is not supported by any of these
documents found in the D.P.S. Bile.

Now, do you believe that it is a requirement that the
D.P.S. Evidence Submission Forms, pages 2, 3, & 4, should be

‘completely filled out, with uniform information on them?
eek

Question 12? Should these D.P.S. Evidence Submission Forms
be filled out completely and correctly, in order that the Chain

Of Custody will be preserved?
ek

Ragle's Letter:

Answer 12: Re ‘complete forms. Answer: Obviously all forms should
be ‘completed and correct. Some errors or omissions may simply be
due to sloppy work. However, if a person who is known to have
examined the evidence, or opened it for any reason, has not noted
this fact on the packaging{or evidence tag) or within a proper
follow up report, the ‘chain may be broken. Simple blunders (your
age, for example) or omissions may be disregarded by some courts.
Mr. Canlas (or appropriate ‘counsel) will have to establish which
of:these chain faults prevented you from getting a fair trial.

From my perspective, there are a lot of major issues that prevented

you from getting a fair trial.
ek ee

Evans' Letter:

Partial Or Whole Prints:

In Srg. Stanley's "Supplementary" Investigation Report,
(Montgomery File, page 1), you will see that he has written:
"I attempted to fingerprint several item(sic) without success."

-10-

we


Exhibit "4"

AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
8
COUNTY OF BRAZORIA 8

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally
appeared CURTIS COOK, who by me duly sworn, upon oath
deposes and says,

"I am CURTIS COOK. For nearly forty years I have been
licensed by the American Board of Opticianary, and have
worked within the field of opticianal practice at all
levels of the tradé. My complete professional
credentials are included in my curriculum vitae, which
is part of this affidavit.

1. Thomas Lee Evans contacted me in November of 2009,
and told me that he had been in a jury trial, [Cause No.
19,180] in which a pair of glasses were used in his
trial to link him to a crime. He asked me if I would
review the testimony of a Texas Department of Corrections
optometrist, a Mrs. Nanette English, and a Mrs. Denise
Arnaud, a Texas Department of Corrections employee in
charge of Medical Records. His objective was to verify
or disclaim a statement by Mrs. Arnaud that a
Comparison Test made by a T.D.C. employee for the police
as part of their investigation, of the glasses found at a
crime scene to a prescription form made while Mr. Evans
was in T.D.C., was in fact "Records kept in the normal
course of business of the Texas Department of Corrections";
and whether or not this Comparison Test was "Records that
were made in connection with your official duties with
the Texas Department of Corrections." I agreed to read his
documents and give him an opinion, pro bono.

2. MRS-DENISE ARNAUD, In Charge of Medical Records
of the Central Region of the T.D.C.:

(a) Under Oath, Mrs. Arnaud stated that State's Exhibit
#12, are "Records kept in the normal course of business of
the Texas Department of Corrections,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page
400, lines 8-11); and that they are "optician records of
inmate Thomas Lee Evans,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 400, lines
12-25, thru page 401, lines 1-5); and specifically agreed
with the District Attorney that, "these records that were
made in connection with your official duties with the
Texas Department of Corrections,"(S.F. Vol. IV, page 401,
lines. 6-9). It is revealed that the last page is the
results of the Comparison Test made against the crime
scene glasses against Mr. Evans' prescription while he
was incarcerated in T.D.C.,(S.F. Vol. IV, page 408, lines
15-25, thru page 409, lines 1-12).

QUESTION: Is the Comparison Test made.by a T.D.C.

-1-

wz


afhdant questeswmg allot He endevet based ov lapses w0 fle Coat oud
Mavutr iy whch it wes bawdld, tape cut, ele, Mg goal ts ta N°T go
a ute) tral but to engage te Seb pa a ptantagh! plate avd
A ects of a tal on og faacly adh re conplarcdadT.

Aw attorwey , Hi Coates, who assisted rit fore Time etl 6 ONA regiesé
wrote a letle © wee aller pereutusy Phe tial testi e20,0 and Ae lack ot etliib
aud guestioued hore) 00 appeal tharweg witteridad wll fle tial would allo,
on ticompl re record & bE produced Bovenws le Pea ithecta Staye ost.
The 03 gue of He nat howest peysle = lave oeet

#7 Reause of uy wability to decipher the techurcal Jeger associated ath
the OPS. feslreteares adh papers (wdong weed bra DNA 4st Co prove
ouct aud ter L dds t do fus) Lievtacted awrite, blo happevs © have
bea 0are oF Hes ations geeatest berewsecs eiperts, Jd/. Larry Eagle.
Me reviewed rug peptes pro bowed tora a [986 perspectiot, aud gave rg
20 athdaurt tor DUA testiyg, It wes hrougl his ‘secoad atta t
add fle hivers picedeag “a steel Ht DES, Lhereest bebo reg rel,
Mal 1 wes thtleded as te awe s¥ He haus ales back ted (flay
He police hha (oll tep,s tires ntor wottecg oa flat Cle only
Wk Carte Wad lal Z was arale pessow.

Mr hagle sack that Dstould bathe tad ft right to Pe Bacr ecules +
as erg wetwess, but he wider Stott up tor fhe thal. T touch
avotter case Coley. State,839 5.W.2A 798 ffetindpp- 1994)
wth fit Say Ckact Ylceg happeaialy wy fh seen Ckact ey,
Ms. Segdee, Wot Slocialg Up ty thal: Fhal Case Was resersck

Zo relatioy © te above ile case iv Which Ma Sy ter abo
tailed > Shoas for Phe Cal,sa relatiod Co Che States Clay
today Ahet rt Covt (possibly respeud because of Le latiwess

Cf ny wnt, Levould ask, how herd 1s 11% look at the tle,
s



10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

312

Defendant?

That's correct.

But you don't know who they belong to?

That's correct.

And there was seminal fluid present on the sheet,
but there wasn't enough there to tell you the
blood type of the person that ejaculated the
semen; is that correct?

That is correct.

Did you do any other type of tests that I haven't
asked you about?

I did perform tests on the vaginal, anal and oral
specimen from the sexual assault kit.

Okay. Did any of those tests show the presence
of seminal. fluid?

None of these tests showed the presence of
seminal fluid.

If the person did not have an ejaculation,
though, would that surprise you to be negative?
If there was no ejaculation in any of these
areas, it would not be surprising.

That's all my questions. Thank you very much,
Ms. Denney. The Defense, I'm sure, will have
questions for you also.

MS. LUEDICKE: Your Honor, may I take



10

1l

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A.

Q.

Q.

origin.
Could have?

Could have.

So, even under the conditions that I named where
I know that I took one hair from him and you know
I took the other hair from him and you later
compared them, the strongest statement you'd be
able to make scientifically is that they both
could have come from him?

That's correct.

Okay. . And I believe you said that the known head
hair that was taken from Thomas Evans was
described in the notes as blond and slightly
wavy; is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you very much. That's all my questions.

Ms. Denney, I appreciate you coming down.



SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
Criminal Investigation

Crime Scene Investigation
Laboratory evidence evaluation
Case management

Case review :
Day to day laboratory operations
Evidence security and control
Evidence handling and chain of control (possession)
Courtroom testimony

Forensic Science training programs
Laboratory management
Laboratory safety

Laboratory Information systems
Automated fingerprint systems
Laboratory design

FACILITY PLANNING, NEEDS ASSESSMENTS AND CONSULTING
1977-1985 Orange County Sheriff- Coroner's, California
Planning, construction and operation.

1985-1989 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's, California
Planning new facility (189,000 sq. ft),

1989-1990 Hutton Development, Santa Ana, California
Space Planning.

1991-1992 San. Diego Regional Forensic Laboratory, Califomia
Needs Assessment

1991-date Titan Corporation, San Diego, California
Development - Laboratory Information Management System

1992-1992 Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner's Department, California
Regional Needs Assessment.

12


California Association of Criminalists
Certificate of Professional Competency 1989-1994

TEACHING AFFILIATIONS

1968 to 2006 California State University, Long Beach, Center for Criminal
Justice. Lecturer - Forensic Sciences , Crime Scene Investigation.

1988 to 2002 University of California, Irvine Extension. Lecturer -. Forensic
Science.

1970 to 1976 California State University at Long Beach, Assistant Professor,
Criminalistics Program.

1978 to 1984 Western State University of Law, Lecturer, Forensic Sciences.

1974 to 1978 State of California, Arson Investigation Training, Monterey, Ca.
Crime Scene Investigation.

1964 to 1970 Riverside City College, Lecturer, Criminal Investigation, Crime

Scene Investigation.

TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS
AND.STUDIES.

Ragle, J.L., Extraction of Amphetamine from Urine, California Association of
Criminalists, Semi Annual Meeting, 1963.

Ragle, J.L., Etal, Physical Evidence Manual, Federal Grant, Sections on
Classification Of Evidence, Crime Scene Documentation. 1976.

Kenny, John, Editor, Etal, Principles of Criminal Investigation, Eagan, Minnesota,
West Publications, 1979. Ragle, J.L., Chapter on Forensic Science and Crime
Scene Investigation.

Ragle, J.L., The Falsification of Evidence, Fingerprints Don't Lie?, American

Academy of Forensic Sciences, Annual Meeting, 1980.

an


Expect , Tanualy 10,2060 ; Ztas Medical Joard, Mach b,.2014%, My eet
wes tiled October A? ROY, ahout seed (Ducouts tor His last why.
The Cousty sat ond He wrt ust Tiel DURUE, wShitle wag out of oa,
conte,

a le
Ex paste Saute, YES Su). ad 185~
Ceccun. App- in)

Bw Sarth, wbove, fle Burt ackwodedged av tudindualS shorteoncags, aud
He ability to act fecause of tose Slotteon rigs , int relatiod t avo welche
assistidee clairt as follows ‘Mere, at Gea Culdiloret wes retemed agarsst
hin, petrtioner was W years of age, uns wedges t aud metpertee 1) lega)
matters, aud petiliower recieved np adirce Ero jus tocat appsevted
aloynxy,, of astyoase else, cute relerence to las coust tutorial aud lega/
nights wa Crvianal tal, pttrrenr was tutitled to habeas corpus
rehetow grad of wetectin assistance o€cocsel. (Ickes ode ok
Crvewdl Procedures, Arhcle 47.2)"

Td ay crit, at tree of tarche (eet Devas 14 pars ot age, was adgest
avd had wevtr beed a jtry tal, wte sceewtitic evident, aud T receceA B
adic tron court appt wed couse lot aAgoae lst, ath retire to ws
wictdtatecval eed legal 1ghts ys crreudal iced of Hes vatart, ak
Z had t» cone dowd avd lear A lag) ad reg O80 T lad abrta T.?
grade ceerage akabED, Las Pl od 2 reosf Violet UANT 14)
ta TD.OT. aber Twas beater, roped sud breed €3 work all day.
Literal, was learning Ae lad hoe, ed 4 area A State
peccclatios) caw Cha+ige te becl hal F woul have KleA Ae ent
fees ago i Zcould havl, TE, here bday, a7 Hes Hire, becausl
Couwsel talled vec ook 7 book reall Mice years t kad dat &

4vow., Tt hay keer learn or Ue Stee day owe.
g.