Convicted killer (Ken Register) denied 3rd chance for new S.C. trial
WyrdWoman
exactly how the new DNA test further incriminated him? Greater odds,
maybe?
http://www.charlotte.com/observer/local/pub/register0104.htm
Convicted killer denied 3rd chance for new S.C. trial
By HENRY EICHEL
Columbia Bureau
COLUMBIA -- Ken Register, serving life in prison for the murder of his
17-year-old former girlfriend - a crime he swears he didn't commit - has
lost his third attempt to get a new trial.
State Circuit Judge Sidney Floyd rejected Register's claim that DNA
tests linking him to the murder were done inaccurately. In fact, Floyd
wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday, a new DNA test that Register asked
for "did not help rule out (Register) as the perpetrator. Rather, it
further incriminated him."
Register, 27, was convicted of the Nov. 17, 1991, slaying of Crystal
Faye Todd off a deserted road in rural Horry County.
Jurors interviewed by a lawyer after the January 1993 verdict gave
Register's age -19 at the time - as the reason he was spared the death
penalty. Todd had been stabbed at least 30 times. She had been raped and
sodomized. At least some of the mutilation and sexual assault occurred
after she was dead.
Register, a pallbearer at Todd's funeral, became a suspect when
preliminary DNA tests showed a match between a sample of his blood and
semen found in the woman's body. Authorities had taken blood samples
from 52 people who had some connection to Crystal Todd.
Register confessed to the murder, but later recanted, saying he had been
coerced. Although the S.C. Supreme Court rejected that argument when it
denied his appeal in 1996, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that
decision, a band of Register's supporters never gave up.
Retired mystery writer Mickey Spillane and his wife, Jane, who live on
Pawleys Island, have alleged a conspiracy involving drugs, automobile
chop shops, escort services, and a real killer who is probably an
informant police are obligated to protect.
Jane Spillane was one of 12 witnesses who testified at a three-day
hearing before Floyd in November. Register and his mother also
testified. They claimed that prosecutors and police withheld and
destroyed evidence, and that Register's original lawyers didn't do an
adequate job of representing him. Floyd disagreed, saying in his order
that Register "had very competent attorneys."
The victim's mother, Bonnie Todd, said of the ruling: "It's the best
thing I've heard in a while."
Register's attorney, David Gundling of Pawleys Island, did not return a
telephone message left at his office.
Register still has some legal options. He can appeal Floyd's ruling to
the S.C. Supreme Court, and if he doesn't succeed there, he can go to
federal court.
DPinedale1
>Date: 1/4/2001 9:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <W3a56.383$7B.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
>
>** I didn't see any posts about this, so here's the article. I wonder
>exactly how the new DNA test further incriminated him? Greater odds,
>maybe?
>
Yes, Register's motion was denied for
a new trial by Jude Sidney T. Floyd
who wrote that Register failed to prove
he deserved a new trial. DNA testing
done in 1993 by SLED confirmed was
confirmed by two independent laboratories,
making the likelihood that "anyone else
committed this crime one in at least 250
million and possibly one in the entire
population of the world."
Register petitioned for new DNA testing.
That test, conducted early last year,
showed Register was one in 1.3 million
chance in matching.
Judge Floyd wrote that he found that
Register's recent DNA testing did not help rule out (Register) as the
perpetrator. Rather, it further incriminated him.
Floyd also found that Register's confession was voluntary because he
waived his Miranda rights, had previous
experience with police and was of legal age.
Register claimed he was tricked and
coerced into making a confession in
Todd's death.
Dale Hudson
www.hudson-hills.com
NEON NAPPI
From: "WyrdWoman" <wyrd...@SPAMcarolina.rr.com>
>>** I didn't see any posts about this, so here's the article. I wonder
exactly how the new DNA test further incriminated him? Greater odds,
maybe?<<
Something's wrong. I have the stories of the trial ( at least the first three
days but it was from another paper) and it sounded to me as though the new DNA
test ( and I have still been unable to determine what it was) did *not* further
incriminate him in fact it did just the opposite, it lowered the odds.
Also according to the book, it was 59 people who were tested not 53.
About the inadequate counsel, I was unable to determine just what his original
counsel did about challenging the DNA results to begin with but it didnt sound
as though he knew enough about it to cross examine whoever the prosecution had
to testify about them.
The prosecution took the test results to Barry Scheck who, according to the
book, said that they looked valid to him but he also said that in that town
there was so much intermarriage that the population statistics used to arrive
at the determination of the *match* could be really off.
I have no idea how true that is nor do I know if any follow up was done on the
concept.
He also noted that the prosecution never provided the other 58 tests for his
review which I think is interesting.
I dont now if the Register defense had , or even now , has, the money to hire
the kind of experts who might be able to successfully challenge the results.
I'm still suspicious of the first suspect Randy and I"d still like to know more
about how he was eliminated as a suspect and about the evidence that was
allegedly found in his home that Jane Spillane talked about.
BTW, during the trial Jane seems to have backed off her original position of
some kind of a frame up, and I think it was due to the new DNA test. Mickey to
my knowledge other than a remark he made at the outset was never really
involved.
Anyone with additional info?
Barbara
DPinedale1
>Something's wrong. I have the stories of the trial ( at least the first three
>days but it was from another paper) and it sounded to me as though the new
>DNA
>test ( and I have still been unable to determine what it was) did *not*
>further
>incriminate him in fact it did just the opposite, it lowered the odds.
>Also according to the book, it was 59 people who were tested not 53.
Barbara,
According to the Judge, "Even though Register contended a new new DNA test
performed for the PCR hearing helped clear him; it (new test) further
incriminated him."
A new test completed by Meghan Clemnt for the PCR process showed a
match, but reducted the odds to one in
1. 3 million Caucasians. Lori Johnson, who conducted the original DNA test for
SLED
in 1992, figured the chances that anyone but Register had deposited that semen
was one in 250 million Caucasians. She
attributed the different odds to different tests used by the two labs.
"I find from the testimony at the hearing
and in a thorough review of all materials
submitted by counsel that these statistical
differences are ones that can be explained
by the differences in the types of DNA
tests and how each is performed to produce the variable results, " Judge Floyd
wrote.
In relation to the so called new evidence
offered during the PCR hearing, Judge Floyd stated what information he heard
would not have changed the outcome of
the trial. Floyd also found there was no
evidence of misconduct by Solicitor Ralph
Wilson and discounted five new pieces of
evidence, saying "in light of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against
the applicant," it would not change
the result of the trial. In addition, he ruled that Register did not adequately
prove that any new evidence had been lost or destroyed.
Dale Hudson
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
>> Floyd also found that Register's confession was voluntary because he
waived his Miranda rights, had previous
experience with police and was of legal age.
Register claimed he was tricked and
coerced into making a confession in
Todd's death.
Dale Hudson<<
Thanks for the update Dale. This one really bothers me. I think the testimony
that you quoted in your book was convincing, from the expert who testified
about false confessions.
From his descriptions this *confession* had all the earmarks of one.
The issue about Miranda rights is interesting because despite his age and
*experience* he was still a Momma's boy ( according to your book) and the fact
that he asked for his Momma who he assumed would get him a lawyer and he was
refused seems to me to be a fundamental violation of his rights under Miranda.
Please keep us updated as to any appeal.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
Yes I realized after I sent the post that the odds, if correct, did tend to
further incriminate Register, not the opposite as I originally posted.
I still want to know which test it was that was used as the second test. Why is
it so hard to find out what it was? Did they specify at the PCR hearing?
>> In relation to the so called new evidence
offered during the PCR hearing, Judge Floyd stated what information he heard
would not have changed the outcome of
the trial. <<
>>Floyd also found there was no
evidence of misconduct by Solicitor Ralph
Wilson and discounted five new pieces of
evidence, saying "in light of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against
the applicant," it would not change
the result of the trial. In addition, he ruled that Register did not adequately
prove that any new evidence had been lost or destroyed.<<
What specific *new evidence* was he talking about Dale? I'm sorry if I may have
missed it.
Barbara
Dale Hudson
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
Ranger00089
>The issue about Miranda rights is interesting because despite his age and
>*experience* he was still a Momma's boy ( according to your book) and the
>fact
>that he asked for his Momma who he assumed would get him a lawyer and he was
>refused seems to me to be a fundamental violation of his rights under
>Miranda.
>
>Please keep us updated as to any appeal.
>
>Barbara
Please Barbara. Nowhere in the Miranda ruling does it say that if you ask for
your mommie and they dont get her for you it is a violation. Miranda is about
your right to remain silent and to have an attorney present when your
questioned, not mommie.
Steve, SFC/US Army
NEON NAPPI
From: range...@aol.com (Ranger00089)
Barbara wrote;
>The issue about Miranda rights is interesting because despite his age and
>*experience* he was still a Momma's boy ( according to your book) and the
>fact
>that he asked for his Momma who he assumed would get him a lawyer and he was
>refused seems to me to be a fundamental violation of his rights under
>Miranda.
>
>Please keep us updated as to any appeal.
>
>Barbara
/Please Barbara. Nowhere in the Miranda ruling does it say that if you ask for
/your mommie and they dont get her for you it is a violation. Miranda is about
/your right to remain silent and to have an attorney present when your
/questioned, not mommie.
/Steve, SFC/US Army
I understand Steve but if he did not remember the name of the lawyer and he
knew his mother had the lawyer's name and number I dont know if it's really a
very large stretch to say keeping him out of contact with the mother (and lying
,saying that his mother thought he was guilty), just seems to be at least on
the very edge of denying him his rights.
I dont know, if I was arrested and read my Miranda rights I wouldnt have the
vaguest idea what lawyer to call and I'd be damned before I'd use a court
appointed one if I didnt have to. I'd call a good friend of mine who has
contact with lawyers and get one that way.
Somehow he is supposed to be able to contact the outside world, not kept
incommunicado, a phone call to someone if nothing else.
Barbara
Ranger00089
>I understand Steve but if he did not remember the name of the lawyer and he
>knew his mother had the lawyer's name and number I dont know if it's really
>a
>very large stretch to say keeping him out of contact with the mother (and
>lying
>,saying that his mother thought he was guilty), just seems to be at least on
>the very edge of denying him his rights.
>
>I dont know, if I was arrested and read my Miranda rights I wouldnt have the
>vaguest idea what lawyer to call and I'd be damned before I'd use a court
>appointed one if I didnt have to. I'd call a good friend of mine who has
>contact with lawyers and get one that way.
>
>Somehow he is supposed to be able to contact the outside world, not kept
>incommunicado, a phone call to someone if nothing else.
>
>Barbara
>
And this is exactly the way to handle questioning. Refuse to answer. Wait for
an attorney of your choosing. Its your right and only a fool denies himself of
it.
Steve, SFC/US Army
NEON NAPPI
From: range...@aol.com (Ranger00089)
Barbara wrote;
Steve, SFC/US Army
I dont think that anyone claims that Ken was not foolish.
I still dont know that I would be able to just sit there and wait it out when
after I had been convinced that my only support in life thought I was guilty
and that there was no way I would ever get away from the interrogation any
other way but to respond especially if you feel intimidated by the police
interrogators.
What they did to him was to employ the same techniques used to brain wash
people far older and more experienced than he was.
I think it is far easier to say what someone should have done than to actually
do it when you are in their shoes.
Barbara
DPinedale1
very well planned and orchestrated to
illict a confession. According to the police,
they knew at that time (1992) that the
DNA evidence would not be enough to
convict him in a court of law. The decision
was made to arrest him, interrogate him, and keep him away from his mother.
The police admitted they lied to him and
told him they had eyewitnesses and
proof that he was at the crime scene.
However, in their own defense, they
rightfully claim they are entitled to
lie to a defendant for the purpose of
creating a situation that might elicit a
confession. The police deliberately
wanted to keep Register from his
mother because they had reason to
believe from previous experiences that
she would create an alibi for him as
she had done in a previous incident.
They believed Register was an adult,
had been in trouble with the law before,
and knew the ropes. According to the
police, had he asked for a lawyer the
interview would have been over.
The prevailing thought of the jurors
and spectators at the trial was "How
could someone confess to the most
horrendous murder ever committed
in the history of the county, thinking
that if he confessed the police would
let him go so that he could go get
help.
Dale
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
ATrueCrimeRdr
That was my feeling all along. The police
tried to get the other guy (Randy) to
confess but he didn't. Was Register really that naive to think the police would
let him
go after he confessed? Dale, did you ever
find out if an IQ test was performed on
Register?
KL
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
/Barbara, the arrest of Ken Register was
/very well planned and orchestrated to
/illict a confession. According to the police,
/they knew at that time (1992) that the
/DNA evidence would not be enough to
/convict him in a court of law. The decision
/was made to arrest him, interrogate him, and keep him away from his /mother.
/The police admitted they lied to him and
/told him they had eyewitnesses and
/proof that he was at the crime scene.
Yes, indeed, and that strengthens an argument that the *confession* was
coerced.
/ However, in their own defense, they
/rightfully claim they are entitled to
/lie to a defendant for the purpose of
/creating a situation that might elicit a
/confession.
I like how you put that, "creating a situation that might elicit a
confession" Hmmm?
I agree, that was precisely what they did and that in effect , again imo, is
coercing a confession .
/The police deliberately
/wanted to keep Register from his
/mother because they had reason to
/believe from previous experiences that
/she would create an alibi for him as
/she had done in a previous incident.
/They believed Register was an adult,
/had been in trouble with the law before,
/and knew the ropes. According to the
/police, had he asked for a lawyer the
/interview would have been over.
Let's not be totally naive Dale. If you dont think that the police also knew
that once Ken called his mother, she would call a lawyer and the interview
would be over and that that was one of their *main* reasons for keeping them
apart I think you may be ignoring what the police, when under that much
pressure, are capable of.
/ The prevailing thought of the jurors
/and spectators at the trial was "How
/could someone confess to the most
/horrendous murder ever committed
/in the history of the county, thinking
/that if he confessed the police would
/let him go so that he could go get
/help.
Yes? Well, in your book you detailed an excellent explanation for it which was
contained in the testimony of the expert witness about *false confessions*.
Perhaps they ignored the testimony or perhaps they were so dazzled by that
esteemed Friend of the Prosecution Dr. Park Deitz that they didnt use the
brains God gave them.
Barbara
Dale
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
KL
************
Many people have that thought KL.
It may not be rational but after 6 to 8 hours of being isolated , frightened
and harrassed , made to believe that everyone including your own mother is
against you, you may be ready to believe anything that will provide some
relief.
Barbara
DPinedale1
>It may not be rational but after 6 to 8 hours of being isolated , frightened
>and harrassed , made to believe that everyone including your own mother is
>against you, you may be ready to believe anything that will provide some
>relief.
>
>Barbara
Barbara, I do not disagree with that statement. There was a lot of heat on
Register to confess.
DPinedale1
>was
>contained in the testimony of the expert witness about *false confessions*.
>Perhaps they ignored the testimony or perhaps they were so dazzled by that
>esteemed Friend of the Prosecution Dr. Park Deitz that they didnt use the
>brains God gave them.
>
>Barbara
Barbara, I totally agree with you and have no defense for what the police did.
They orchestrated the arrest, deliberately kept Register from his mother, and
wore him
down until he confessed. At all times,
they were convinced his mother would
have not allowed that. She would have immediately created an alibi for him,
told him to keep his mouth shut, and called
the family lawyer. If that would have
happened, Register might not be in prison
today.
The arrest and interrogation was planned
to solicit a confession--bottom line--and
the police make no bones about it. Once the DNA match was confirmed, they knew
if they didn't get Register to confess that morning then there was a good
chance he
would walk. That was something the police couldn't live with, especially
knowing there was the possibility he would kill again. They strongly believed
Register had murdered Crystal Todd and were determined to utilize every
interrogation advantage within the boundary of the law to get him to confess.
Regardless of whether we agree or
disagree with police methods and in spite of that expert testimony for the
defense, 12 jurors believed Register's confession was not coerced and found him
guilty.
Dale
DoctorsHelm
> The arrest and interrogation was planned
>to solicit a confession--bottom line--and
>the police make no bones about it. Once the DNA match was confirmed, they knew
>if they didn't get Register to confess that morning then there was a good
>chance he
>would walk.
I don't get your thinking. If the DNA match was confirmed, why do you
think he would have walked without his confession? Another stupid OJ
like jury? Ron
DPinedale1
>>to solicit a confession--bottom line--and
>>the police make no bones about it. Once the DNA match was confirmed, they
>knew
>>if they didn't get Register to confess that morning then there was a good
>>chance he
>>would walk.
>
>I don't get your thinking. If the DNA match was confirmed, why do you
>think he would have walked without his confession? Another stupid OJ
>like jury? Ron
I wouldn't want to draw parallels between
the two, but in some respects yes. When Register was arrested in 1992, DNA was
very controversial and not the "absolute" science it is today. Although Horry
County today is rapidly changing with the influx of Northern retirees and
tourists, in the early 90's the sample juror was blue collar, high school or
less, and were suspicious of DNA fingerprinting. For the jurors, the word and
integrity of the police officers carried more weight than the testimonies of
the
DNA.
Dale
ATrueCrimeRdr
I think I've dated a few of the jurors a
time or two. We have a few Carolina
boys that attend college. I just hope
and and pray none of them are cousin
to Register.
KL
cliffch...@gmail.com
bbcni...@gmail.com
mmaryp...@gmail.com
wok...@gmail.com
brooklyn...@gmail.com
rrbh...@gmail.com
ninetya...@gmail.com
Did anyone catch bbcni’s comment:
I understand that bbcni wants to voice opinion about Ken murdering Crystal, but by no means do I believe bbcni is in law school, nor has any formal collegiate education. The context and sentence structure utilized is most evident that this is a logical conclusion. Suffice it to say, I have never heard of a broken hand in five places to cause poor grammatical skills that one would find in early years of high school.
Further, of you have had access to any DNA data, I doubt very seriously you would know what you were looking at, or for that matter make any medical or legal determination of its findings!!!
Greg Carr
stan...@gmail.com
darrell...@gmail.com
be in prison, too.
He came home covered in
blood and his mother got
rid of his bloody clothes and
alibi’ed him.
Ken killed Crystal AND her mother.
Mrs Todd passed 20 years after
her only daughter was murdered
by Register.
There are no second chances
for murderers. No parole No way.
darrell...@gmail.com
I can still SEE HER MOM
at the grave site saying,
“Miss you. I wish it had
been me instead of you.”
Crystal had a GREAT
MOTHER WHO NEVER
RECOVERED.