Murderer Ken Register's PCR Trial Began Today in South Carolina
ATrueCrimeRdr
An Hour To Kill, word is that his Post Conviction Hearing started today
in Conway. Register took the stand and testified that he was coerced
into confessing to the killing his best friend Crystal Faye Todd. Todd's
mother was seated in the courtroom and watched as Register told how
he was tricked into admitting to the murder by police. It took Register's
lawyers just one day to present their evidence. The Attorney General
will begin the State's evidence against Register beginning at 9:00 am.
tomorrow.
REGISTER HEARING
Ken Register was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison for killing
Crystal Faye Todd. Wednesday, he stood before a judge claiming there were
mistakes made during his 1993 trial. Back in 1992, Register confessed to
killing Todd. He now says he was confused when he made that statement, and that
his written confession to murder is false.
Register's new attorney is trying to prove that there was evidence left out of
Register's 1993 trial. Part of that evidence includes testimony from witnesses
who did not get to testify in the trial. Wednesday, these witnesses told the
judge they saw Ken Register just after midnight the night Crystal was murdered.
Since the murder supposedly happened at midnight, Register's attorney says
there wasn't enough time for him to commit the murder.
Register's attorney also says there were blood, fibers and hair found on the
body. Those pieces of evidence were never tested or presented during the trial.
The attorney says the blood is a key piece of evidence because Register is type
O positive, the blood found was AB. Register's attorney also claims the DNA
testing by police was rushed through the lab,and mistakes were made.
This is a post conviction hearing. If the judge rules in favor of Register, he
will get a new trial. The hearing is still underway. No word yet on when a
ruling may come down.
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000 2:30 AM
Message-id: <20001130013020...@ng-cu1.aol.com>
REGISTER HEARING
********
thanks for the report. Have you been attending the trial? Has it hit the papers
there? Do you have a url that I can access to read the reports myself?
Barbara
ATrueCrimeRdr
both the article and view pictures from the trial. Log on to thesunnews.com
and
click the category "front page" to find
the Register article.
I have not been attending the trial (I
don't live in the area) but have kept up with
the trial through one of the groups that
the author, Dale Hudson, belongs to.
I emailed him last night with your
questions and he said it had hit both
the television and newspapers. There
were two quotes I found from the newsarticle this morning.
Page 8* "Register's court-appointed attorney, David Gunling, presented
documents that showed when police arrested Register in February 1992,
DNA testing was not complete on his samples until October 1992. That
test showed a one in 250 million chance of matching. Recent DNA tests
conducted earlier this year show Register's DNA matched to a one in 1.3
million chances.
Also, Jane Spillane has headed an investigation by Register's parents
and others to get the conviction overturned.
"I believe he was innocent," Spillane testified Wednesday.
"Do you still believe?" Bogan said.
"I don't know," Spillane said.
"She testified she could not say who killed Todd or that Register was
innocent."
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
Thanks. Do you know if the huge difference in DNA results are because of error
during the first testing or whether they just used a more sophisticated test
this time?
I cant imagine he will get a new trial--they dont often grant new trials when
the original attorney might have been at fault at not introducing evidence.
Funny about Jane changing horses. I wonder what information she has that we are
not privvy to. I cant imagine it's the new tests because the probabilties just
arent damning.
The only chance he might have is that what might be the new testing technique
was not available at the time.
For sure this case was * proved* only by the DNA results ( and some fancy
profiling) whether or not the jury understood it that way.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000 12:02 PM
Message-id: <20001130110200...@ng-fm1.aol.com>
yep. there is a URL where you can read
both the article and view pictures from the trial. Log on to thesunnews.com
and
click the category "front page" to find
****
Hi, sunnews pulls up a
Chicago paper , but I see nothing on Register. Is that the paper you mean?
Barbara
WyrdWoman
>
> Hi, sunnews pulls up a
> Chicago paper , but I see nothing on Register. Is that the
> paper you mean?
It's http://www.thesunnews.com. Here's the direct link to the article:
http://web.philly.com/content/myrtlebeach/2000/11/30/Front/A01-2141723.h
tm
Register maintains innocence
Published on:Thursday, November 30, 2000
By Tonya Root
The SUN NEWS
Convicted murderer Johnnie Kenneth "Ken" Register maintained his
innocence Wednesday when he testified to overturn his conviction in
Crystal Faye Todd's brutal stabbing death.
Register testified during a post-conviction relief hearing, which began
Wednesday before Circuit Court Judge Sidney T. Floyd. The hearing is
based on a motion Register filed Sept. 17, 1997, seeking his 1993 murder
conviction to be overturned in the 17-year-old Conway High School
senior's death.
Todd's body was found on the morning of Nov. 17, 1991, in a ditch in the
Maple community. She was stabbed at least 30 times, and her throat was
slashed. She was disemboweled and had been raped. Register, who was 18
at the time, was shown to be Todd's killer after DNA tests confirmed he
matched DNA left on Todd's body.
The state Supreme Court upheld Register's conviction on Aug. 12, 1996,
and on Feb. 18, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.
The post-conviction relief hearing examines new evidence and evidence
that was not available at the trial.
During Wednesday's hearing, Register and several other witnesses
testified Register was not effectively represented by his trial and
appellate attorneys; his confession was false and made after six hours
of interrogation; his alibi witnesses did not testify during the trial;
and the jury did not deliberate long enough.
Register testified Wednesday that Morgan Martin, Tommy Brittain and Tim
Johnson failed to object to prejudicial statements made by
then-Solicitor Ralph Wilson during his January 1993 trial. He also said
his attorneys failed to introduce several composite sketches of suspects
during the trial.
"In effect, you had a dream team before O.J. [Simpson] ever had his,"
said Robert Bogan, an assistant state Attorney General, in rebuttal.
Register's attorneys could not be reached for comment.
In the motion, Register also claims new DNA testing shows discrepancies
in a match used to arrest him.
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the basic material in chromosomes of a
cell nucleus and contains a genetic code considered as unique as a
person's fingerprints.
Register's court-appointed attorney, David Gunling, presented documents
that showed when police arrested Register in February 1992, DNA testing
was not complete on his samples until October 1992. That test showed a
one in 250 million chance of matching. Recent DNA tests conducted
earlier this year show Register's DNA matched to a one in 1.3 million
chance.
During Wednesday's proceedings, Register also denied killing Todd and
raping her.
Register said he has O positive blood type, but either A or AB blood
type was found in a semen sample taken from Todd's anal area.
Jane Spillane, wife of mystery writer Mickey Spillane, also testified
fibers found on Todd's body and at the crime scene were never tested
before they became missing from the evidence room.
Spillane also said another suspect's hair never arrived at a State Law
Enforcement Division forensic lab for testing.
Spillane has headed an investigation by Register's parents and others to
get the conviction overturned.
"I believed he was innocent," Spillane testified Wednesday.
"Do you still believe?" Bogan said.
"I don't know," Spillane said.
She testified she could not say who killed Todd or that Register was
innocent.
Register also objected to the use of a confession in his conviction.
Police obtained a confession from Register after his February 1992
arrest, and on Wednesday Register testified he was tricked and coerced
into making the admission. He said he confessed using information Horry
County police suggested to him about the murder.
"I sat in there and made up what to say, and I thought they would let me
go," Register said. "This statement was formulated out of the
interrogation."
Register said he was at an Aynor-area go-cart track the night Todd was
killed. He said he left the track, went straight home and never saw Todd
that night.
More than 500 people jammed into the large courtroom at the Horry County
Courthouse during the 14-day trial in 1993, but on Wednesday about 50
people attended the day's proceedings.
Testimony from the state Attorney General's Office on why the conviction
should stand will begin at 9:30 a.m. today.
DPinedale1
>the original attorney might have been at fault at not introducing evidence.
>
>Funny about Jane changing horses. I wonder what information she has that we
>are
>not privvy to. I cant imagine it's the new tests because the probabilties
>just
>arent damning.
>
>The only chance he might have is that what might be the new testing technique
>was not available at the time.
>For sure this case was * proved* only by the DNA results ( and some fancy
>profiling) whether or not the jury understood it that way.
>
>Barbara
Barbara: At the time of the trial, 1993, DNA
was a new science, very confusing and
didn't carry the weight that it presently does. The jury stated that it wasn't
the
DNA that convinced them Register was
guilty but his confession. But, let's face
it, had it not been for the DNA analysis
Register would have never been pointed
out as a suspect.
As evident from the newspaper article,
there must have been some changes
made in the current DNA testing, as the
odds of identification changed dramatically.
Not enough, I'm afraid to get Register a new trial, but significantly so to
question
what might be going on at this moment.
Dale Hudson
ATrueCrimeRdr
game, but if Register's DNA matched
and he confessed to the crime, wouldn't
that be proof enough for him to be guilty
of killing Crystal Todd. I just don't get it,
why would someone say DNA is not
enough proof that a person was at least
at the scene of the crime. And in Register's case, the police know then
he had sex with her, and the pathologist
said whoever had sex with her was her
killer? Can you explain all that to me?
I hope I'm making sense.
Kelly
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
>I cant imagine he will get a new trial--they dont often grant new trials when
>the original attorney might have been at fault at not introducing evidence.
>
>Funny about Jane changing horses. I wonder what information she has that we
>are
>not privvy to. I cant imagine it's the new tests because the probabilties
>just
>arent damning.
>
>The only chance he might have is that what might be the new testing technique
>was not available at the time.
>For sure this case was * proved* only by the DNA results ( and some fancy
>profiling) whether or not the jury understood it that way.
>
>Barbara
/Barbara: At the time of the trial, 1993, DNA
/was a new science, very confusing and
/didn't carry the weight that it presently does. The jury stated that it
/wasn't
/the
/DNA that convinced them Register was
/guilty but his confession.
From what you wrote in the book Dale, they wouldnt have convicted based solely
on the *confession* about which there was excellent testimony as to whether or
not it was coerced and also excellent testimony about false confessions in
general.
Had it not been for the DNA I do not believe they would have convicted at all.
Perhaps I misstated it when I said the conviction resulted solely from the DNA
evidence because I am sure the jury took in a constellation of facts about the
case including unfortunately the pre trial publicity.
/But, let's face
/it, had it not been for the DNA analysis
/Register would have never been pointed
/out as a suspect.
Yep.
/ As evident from the newspaper article,
/there must have been some changes
/made in the current DNA testing, as the
/odds of identification changed dramatically.
/Not enough, I'm afraid to get Register a new trial, but significantly so /to
/question
/what might be going on at this moment.
What you may be referring to is the recent development of the PCR test by Kerry
Mullis who himself is adamant should not be used for inclusion as opposed to
exclusion,
I agree it wont probably get him a new trial and I think it is quite
unfortunate because it should. Of course it would have been better had it shown
him to be absolutely excluded from being a suspect.
From your description in your book, it is impossible for me to agree that the
timeline was at all feasible which is *one* of the reasons I think there is a
question as to his quilt or innocence producing reasonable doubt and which
should have imo, resulted in a not guilty verdict.
I think that because of the horrendous nature of the crime that particular
jury was predisposed to find him guilty which enabled them to look at the
evidence in a far more negative light than I did while reading the book coming
in cold, as it were, to the scene.
Barbara
Dale Hudson
Doc Thumper
>From your description in your book, it is impossible for me to agree that the
>timeline was at all feasible which is *one* of the reasons I think there is a
>question as to his quilt or innocence producing reasonable doubt and which
>should have imo, resulted in a not guilty verdict.
Leave it to Barbara to proclaim his innocence. I truly believe that
Barbara thinks every convicted felon is innocent. These victims did
not commit suicide, Barbara. Ron
NEON NAPPI
From: Doc Thumper <drsh...@earthlink.net>
On 01 Dec 2000 20:05:31 GMT, neon...@aol.com (NEON NAPPI) wrote:
>From your description in your book, it is impossible for me to agree that the
>timeline was at all feasible which is *one* of the reasons I think there is a
>question as to his quilt or innocence producing reasonable doubt and which
>should have imo, resulted in a not guilty verdict.
/Leave it to Barbara to proclaim his innocence. I truly believe that
/Barbara thinks every convicted felon is innocent. These victims did
/not commit suicide, Barbara. Ron
Try remedial reading Ron. I said that there was resonable doubt, not that he
was innocent.
I didnt read , in Dale's book, about any compelling evidence to suggest surety
of Ken Register's guilt.
And obviously the new DNA results are certainly not anywhere near a standard
that should be used to convict someone of murder as the ones that were used at
the time of the trial.
Is it impossible around here to question the threshold used for a guilty
verdict in a trial without getting snide comments?
Those felons who are factually guilty arent much fodder for thought when it
comes to this particular aspect of my interest in crime so why would I be
writing about them?
Barbara
DPinedale1
Also, thinking back on it you're probably
correct they wouldn't have convicted him
without it, as well. Someone in the jury
would probably leaned toward a dissenting vote only to have them be reminded
that
his DNA matched "in every way," and that
was the reason Register was sitting in
the defense table and not "Randy."
DPinedale1
analysis. There were two DNA tests done,
the first in '91 and a second in 01 for the
PCR. The first one put the odds at one in
250 million to one and the second one
at one in 1.3 million.
In your opinion, what is the reason
for such discrepancy in the numbers?
DPinedale1
Jason...@virgin.net
DPinedale1 wrote:
> Barbara, I will say this in your favor of DNA
> analysis. There were two DNA tests done,
> the first in '91 and a second in 01 for the
> PCR. The first one put the odds at one in
> 250 million to one and the second one
> at one in 1.3 million.
> In your opinion, what is the reason
> for such discrepancy in the numbers?
It was probably down to degeneration of the DNA evidence. There would
be less large fragment matchs so the degree of accuracy would decrease!
Also the PCR reaction produces some small errors.
ciao
Jason
NEON NAPPI
Date: Sat, Dec 2, 2000 3:49 PM
Message-id: <20001202144909...@ng-ff1.aol.com>
Barbara, I will say this in your favor of DNA
analysis. There were two DNA tests done,
the first in '91 and a second in 01 for the
PCR. The first one put the odds at one in
250 million to one and the second one
at one in 1.3 million.
In your opinion, what is the reason
for such discrepancy in the numbers?
Dale Hudson
hudson-hills.com
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
I'm guessing Dale but I imagine that now they used the more up to date and more
accurate PCR test but the inventor of that test says it should never be used
for inclusion.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: Jason...@virgin.net
DPinedale1 wrote:
> Barbara, I will say this in your favor of DNA
> analysis. There were two DNA tests done,
> the first in '91 and a second in 01 for the
> PCR. The first one put the odds at one in
> 250 million to one and the second one
> at one in 1.3 million.
> In your opinion, what is the reason
> for such discrepancy in the numbers?
It was probably down to degeneration of the DNA evidence. There would
be less large fragment matchs so the degree of accuracy would decrease!
Also the PCR reaction produces some small errors.
ciao
Jason
*************
There *was* no such thing as a PCR test in the 91.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
Message-id: <20001202144213...@ng-ff1.aol.com>
**********
Randy was the perfect suspect and I"d really like to know more about how DNA
cleared him.
Barbara
Doc Thumper
>The first one put the odds at one in
>250 million to one and the second one
>at one in 1.3 million.
It really does not matter given the limited number of people in
Conway, SC that could have done the deed. Ron
Doc Thumper
>Randy was the perfect suspect and I"d really like to know more about how DNA
>cleared him.
>
>Barbara
Don't we know whether or not DNA testing on Randy excluded him? Ron
NEON NAPPI
From: Doc Thumper <drsh...@earthlink.net>
On 02 Dec 2000 21:28:53 GMT, neon...@aol.com (NEON NAPPI) wrote:
>Randy was the perfect suspect and I"d really like to know more about how DNA
>cleared him.
>
>Barbara
/Don't we know whether or not DNA testing on Randy excluded him? Ron
According to the book DNA tests excluded him--I'd just like to know the
details. I'm curious because when they took Register's test results to be
reviewed by Barry Scheck they didnt take any of the others and it was the first
time DNA was used in a case such as this one in S. Carolina and I dont know how
proficient they were when they did the test. Many labs at that time had to be
totally revamped because of errors, not that this one is necessarily one of
them, I"m not sure.
There was also a lot of information that Jane Spillane allegedly had about
Randy as a suspect and it was never made plain what it was. I believe she
accused the police of ignoring certain evidence found in Randy's home.
I'm guessing it will come out at the trial if there *is* anything. If not and
if they dont allow in the new DNA testing as *new* evidence, Ken is dead in
the water imo.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
Date: Sat, Dec 2, 2000 7:09 PM
Message-id: <f60j2t8nld62au48f...@4ax.com>
On 02 Dec 2000 19:49:09 GMT, dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1) wrote:
>The first one put the odds at one in
>250 million to one and the second one
>at one in 1.3 million.
/It really does not matter given the limited number of people in
/Conway, SC that could have done the deed. Ron
The number of people in a given community has no relevance to the probability
statistics used in DNA.
except for the possibility that Scheck once offerred of there being more than
one person with very similar DNA in a community he characterized as
intermarrying to an extent that would affect the results.
Barbara
Doc Thumper
>The number of people in a given community has no relevance to the probability
>statistics used in DNA.
>except for the possibility that Scheck once offerred of there being more than
>one person with very similar DNA in a community he characterized as
>intermarrying to an extent that would affect the results.
>
>Barbara
I hope you are not implying that the offspring of intermarriage have
the same DNA. Ron
NEON NAPPI
From: Doc Thumper <drsh...@earthlink.net>
On 03 Dec 2000 06:42:32 GMT, neon...@aol.com (NEON NAPPI) wrote:
>The number of people in a given community has no relevance to the probability
>statistics used in DNA.
>except for the possibility that Scheck once offerred of there being more than
>one person with very similar DNA in a community he characterized as
>intermarrying to an extent that would affect the results.
>
>Barbara
/I hope you are not implying that the offspring of intermarriage have
/the same DNA. Ron
No, not the same but similar enough to be affect the statistical probabilities
more so than non family members, at least, according to Scheck who I guess can
be wrong.
Barbara
DPinedale1
the time elapsed between testing was
8 years. Thanks for the clarification.
Dale Hudson
www.hudson-hills.com
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
DPinedale1
always
been "based on the conclusion of the
test, Register cannot be excluded as a
donor." Is this the proper protocol?
DPinedale1
liked the 1.5 million odds better than
the previous 250 million. He failed to realize that even this DNA match still
points to him as the major suspect.
NEON NAPPI
From: "WyrdWoman" <wyrd...@SPAMcarolina.rr.com>
"NEON NAPPI" <neon...@aol.com> wrote...
>
> Hi, sunnews pulls up a
> Chicago paper , but I see nothing on Register. Is that the
> paper you mean?
It's http://www.thesunnews.com. Here's the direct link to the article:
http://web.philly.com/content/myrtlebeach/2000/11/30/Front/A01-2141723.h
tm
Register maintains innocence
Published on:Thursday, November 30, 2000
By Tonya Root
The SUN NEWS
****
Thanks WW. I am going to try to follow the trial. This case continues to
fascinate me.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
Date: Thu, Nov 30, 2000 5:44 PM
Message-id: <20001130164429...@ng-fc1.aol.com>
/Dale, maybe it is just me. I'm new at this
/game, but if Register's DNA matched
/and he confessed to the crime, wouldn't
/that be proof enough for him to be guilty
/of killing Crystal Todd. I just don't get it,
/why would someone say DNA is not
/enough proof that a person was at least
/at the scene of the crime. And in Register's case, the police know then
/he had sex with her, and the pathologist
/said whoever had sex with her was her
/killer? Can you explain all that to me?
/I hope I'm making sense.
/Kelly
There is no such thing as a DNA match in actuality. All one has is a
statistical probability of a match. In addition there are too many errors made
in DNA collection and too much room for error in testing for it to be used with
certainty for inclusion.
As for the confession, check the testimony in the book about false confessions.
I think you may find it illuminating.
Barbara
DPinedale1
analysis. It related to the statistical
probability of a match and did not
exclude Register as a suspect. The police believed the DNA alone would not be
enough to convict him so after a through investigation of his past crimes they
orchestrated an arrest. Their strategy was to keep Register separated from his
mother, whom they believed had helped conceal the murder and develop an alibi,
and pick his story apart until he
confessed. The police admitted they
lied to him about the evidence they had
on him, but did so within the limits of
the law. As you know from the book,
Register did confess, later recanted,
and still maintains his innocence to this
day. The jury stated it was his confession
that convinced them he was guilty. The questioned why he would confess to the
most heinous murder in the history of
Horry County and why he never asked for
an attorney at any time or refused to
talk to the police. All he had to do to stop
the interview was to ask for an attorney.
Dale Hudson
www.hudson-hills.com
determination as to whether Register
was the killer became the sole r
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
Doc Thumper
>Ron, Register made a comment that he
>liked the 1.5 million odds better than
>the previous 250 million. He failed to realize that even this DNA match still
>points to him as the major suspect.
That is correct. Pretty long odds anyway, but it certainly pales in
comparison to the 1 in some multi-billion odds that OJ did not kill
Nicole. Ron
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
/Ron, Register made a comment that he
/liked the 1.5 million odds better than
/the previous 250 million. He failed to realize that even this DNA match /still
/points to him as the major suspect.
/Dale Hudson
Do you think this is why Jane Spillane bailed Dale?
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
Date: Sun, Dec 3, 2000 11:19 AM
Message-id: <20001203101935...@ng-cd1.aol.com>
/Barb, the language that used in relation with this test for this case has
/always
/been "based on the conclusion of the
/test, Register cannot be excluded as a
/donor." Is this the proper protocol?
/Dale Hudson
/www.hudson-hills.com
I dont know Dale, are you reading from the report of the lab to whoever
requested the test? Or from a court document or from testimony?
It sounds reasonable but I would have thought that they would have to add
something about probabilities.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: Doc Thumper <drsh...@earthlink.net>
On 03 Dec 2000 15:23:54 GMT, dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1) wrote:
>Ron, Register made a comment that he
>liked the 1.5 million odds better than
>the previous 250 million. He failed to realize that even this DNA match still
>points to him as the major suspect.
/That is correct. Pretty long odds anyway, but it certainly pales in
/comparison to the 1 in some multi-billion odds that OJ did not kill
/Nicole. Ron
Not to be picky but sloppiness in this kind of report bothers me.
RFLP results indicated that the odds were 1 in 170 million ( not billion) that
it came from anyone other then Simpson.
Barbara
ATrueCrimeRdr
know, she bailed when she learned the
second DNA test was a match. Also,
from what I learned today, the difference
in the numbers between the two tests
were in relation to populations. The new
test took in consideration what Barry
Sheck termed the "inbred population" of
Conway.
Dale Hudson
ATrueCrimeRdr
confess to the crime. Even though they
treated him as badly as Register, lying
and claiming they had real evidence, Randy made it clear "they were barking
up the wrong tree," that he was never
going to admit to something he didn't do.
Secondly, he offered to give DNA samples,
as well, but none matched the O positive
blood sample. In addition, only Register's had the rare enzyme identified in
the sample sperm. According to the examiner,
that was the first time the FBI and SLED
had ever seen two different DNA samples
match beyond the normal three probes.
Registers matched five probes.
Dale Hudson
ATrueCrimeRdr
suspect. In fact, the prosecution said had
his DNA matched he would have been an easier person to convict than Register.
Dale Hudson
ATrueCrimeRdr
From those in the know, their prediction is that The judge will never rule that
he had incompetent representation nor will he rule there is enough new evidence
to warrant a new trial. This should end
this case once and for all and finally bring
peace to the memory of Crystal Todd.
"Ken Register is trying to get out of his sentence. Well, I want you to know
that
Crystal serves her sentence every day
of my life."- Bonnie Faye Todd
Dale Hudson
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
Dale Hudson
****************
Not to nit pick Dale but using the word *match* ( even though Scheck also does
it) when it comes to DNA results is misleading. All you have are the
probabilities of a match.
I think that the use of the word match gives the idea that the DNA is
comparable to the reliability of fingerprint evidence and it's not.
Can you expand on your last point. I didnt see any reference to it in the
newspaper articles. It certainly would explain the difference in numbers and I
feel vindicated for mentioning the *inbreeding* in my discussion with Ron if
they have taken the possiblity seriously enough to revise their numbers.
Did they mention whether or not they used the more sophisticated PCR test. Some
of the people who are currently being exonerated by the Innocence Project are
being exonerated because of this new test.
Or is it possible that the state did not permit the new test to be done?
Barbara
Doc Thumper
wrote:
So you see Barbage, even your DNA meister, Barry Scheck, knows that
this has to do with population, as I stated earlier, only to have you
come back with your usual personal attack. Ron
DPinedale1
the court. Here is some additional information:
"Lorri Medlin Johnson, a DNA expert
with the State Law Enforcement Division,
worked extensively on the case. She said
the case was significant because Register's DNA sample was a five-probe,
nine-band match to DNA taken from
Todd's body.
"The FBI and SLED has never seen two
different people match across three probes, much less five," Johnson said.
Johnson denied reports that her testing
was compromised because officials placed priorities on the tests.
"I did rush that analysis. I did not compromise the integrity of the
results,"
Johnson said. "In this particular case time was the essence. There's nothing
wrong
with that procedure or in the scientific
community."
Dale Hudson
DPin...@aol.com
hudson-hills.com
NEON NAPPI
Date: Tue, Dec 5, 2000 9:56 AM
Message-id: <etsp2t0du4qie0rul...@4ax.com>
On 05 Dec 2000 05:51:58 GMT, atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
wrote:
>Yes, Barbara, according to those in the
>know, she bailed when she learned the
>second DNA test was a match. Also,
>from what I learned today, the difference
>in the numbers between the two tests
>were in relation to populations. The new
>test took in consideration what Barry
>Sheck termed the "inbred population" of
>Conway.
>
>Dale Hudson
/So you see Barbage, even your DNA meister, Barry Scheck, knows that
/this has to do with population, as I stated earlier, only to have you
/come back with your usual personal attack. Ron
If you re read what I wrote at thte time you wiil see that I made a caveat for
the possiblity of inbreeding and in fact referred to Barry Scheck. I also never
said DNA results dont depend on population. Of course they do , the entire
science depends on population, population statistics are the basis for the
comparisons but DNA does not depend on the population of the small area from
which the perp comes, except as noted above.
I dont recall personally attacking you, I have been trying to keep our
discussions here flame free.
]If you tnink that when someone corrects you on misinformation that you
continually post here ( which apparently Maggie and Lady A. among others have
also been noticing) it's flaming, one might think that you might be more
careful when you throw *facts* around.
I am sorry that you cant deal with disagreement on facts .
Barbara
DPinedale1
the correct term here. Thanks for pointing
that out.
The information I received came for a
DNA expert at the University, not from
the court. They did not mention whether
they used the more sophisticated PCR
for you.
ATrueCrimeRdr
book. But I'm not sure. Why was it
a 5 rather than the usual 3 like the
ones before his case? Did I read
somewhere that they got Ken's
sample mixed up with Randy?
Barbara:I haven't met you yet but
do you teach somewhere at a
University?
Kelly
Doc Thumper
wrote:
Kelly, meet Barbara, professor of everything, all knowing, verbose,
and the world's authority on any subject you wish to name. I think
she teaches at Reikki University... Ron
ATrueCrimeRdr
>and the world's authority on any subject you wish to name. I think
>she teaches at Reikki University... Ron
Ron: You and Barbara are either the
best of friends or the worst of enemies.
I'm definitely not quite sure which one yet.
Want to fill me in?
Kelly
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
Dale: I think you explained it in your
book. But I'm not sure. Why was it
a 5 rather than the usual 3 like the
ones before his case? Did I read
somewhere that they got Ken's
sample mixed up with Randy?
Barbara:I haven't met you yet but
do you teach somewhere at a
University?
Kelly
******************
No Kelly, but thank you for the compliment:)
I just got really interested in the case after reading the book. In my opinion
the prosecution never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt at least from
what I have read in the book. .
What was so frustrating for me was that every time I had a question about the
trial, the testimony and the cross, I had to depend on Dale to type it out for
me from the transcript because it was nowhere on line. My only other option was
to buy the transcript for myself which would have been really expensive and
it's just not fair to ask Dale to answer my many questions.
Of course I could go out there and read the transcript for myself:))
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: dpine...@aol.com (DPinedale1)
/Kelly, Barbara is correct on the DNA
/analysis. It related to the statistical
/probability of a match and did not
/exclude Register as a suspect. The police believed the DNA alone would /not be
/enough to convict him so after a through investigation of his past /crimes
they
/orchestrated an arrest. Their strategy was to keep Register separated /from
his
/mother, whom they believed had helped conceal the murder and develop /an
alibi,
/and pick his story apart until he
/confessed.
Oh yes, after not allowing his mother to see him they then lied to Ken and told
him that his mother had turned on him and thought he was guilty, leaving him
feeling even more isolated and helpless while being interrogated by 4
detectives.
/ The police admitted they
/lied to him about the evidence they had
/on him, but did so within the limits of
/the law. As you know from the book,
/Register did confess, later recanted,
/and still maintains his innocence to this
/day. The jury stated it was his confession
/that convinced them he was guilty. The questioned why he would confess /to the
/most heinous murder in the history of
/Horry County
Not only was there very credible testimony from the defense expert regarding
false confessions but it was also explained that someone being interrogated for
hours under those horrendous conditions, being totally isolated and feeling as
though the entire world, including his mother, was against him might indeed say
anything just to get out of there to find some kind of help.
/ and why he never asked for
/an attorney at any time
As you pointed out yourself Dale, he being much of a Momma's boy wanted to talk
to his Mom so that she could obtain the services of an attorney.
In effect he was deprived of his right to consel before interrogation.
/or refused to
/talk to the police.
It's a Catch 22, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
An innocent person often thinks that it is ok to talk to the police because
they know they have nothing to hide. ( Which IMO is an extremely dumb thing to
do).
One would think that his agreement to talk to the police would have been seen
as a postive for him, not a negative.
Had he refused to talk to the police, the same people would have pointed to
that and said, just as they say of the Ramsey's. "See, he must have something
to hide" wouldnt they?
/All he had to do to stop
/the interview was to ask for an attorney.
He asked for his mother who indeed would have called an attorney.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: Doc Thumper <drsh...@earthlink.net>
On 05 Dec 2000 20:22:09 GMT, atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
wrote:
>Dale: I think you explained it in your
>book. But I'm not sure. Why was it
>a 5 rather than the usual 3 like the
>ones before his case? Did I read
>somewhere that they got Ken's
>sample mixed up with Randy?
>Barbara:I haven't met you yet but
>do you teach somewhere at a
>University?
>
>Kelly
/Kelly, meet Barbara, professor of everything, all knowing, verbose,
/and the world's authority on any subject you wish to name. I think
/she teaches at Reikki University... Ron
I'm really glad that Nancy suggested a flame free discussion. At least she and
I can argue ideas and not stoop to inane insults.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
>Kelly, meet Barbara, professor of everything, all knowing, verbose,
>and the world's authority on any subject you wish to name. I think
>she teaches at Reikki University... Ron
/Ron: You and Barbara are either the
/best of friends or the worst of enemies.
/I'm definitely not quite sure which one yet.
/Want to fill me in?
/Kelly
Dont even go there.
Barbara
Doc Thumper
>/Kelly, meet Barbara, professor of everything, all knowing, verbose,
>/and the world's authority on any subject you wish to name. I think
>/she teaches at Reikki University... Ron
>
>
>I'm really glad that Nancy suggested a flame free discussion. At least she and
>I can argue ideas and not stoop to inane insults.
>Barbara
>
If the shoe fits where it Barbara...nothing insulting or inflammatory
in the truth. Ron
ATrueCrimeRdr
>opinion
>the prosecution never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt at least
>from
>what I have read in the book. .
>
>What was so frustrating for me was
>that every time I had a question about the
>trial, the testimony and the cross, I had to depend on Dale to type it out
>for
>me from the transcript because it was nowhere on line. My only other option
>was
>to buy the transcript for myself which would have been really
>expensive and
>it's just not fair to ask Dale to answer my many questions.
>Of course I could go out there and read the transcript for myself:))
>
Barbara: Why don't you just ask Dale to
let you borrow the transcript? I know he
has really been helpful to me whenever
I've asked him for things from the case.
Did you see the tv videos on the case?
I got those and they were very helpful.
I also asked him to send me some of
the original newspaper clippings to help
me do a presentation for my sociology
class.
Kelly
ATrueCrimeRdr
>told
>him that his mother had turned on him and thought he was guilty, leaving him
>feeling even more isolated and
>helpless while being interrogated by 4
>detectives.
Barbara: Please forgive my ignorance.
Again I'm new at this and don't know
as much as you and the others on the
list. But I thought once you were 18
that you become an adult and should
be able to stand on your own. If the
police accused me of murdering my
best friend I would scream, yell, bite,
kick, or do anything to convince them
I didn't do it. I wouldn't need my mother
or father to do that.
>Not only was there very credible testimony from the defense expert regarding
>false confessions but it was also explained that someone being interrogated
>for
>hours under those horrendous conditions, being totally isolated and feeling
>as
>though the entire world, including his mother, was against him might indeed
>say
>anything just to get out of there to find some kind of help
You see. That's what I can't fully understand. Why would someone in
their right mind, an 18 year old who
has a job, not be able to comprehend
that the police is not going to let
someone out who just confessed to
a murder. Don't you think he should
have realized he was going to be in
bigger trouble than if he just sat there
and kept saying "No. No. No. I didn't
do it?"
Maybe it's just me but I would have
never confessed if I didn't do it.
Kelly
ATrueCrimeRdr
>talk
>to his Mom so that she could obtain the services of an attorney.
>In effect he was deprived of his right to consel before interrogation.
>
>/or refused to
>/talk to the police.
>
>It's a Catch 22, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
>An innocent person often thinks that it is ok to talk to the police because
>they know they have nothing to hide. ( Which IMO is an extremely dumb thing
>to do)
I agree with you on that. My father told
me to admit to nothing and ask for an
attorney. It didn't matter what I did, or
didn't do.
.
>One would think that his agreement to talk to the police would have been seen
>as a postive for him, not a negative.
>Had he refused to talk to the police, the same people would have pointed to
>that and said, just as they say of the Ramsey's. "See, he must have something
>to hide" wouldnt they?
Well wouldn't that been better than confessing to the murder? At least, the
Ramseys are not in prison at this very
moment like Register is.
>
>He asked for his mother who indeed would have called an attorney.
>
>Barbara
Why didn't he just ask for an attorney?
Why did he need his mommy?
Kelly
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
>Oh yes, after not allowing his mother to see him they then lied to Ken and
>told
>him that his mother had turned on him and thought he was guilty, leaving him
>feeling even more isolated and
>helpless while being interrogated by 4
>detectives.
/Barbara: Please forgive my ignorance.
/Again I'm new at this and don't know
/as much as you and the others on the
/list. But I thought once you were 18
/that you become an adult and should
/be able to stand on your own.
Some 30 year olds although they are physically adults are more immature than
some 14 year olds I've met.
You cant just make a blanket statement as to how old someone has to be to stand
on ones own.
Ken was a Momma's boy. Whether or not he should have been is another matter,
the fact remains that he was, at least according to the book.
/If the
/police accused me of murdering my
/best friend I would scream, yell, bite,
/kick, or do anything to convince them
/I didn't do it. I wouldn't need my mother
/or father to do that.
Sure, that's you. Do you really believe that we all act alike? He did fight
them, for many hours until it became obvious to him that they were not going to
stop, at which point, according to him he would have said anything just to get
away from them.
Remember the portion in the book where there is testimony about false
confessions? Do you find any of it compelling?
>Not only was there very credible testimony from the defense expert regarding
>false confessions but it was also explained that someone being interrogated
>for
>hours under those horrendous conditions, being totally isolated and feeling
>as
>though the entire world, including his mother, was against him might indeed
>say
>anything just to get out of there to find some kind of help
/You see. That's what I can't fully understand. Why would someone in
/their right mind, an 18 year old who
/has a job, not be able to comprehend
/that the police is not going to let
/someone out who just confessed to
/a murder. Don't you think he should
/have realized he was going to be in
/bigger trouble than if he just sat there
/and kept saying "No. No. No. I didn't
/do it?"
Do you really think that Ken is the only one who might have confessed to
something he was not guilty of?
You are assuming that someone who is young, has been protected all of his life,
has been terrorized, worn down, and feels totally alone , is using the same
kind of common sense and reasoning you or I might use when we are not under the
same kind of pressure.
It's not necessarily true.
We're not all alike and we dont all react in the same ways.
/ Maybe it's just me but I would have
/never confessed if I didn't do it.
I'm not sure any of us ever knows what we will do in such a very emotional
high pressure situation, but Ill take your word for it that you do:)
Barbara
Kelly
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
>s you pointed out yourself Dale, he being much of a Momma's boy wanted to
>talk
>to his Mom so that she could obtain the services of an attorney.
>In effect he was deprived of his right to consel before interrogation.
>
>/or refused to
>/talk to the police.
>
>It's a Catch 22, damned if you do and damned if you dont.
>An innocent person often thinks that it is ok to talk to the police because
>they know they have nothing to hide. ( Which IMO is an extremely dumb thing
>to do)
I agree with you on that. My father told
me to admit to nothing and ask for an
attorney. It didn't matter what I did, or
didn't do.
.
>One would think that his agreement to talk to the police would have been seen
>as a postive for him, not a negative.
>Had he refused to talk to the police, the same people would have pointed to
>that and said, just as they say of the Ramsey's. "See, he must have something
>to hide" wouldnt they?
/Well wouldn't that been better than confessing to the murder? At least, /the
/Ramseys are not in prison at this very
/moment like Register is.
>
>He asked for his mother who indeed would have called an attorney.
>
>Barbara
/Why didn't he just ask for an attorney?
/Why did he need his mommy?
Would you have the name and number of an attorney to call handy if you were
arrested today?
Barbara
/Kelly
Have you read the book Kelly? It's really all explained there.
Barbara
NEON NAPPI
From: atruec...@aol.com (ATrueCrimeRdr)
>I just got really interested in the case after reading the book. In my
>opinion
>the prosecution never proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt at least
>from
>what I have read in the book. .
>
>What was so frustrating for me was
>that every time I had a question about the
>trial, the testimony and the cross, I had to depend on Dale to type it out
>for
>me from the transcript because it was nowhere on line. My only other option
>was
>to buy the transcript for myself which would have been really
>expensive and
>it's just not fair to ask Dale to answer my many questions.
>Of course I could go out there and read the transcript for myself:))
>
/Barbara: Why don't you just ask Dale to
/let you borrow the transcript? I know he
/has really been helpful to me whenever
/I've asked him for things from the case.
/Did you see the tv videos on the case?
/I got those and they were very helpful.
/I also asked him to send me some of
/the original newspaper clippings to help
/me do a presentation for my sociology
/class.
/Kelly
Yes, he sent me the videos and the tape but the transcript must be thousands of
pages long. Believe me, if he'll send it to me, I'll promise to read it and
return it immediatly, especially the transcript of the current hearing which I
am really curious about.
Barbara