CHIMA RAPED BY DALE DEVON SCHEANETTE

[MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER]

Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
Rapist

Chima told her fellow Big Brother 11 houseguests that she had to have
two facial surgeries because the attack had been so brutal.

"February of 1999, 22-year-old Chima Benson sleeps soundly in her
sorority house when she wakes up to a masked man in her bedroom. The
man brutally beats and rapes Chima, before fleeing into the night. At
the hospital semen is collected. The sample is compared to the DNA
from the 1996 murders at the Peartree apartment complex, and confirmed
to be a match."

source: Associated Content
source: COLD CASE FILES: Episode 90

On February, 10, 2009, Dale Devon Scheanette, dubbed the "Bathtub
Rapist," was executed by the State of Texas for the rape and murder of
Wendie Prescott on December 24, 1996. He was charged, but never tried
for the identical rape and murder of Christine Vu on September 17 of
the same year.

The women were raped, strangled, bound with duct tape and found in
half-filled bathtubs. The two women lived in the same apartment
complex. Dale Devon Scheanette was suspected of five other rapes
within the same area.

At his execution, Scheanette only said, ''My only statement is that no
cases ever tried have been error-free. Those are my words. No cases
are error-free.'' He was executed by lethal injection and died nine
minutes later. At 6:21 p.m., February 10, 2009, Scheanette was
pronounced dead.

Big Brother 11 Houseguest Chima Benson was Scheanette's last victim.
She managed to fight him off, as she told the other houseguests, and
he was caught shortly thereafter.

The first victim, Christine Vu, was found by her boyfriend. There were
no signs of forced entry and very little to go on. Three months later,
Dale Devon Scheanette raped and killed again within the same apartment
complex. In both cases, one fingerprint was found and the semen taken
from the bodies matched. The police knew they were now looking for a
serial killer.

It was three years later that Chima was awoken in her dorm room by a
masked man. After he beat and raped her, he fled. The semen taken from
her matched the serial killer. Chima's rape brought attention back to
the cold case and new fingerprint technology was used to identify
Scheanette. He had lived at the apartment complex where the murders
had taken place, but as he did not have a criminal record, he escaped
further scrutiny.

Scheanette was charged in August 2000, sentenced to death in January
2003 and executed this February.

Chima told her fellow Big Brother 11 houseguests that she had to have
two facial surgeries because the attack had been so brutal.
------------------------
On September 17, 1996, Thang Khuu returns home to his Arlington, Texas
apartment to find his girlfriend, Christine Vu, dead in the bathtub.
Christine's naked body is lifeless, her hands and feet are bound with
duct tape and she has been strangled. Khuu pulls his girlfriend out of
the tub, and dials 911.

Detective Ed Featherston of the Arlington Police Department takes the
call. At the scene he finds no signs of forced entry. However, he does
find two critical pieces of evidence left behind by the killer,
including semen recovered from Christine's body and a single
fingerprint found on a deadbolt lock.

Featherston began his investigation by questioning Thang Khuu. Khuu
denied any involvement and provides hair and saliva samples for DNA
testing.

Three months later, on Christmas Eve, the bathtub killer strikes
again. Twenty three-year-old Wendie Prescott is found dead in her
Peartree apartment in the same signature fashion.

Like Christines, Wendie has been raped, strangled, and bound with duct
tape. Inside the apartment, crime scene investigators discover a
pristine fingerprint pressed into the dust on a TV stand. The print is
documented and collected. Semen from both crime scenes is determined
to be a match, confirming that a serial killer is on the loose in
Arlington.

With the focus off Thang Khuu, detectives spread out and begin looking
at every male associated with the Peartree apartment complex. They
identify hundreds of residents, employees, and associates of the
property, and begin the painstaking process of questioning and
eliminating. Thousands of leads are followed up and more than 80 men
are eliminated through DNA, yet the detectives are no closer to
finding their killer.

Three years later, in February of 1999, 22-year-old Chima Benson
sleeps soundly in her sorority house when she wakes up to a masked man
in her bedroom. The man brutally beats and rapes Chima, before fleeing
into the night. At the hospital semen is collected. The sample is
compared to the DNA from the 1996 murders at the Peartree apartment
complex, and confirmed to be a match.

The serial killer is back, but now he has changed his methods. He is
raping, but not killing. Arlington Detective Tommy Lenoir questions
Benson, who tells him her attacker was a black male.

Lenoir immediately returns to his suspect list and is able to
eliminate two thirds of the remaining pool, focusing only on black
males. At the same time, detectives learn of a new fingerprinting
system known as I-AFIS. After four years with no hits in AFIS,
detectives send the prints to the FBI, hopeful that new technology can
help.

Two weeks later, the system comes back with a match to a man named
Dale Scheanette. Lenoir learns that Scheanette lived at the Peartree
apartments at the time of Vu's murder. He had no criminal record, and
was simply flying below the radar.

In August of 2000, Scheanette is arrested and jailed. By the time the
trial begins, DNA has linked Scheanette to a crime spree including two
murders and five sexual assaults. In January of 2003, Scheanette is
found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death.

Dale Devon Scheanette

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/37367103.html?page=2

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

TEXAS LAST MEAL--DALE DEVON SCHEANETTE--02/10/09...
TEXAS LAST MEAL
DALE DEVON SCHEANETTE
February 10, 2009

...He was known as the "Bathtub Killer."...

Last Meal: Scheanette had a final meal request of two spicy fried
chicken leg quarters, french fries and ketchup and two spicy fried
pork chops...

The skinny: Scheanette, 35, was executed for the killing of an
Arlington woman. He was charged with, but not tried for, the slaying
of a second woman and was blamed for the rapes of at least five other
women.

He was known as the "Bathtub Killer."

More skinny: Scheanette's signature murders occurred at the same
apartment complex in Arlington in 1996 with his victims found in half-
filled bathtubs, strangled, raped and bound with duct tape.

Justice delayed: The slayings went unsolved for more than three years
because detectives couldn't match a fingerprint at the murder scenes
to anyone. Finally, in 1999, Scheanette was arrested for a burglary
outside Dallas and his prints entered into a criminal database were
tied to the killings. It was his first arrest, so it was the first
time he was fingerprinted and entered into the FBI database. DNA then
strengthened the confirmations and also pointed to his involvement in
the other rapes.

After jurors convicted him of capital murder, prosecutors in the
punishment phase of the trial called to the witness stand five women
who testified how they were beaten, threatened and raped by
Scheanette.

Appeals: Scheanette acted as his own lawyer in late appeals. His
sister, acting on his behalf, filed a three-page handwritten motion
Tuesday seeking a reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court. It was turned
down less than an hour before he was taken to the death chamber.

Last words and such:Scheanette speaking from the death chamber gurney
said that "no cases ever tried have been error free." He repeated the
comment. "No cases are error free," he said, then told the warden
standing next to him to proceed.

Nine minutes later, Scheanette was pronounced dead.
TEXAS EXECUTES MORE TRASH! DALE DEVON SCHEANETTE
posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 5:17 PM
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
EX-BATHTUB MURDERER - SEE YA!
Dale Devon Scheanette
Executed February 10, 2009 06:21 p.m. CDT by Lethal Injection in
Texas
Oh, the joys of living in the great State of Texas! Where the 2nd
Amendment is cherished as much as Mom and Apple Pie. Where we have a
strong economy, no state income taxes and yes, we execute more scumbag
killers than the rest of the country combined! That just makes the
Angry White Dude tingly all over!
Tonight serial rapist and murderer Dale Devon Scheanette is going out
much easier than any of his victims. Arlington detective Tommy Lenior
remembered, “The crime scenes were absolutely horrific – brutal and
violent, the worst nightmare for anyone confronted with that kind of
attack. I don’t like to think what the ladies went through.” Dale
Devon, known as the Bathtub Killer, brutally raped and tortured his
victims before drowning them. The AWD only wishes that the fathers of
his victims could meet privately for 30 minutes with Dale Devon before
his execution. My heart and prayers go out to the victim’s families.
This murderous piece of trash also tied up the legal system trying to
weasel his way out of justice. He filed over 14 claims that he had a
unfair trial and in this year alone sent 6 appeals to stop overthrow
his penalty of death. Of course, the usual leftist, liberal bleeding
heart idiots are weeping and moaning about Dale Devon getting his just
due. Take a look at this website devoted to overthrowing the death
penalty. Do you see ONE comment about their sorrow for his victims?
Please feel free to leave your own send-off to Dale Devon:
http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=387384
Here is a pathetic, liberal website trying to find a pen pal for Dale.
You’ll enjoy how he describes himself. Especially what type of woman
he likes (to rape and kill):
http://www.ccadp.org/dalescheanette.htm
Well, enough said. Off to hell for you Dale Devon. Thank heavens you
live in Texas and not Delaware or some other wussy liberal state. The
Lone Star State is more than happy to give you a big ol’ sendoff! Wish
I could be there to share in the fun! See ya! Next?

Summary:
On 17 September 1996, the body of Christine Vu, 26, was found lying
face down in a half-filled bathtub in her Arlington apartment. Her
hands, ankles, and neck were wrapped with duct tape. An autopsy showed
that she had been raped, strangled, and drowned. A fingerprint was
found in her apartment, and a DNA sample was collected during the
autopsy, but this evidence did not lead to any suspects. On 24
December 1996, 20-year-old Wendie Prescott, who lived in the same
apartment complex, was found lying face down in her bathtub. Her neck,
wrists, and ankles were wrapped in duct tape and were all connected
together with a band of duct tape down her back. An autopsy showed
that she had been sexually assaulted and bound in this fashion prior
to her death, which was caused by manual strangulation. Investigators
recovered a high-quality fingerprint from a television stand in
Prescott's apartment, and sperm samples were recovered, but no matches
were returned from law enforcement data bases. The killings, which the
media dubbed the work of the "Bathtub Killer", remained unsolved for
years. In 2000, Arlington police resubmitted the fingerprint and sperm
samples to the FBI, who found a conclusive match with Scheanette.
After his arrest, Scheanette was also connected to the sexual assaults
of four other women in their apartments the Dallas-Fort Worth area
from September 1998 to October 1999. A jury convicted Scheanette of
the capital murder of Wendie Prescott in January 2003 and sentenced
him to death. Scheanette was charged with Vu's murder, but was not
tried.
Citations:
Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503 (Tex.Crim.App.,2004) (Direct
Appeal).
Scheanette v. Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Not Reported in
F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3147874 (N.D.Tex. 2005) (Pro Se).
Scheanette v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 2007) (Habeas).
Final/Special Meal:
Two spicy fried leg quarters, french fries and ketchup and two spicy
fried pork chops.
Final Words:

"My only statement is that no cases ever tried have been error-free.

Those are my words. No cases are error-free." He did not acknowledge
the six witnesses who attended on behalf of his victims.
Internet Sources:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Executed Offenders
(Scheanette)
Inmate: Scheanette, Dale Devon
Date of Birth: 05/07/1973
DR#: 999440
Date Received: 02/06/2003
Education: 12 years
Occupation: machine operator, warehouseman, forklift operator,
laborer
Date of Offense: 12/24/1996
County of Offense: Tarrant
Native County: Ouachita Parish, Louisiana
Race: Hispanic
Gender: Male
Hair Color: Black
Eye Color: Brown
Height: 5' 09"
Weight: 162
Prior Convictions: None
Summary of Incident: On 12/24/1996, in Arlington, Texas, Scheanette
sexually assaulted and strangled a 22 year old black female, resulting
in her death.
Texas Execution Information Center by David Carson.
Dale Devon Scheanette, 35, was executed by lethal injection on 10
February 2009 in Huntsville, Texas for the rape and murder of a woman
in her apartment.
On 17 September 1996, the body of Christine Vu, 26, was found lying
face down in a half-filled bathtub in her Arlington apartment. Her
hands, ankles, and neck were wrapped with duct tape. An autopsy showed
that she had been raped, strangled, and drowned. A fingerprint was
found in her apartment, and a DNA sample was collected during the
autopsy, but this evidence did not lead to any suspects.
On 24 December 1996, Norman and Brenda Norwood became worried when
their 22-year-old niece, Wendie Prescott, failed to show up for a
planned shopping trip with her sister. At around 11:00 p.m., Mr.
Norwood went to Prescott's apartment, which was in the same apartment
complex where Vu's body was found three months earlier. Norwood found
his niece's body lying face down in the bathtub. Her neck, wrists, and
ankles were wrapped in duct tape and were all connected together with
a band of duct tape down her back. An autopsy showed that she had been
sexually assaulted and bound in this fashion prior to her death, which
was caused by manual strangulation. The medical examiner was uncertain
as to whether her immersion in the bathtub contributed to her death.
Investigators recovered a high-quality fingerprint from a television
stand in Prescott's apartment, and sperm samples were recovered, but
no matches were returned from law enforcement data bases.
The killings, which the media dubbed the work of the "Bathtub Killer",
remained unsolved for years. In May 1999, Dale Scheanette was arrested
in Dallas County for criminal mischief. He was convicted and sentenced
to 12 months in jail.
In the summer of 2000, Arlington police resubmitted the fingerprint
from the Prescott murder to the FBI computer system. An FBI analyst
found a conclusive match with Scheanette's fingerprints, which entered
the system in 1999. Scheanette was arrested and a saliva sample was
taken from him. The DNA from Scheanette's saliva was matched to the
DNA from the sperm sample extracted from Prescott's corpse with a
statistical certainty of 1 in 763 million. Scheanette's fingerprint
and DNA evidence were also matched to the samples taken from Vu's
murder.
After his arrest, Scheanette was also connected to the sexual assaults
of four other women in their apartments the Dallas-Fort Worth area
from September 1998 to October 1999.
A jury convicted Scheanette of the capital murder of Wendie Prescott
in January 2003 and sentenced him to death. The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in September
2004. All of his subsequent appeals in state and federal court were
denied.
Scheanette was charged with Vu's murder, but was not tried.
Scheanette declined to speak with reporters while on death row. At his
execution, when asked if he wanted to make a last statement, he
paused, then said, "My only statement is that no cases ever tried have
been error-free. Those are my words. No cases are error-free." He did
not acknowledge the six witnesses who attended on behalf of his
victims. The lethal injection was then started. He was pronounced dead
at 6:21 p.m.
Texas Attorney General
Monday, February 2, 2009
Media Advisory: Devon Scheanette Scheduled To Be Executed
AUSTIN– Devon Scheanette is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 10, 2009, for raping and strangling a woman at her
home in Arlington.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
On December 24, 1996, Norman and Brenda Norwood became worried when
their niece, twenty-two-year-old Wendie Prescott, failed to show up
for a planned shopping trip with her sister. When Prescott had not
called or appeared by 11 that evening, the Norwoods went to Prescott’s
apartment in Arlington and found Prescott’s naked body lying face down
in a partially filled bathtub. Her neck was wrapped in duct tape which
trailed down behind her back to her wrists and ankles, which were also
wrapped in duct tape. Prescott had been sexually assaulted.
An autopsy revealed that Prescott had been manually strangled. The
medical examiner opined that Prescott’s hands had been bound behind
her back prior to her death.
Arlington police found a fingerprint in the dust on the television
stand in the living room of Prescott’s apartment. The print was
submitted to DPS and the FBI for comparison in their data bases, but
no match was returned. However, in the summer of 2000, the print was
resubmitted to the FBI computer system which, through the use of new
technology, led the FBI analyst to conclude that the print found in
Prescott’s apartment matched the known print of Dale Scheanette.
Scheanette was arrested later that day. Fingerprints taken at the time
of arrest matched the print found in Prescott’s apartment, and DNA
samples taken from Scheanette matched semen samples obtained from an
autopsy of Wendie Prescott.
During the punishment phase of Scheanette’s trial, the State linked
Scheanette to five brutal sexual assaults, and one other capital
murder, committed both before and after the Prescott murder.
Scheanette was connected to the September 17, 1996, rape and murder of
26-year-old Christine Vu, whose body was found lying face down in a
half-filled bathtub in her home at the same apartment complex where
Prescott lived. Like Prescott, Vu was naked, with her hands, ankles,
and neck wrapped with duct tape. An autopsy revealed that Vu had been
strangled and drowned. Arlington police matched Scheanette’s
fingerprints to a print found in Vu’s apartment and Scheanette’s DNA
to samples collected during Vu’s autopsy.
Scheanette was also connected to the September 21, 1998, rape of
another woman in her apartment. DNA evidence collected from a sexual
assault investigation matched Scheanette’s DNA samples. Scheanette was
linked to the October 2, 1998, sexual assault of a female Dallas
police officer after she arrived home from work. Scheanette’s DNA
matched DNA samples collected as evidence in the assault on the
officer. The officer lived yards away from the residence of the woman
who was sexually assaulted the prior month.
Scheanette was connected to the December 18, 1998, sexual assault of a
woman at her Lancaster apartment. Scheanette’s DNA sample matched DNA
samples collected as evidence in the assault on the woman. The State
also introduced evidence of a fourth sexual assault committed on
February 23, 1999, against a college student who was attacked after
going to bed for the night. DNA evidence collected during the sexual
assault examination matched the DNA samples taken from Scheanette.
Finally, the State connected Scheanette to the October 26, 1999,
sexual assault of a woman after she had gone to sleep in her
apartment. DNA evidence from the sexual assault examination matched
Sheanette’s DNA sample.
In addition to this evidence, the State introduced testimony that,
while incarcerated awaiting trial, jail guards found concealed in
Scheanette’s cell a triangular piece of plexiglass, which could have
been used as a weapon, and which was prohibited under jail rules.
Finally, the State introduced evidence of a previous burglary
conviction from 1999.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2003, Scheanette was convicted by jury and sentenced to
death by a Tarrant County state district court judge. The Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals affirmed Scheanette’s conviction on September 15,
2004. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Scheanette’s petition for writ of
certiorari on January 10, 2005
On September 23, 2004, the trial court entered findings of fact and
conclusions of law recommending the denial of state habeas. However,
on April 13, 2005, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded
Scheanette’s case to the trial court for the development of additional
facts pertaining to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
While his state application was pending before the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Scheanette filed a federal habeas petition on March
14, 2005, in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was transferred
to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division on August 2,
2005. That district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice so that Scheanette could exhaust all available state
court remedies.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied all relief on November 9,
2005, and reformed its opinion on December 14, 2005.
The federal district court denied Scheanette’s federal habeas petition
on April 10, 2006, and his request for a certificate of appealability
on April 11, 2006. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied
Scheanette’s request for COA on March 26, 2007. An execution date was
set for November 27, 2007, but was withdrawn on October 8, 2007, in
light of the stay of execution issued by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals in In re Heliberto Chi.
Almost two years after the federal district court’s April 10, 2006,
denial of federal habeas corpus relief, Scheanette filed a motion
seeking relief from that court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied this
motion on March 19, 2008. Scheanette filed a second motion for relief,
which the district court denied on April 18, 2008. The district court
denied Scheanette’s third motion on May 23, 2008. Scheanette then
filed, on June 3, 2008, a notice of appeal from the denial of his Rule
60 motion and from all judgments and orders entered by the district
court, and a request for COA to appeal these denials in the Fifth
U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court denied his request
for COA.
Scheanette filed a fourth motion for relief from judgment, which the
district court again denied on July 9, 2008. This was followed by
another notice of appeal and a request for COA, which was denied on
July 15, 2008. Scheanette also filed a third notice of appeal.
Thus, Scheanette currently has three appeals pending before the Fifth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking COA of the district court’s
denial of his Rule 60 motions. All have been consolidated and are
being considered together. After numerous delays in filing (all
attributed to Scheanette), the court has given him until January 26,
2009 to refile a petition for COA which complies with the page and
word-limitations for briefs filed in the Fifth Circuit Court.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY
According to TDCJ website, Scheanette has no prior prison record. •
However, the State connected Scheanette – through DNA evidence – to
five aggravated rapes and one other capital murder. • While in jail,
Scheanette violated jail rules by possessing a triangular piece of
plexiglass which could have been used as a weapon. • Scheanette has a
previous burglary conviction from 1999.
Houston Chronicle
"Texas "Bathtub Killer" executed," by Michael Graczyk. (Associated
Press Feb. 10, 2009, 11:40PM)
HUNTSVILLE, Texas — A Louisiana man whose slayings terrorized a
suburban Dallas-Fort Worth area and earned him the nickname the
"Bathtub Killer" quietly went to his death.
Dale Devon Scheanette, 35, said from the death chamber gurney Tuesday
evening that "no cases ever tried have been error free." He repeated
the comment. "No cases are error free," he said, then told the warden
standing next to him to proceed. Nine minutes later, Scheanette was
pronounced dead.
He was condemned for killing an Arlington woman, Wendie Prescott, was
charged with the slaying of a second woman and was blamed for the
rapes of at least five other women. His signature murders occurred at
the same apartment complex in Arlington in 1996 with his victims found
in half-filled bathtubs, strangled, raped and bound with duct tape.
Prescott, 22, was killed on Christmas Eve in 1996. Scheanette was
charged but not tried for killing Christine Vu, 25, three months
earlier.
Relatives of each woman were among the witnesses to Scheanette's
lethal injection. They declined to speak with reporters. The execution
was the seventh this year in Texas. Another is set for Thursday
evening in the nation's most active death penalty state.
Scheanette acted as his own lawyer in late appeals. His sister, acting
on his behalf, filed a three-page handwritten motion Tuesday seeking a
reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court. It was turned down less than an
hour before he was taken to the death chamber.
The slayings went unsolved for more than three years because
detectives couldn't match a fingerprint at the murder scenes to
anyone. Finally, in 1999, Scheanette was arrested for a burglary
outside Dallas and his prints entered into a criminal database were
tied to the killings. DNA then strengthened the confirmations and also
pointed to his involvement in the other rapes.
"He personifies evil," said Greg Miller, the Tarrant County district
attorney who prosecuted Scheanette in 2003. "I've been doing this 35,
36 years. I've had others who have killed and done bad things. But
he's at the top of the list." Prosecutors and defense lawyers said it
was uncertain what set Scheanette off. Evidence showed that at some
time before the Prescott and Vu killings, the native of Ouachita
Parish in northern Louisiana had lived at the apartment complex where
both women lived and died.
Scheanette declined to speak with reporters as his execution date
neared. At his trial, lawyers tried to show the evidence was
insufficient to convict him. "We brought in his family to show he had
a pretty good family unit and that he got along well," said J.R.
Molina, his trial attorney. "The DNA evidence, the fingerprint
evidence that came in, were very strong. Several other instances of
burglary, break-ins and rapes that he committed, that was pretty
strong evidence to show to a jury."
Prescott's aunt and uncle, concerned when she failed to show up for a
shopping trip with her sister, went to her apartment and found her
dead.
After jurors convicted him of capital murder for the Prescott slaying,
prosecutors in the punishment phase of the trial called to the witness
stand five women who testified how they were beaten, threatened and
raped by Scheanette. "I am convinced that testimony of those five
women was very therapeutic for them," Miller said, describing the
women as crying and hugging one another after leaving the witness
stand. "It was a pretty moving event. ... It was a miracle he didn't
kill any of the other women."
Miller, however, said he was left to wonder how many others Scheanette
may have raped or killed. "The possibility certainly exists," said
Tommy LeNoir, the Arlington homicide detective who investigated the
slayings. "I will tell you this, without reservation, that the right
person is in this position, that the person who took the lives of
these two ladies, I have absolutely no reservation that the person
responsible is Dale Scheanette."
On Thursday, another inmate linked to multiple slayings and rapes was
set to die. Johnny Ray Johnson, 51, was convicted of the 1995 rape-
slaying of Leah Joette Smith, whose head was slammed repeatedly into a
cement street curb in Houston after she refused to have sex with him.
Dallas Morning News
"Texas death row inmate guilty of 1996 Arlington 'bathtub murders' to
be executed," by Debra Dennis. (Monday, February 9, 2009)
ARLINGTON – Police Detective Tommy Le Noir remembers the alarm that
gripped this city in 1996 after two young women were found strangled
in the bathtubs of their east Arlington apartment complex. "There was
a lot of fear in the community and in the Police Department," Le Noir
said. "The fear is that you don't want this to happen again. At that
time there was some incredible panic in those apartment complexes.
People moved out in masses. It was just an incredible time."
Tuesday night, almost 13 years after the crimes, the state plans to
execute 35-year-old Dale Devon Scheanette for the so-called "bathtub
murders" of Wendie Prescott and Christine Vu. On Friday, the Texas
Board of Pardon and Paroles voted unanimously against asking Gov. Rick
Perry to commute Scheanette's death sentence.
Fort Worth attorney Richard Alley, who represented Scheanette on
appeal, said he has not been his attorney for more than a year. "I was
withdrawn at his request," Alley said this week, adding that
Scheanette has since handled his own appeals, which thus far have been
unsuccessful. "I was the lawyer on deck. Then he took over from
there."
4 years later
It took police four years to link Scheanette to the crimes – the
result, Le Noir said, of strong criminal science. A fingerprint was
left at Prescott's apartment, but police could not immediately match
it. Using advanced technology, investigators eventually linked it to
Scheanette. They also matched his fingerprints to a print found in
Vu's apartment. "We strongly suspected it was the same person without
the forensics," Le Noir said. "Eventually we did get a genetic link.
We knew we had the same suspect. We also had, in both cases, some
comparable latent fingerprints at both scenes." Scheanette was also
linked to sexual assaults in Lancaster and at the University of Texas
at Arlington. But it was the macabre slayings that drew the public's
attention – and fear.
Prescott, 22, and Vu, 26, were neighbors of Scheanette's at the
Peartree apartments. On Christmas Eve 1996, Prescott had planned a
shopping trip with her sister. When her family didn't hear from her,
an uncle went to her apartment. There, he found Prescott naked in a
partially filled bathtub. Her wrists and feet were tied with duct tape
and she had been strangled and raped, police said. Prescott's slaying
came three months after Vu, an elementary school teacher, was found
dead inside her apartment. She, too, had been raped and strangled and
left in her bathtub.
Brenda Norwood, Prescott's aunt, said she hopes Scheanette has come to
terms with his crimes and accepted responsibility for his actions. "I
hope he asks God to forgive him to save his soul," said Norwood, of
Mansfield. "I had to forgive because I can't live with that. I can't
hate him for what he did because that would not bring Wendie back. You
have to move on."
Norwood said her niece worked as a teacher's aide at Erma Nash
Elementary in Mansfield, but she also was enrolled in a beauty
college. She loved to dress up and spend time with her family and
friends, her aunt said. "Wendie was a beautiful young lady," Norwood
said. "She was always hugging people. She was very affectionate. She
loved people, not things. She treated people the way she wanted to be
treated."
Witnessing execution
Norwood said she and the rest of Prescott's family have no plans to
attend Scheanette's execution. "I have no desire to go down and
witness that because that will not enhance my life at all," she said.
"You have to let the law of the land prevail."
But Vu's family said that they will be there. Not for revenge against
her killer, but to honor her life. "Most of us, we have had closure,"
said Dr. Kim Kuo, Vu's sister who said she plans to witness the
execution. "We've accepted [Christine's death], but I will go mainly
to bear witness for her."
Kuo said the family is proud that her sister was able to achieve her
lifetime goal of becoming an educator. Vu was a third-grade teacher at
Moore Elementary in Arlington. As a child, Kuo said, Vu frequently
placed their younger siblings in front of a chalkboard, taking charge
of their lessons. "She loved children," Kuo said. "I wished she had
had a chance to have her own kids."
ProDeathPenalty.com
On Christmas Eve of 1996, Norman and Brenda Norwood became worried
about their 22-year-old niece, Wendie Prescott, a teaching assistant,
when she failed to show-up for a planned shopping trip with her
sister. Around 11:00 p.m., Norman went to Wendie's apartment, only to
discover her naked body lying face down in a partially filled bathtub.
Her neck, hands and feet were tied in duct tape, which trailed from
her neck down behind her back to her hands and feet. The medical
examiner believed that she had been bound in this fashion prior to
death. The autopsy revealed that Wendie had been manually strangled,
with the possibility that her immersion in the tub also played a role
in her death. A sexual assault examination was conducted and sperm
samples collected and preserved for DNA testing. Though investigators
found a high-quality dust print at the apartment, initial comparisons
yielded no matches.
In 1999, DNA evidence from the murder was matched to evidence from a
sexual assault at the University of Texas at Arlington and from a rape
in Grand Prairie. In the summer of 2000, the print from Wendie's
apartment was resubmitted to the FBI computer system, which, through
the use of new technology, was able to narrow the list of possible
matches. One of the matches scored over 2500 points, almost 1000
points more than the next highest score. A FBI analyst concluded the
print found in Wendie's apartment matched the known print of Dale
Devon Scheanette who had been arrested for a De Soto burglary in
March, 1999. It was Scheanette's first arrest, so it was the first
time he was fingerprinted and entered into the FBI database. After
obtaining a search warrant, officers obtained saliva samples from
Scheanette. DNA testing matched the DNA extracted from these samples
to the DNA extracted from Wendie Prescott's corpse with a statistical
certainty of one in 763 million.
At the punishment phase of Scheanette's trial, the State connected
Scheanette to yet another capital murder, that of 26-year-old teacher,
Christine Vu. Three months before Wendie's murder, Christine's body
was found bound with duct tape, naked and in a half-filled bathtub in
the same apartment complex that Wendie lived in, The Peartree
Apartments. Scheanette lived in the same complex but moved out before
Wendie's murder, had no criminal record and no connection to either
victim, so he was not considered a suspect. The State also tied
Scheanette to five brutal sexual assaults.
The State also introduced evidence that, while incarcerated awaiting
trial, jail guards found concealed in Scheanette's cell a contraband
triangular piece of plexiglass that could have been used as a weapon.
Finally, the State introduced evidence of a burglary conviction from
1999.
During the punishment phase, various family members and a chaplain
testified on Scheanette's behalf. In January 2003, a Texas jury
deliberated for an hour and a half before they convicted Scheanette of
capital murder and sentenced him to death for the murder of Wendie
Prescott while in the course of committing or attempting to commit
sexual assault on her.
Prosecutors began the punishment phase with testimony from women whom
Scheanette is accused of raping. Authorities say DNA evidence links
him to their assaults. One woman described how the sound of breathing
in her Grand Prairie apartment in October 1999 awakened her. She
testified that a man raped her at gunpoint. "I was pregnant," the
woman testified. "I prayed for God not to forsake me." As her attacker
was leaving, she asked him why he raped her. "He said, 'I don't know.
I'm mad at the world,' " she testified. Another woman described a
brutal rape at her Lancaster apartment in December 1998. The woman
testified that she fought back, which enraged her attacker enough that
he kicked down her bedroom door. Her 2-year-old son pleaded with the
man, "Let my mom go!" as he slapped the man's legs, she testified.
Scheanette also raped a police officer at her Lancaster apartment. The
officer told jurors that she was in uniform at a gas station in 1995
or 1996 when Scheanette befriended her and said he lived in a nearby
Lancaster apartment complex. She testified that the two spoke several
times by phone over the next six months but never dated, because she
"had a bad vibe." Scheanette often referred to himself as a "jack of
all trades" during their conversations, she testified. In October
1998, as her attacker used her handcuffs to restrain her after he
assaulted her, she asked him how he got into her apartment. "He said
he was a 'jack of all trades,' " the woman testified. "When I heard
that, I thought, 'Was that him?' " She later told authorities about
the connection. Members of Christine's family said they were pleased
with the guilty verdict.
"The person responsible has been convicted," her brother, Hiep Vu,
said. "We feel he is responsible for Christine's murder as well. We've
waited six years for this." Thang Khuu waited six years to face the
man accused of raping and killing his fiancée — Christine Vu, a third-
grade teacher at Morton Elementary School in Arlington. "I want the
guy to look me in the eye and to see what he did to me," said Khuu,
who still carries a photo of Christine in his wallet. "I have waited
to see someone go through a trial for this. The crime is
unforgivable." Thang Khuu found Christine's body in their apartment,
and was questioned as a possible suspect. He volunteered to provide
hair and saliva samples for DNA testing and was cleared. At Morton
Elementary School in Arlington, where Vu taught for several years,
fellow teacher JoAnna Robbins still wonders why her friend was killed.
Scheanette's arrest did not erase the pain but brought a sense of
closure, Robbins said. This case was profiled on an episode of A&E's
Cold Case Files.
Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Dale Scheanette - Texas Death Row
I would like for you to know that I love kids and animal wild life as
well to cook (French), read a lot, believe in God, fishing, music -
classic rock, rap and country... I like to be competitive sports, I
like to travel around country, go out to clubs, picnic, family-
orientated. I especially believe education is important for all. I
like flowers, I like to look at dream homes, gardens, I like to
listen… I love to pick my girlfriend’s clothes as well as shoes, nail
color, and toe nail polish color. I like women of all races, as well
as people, I like to go on family vacations, Oprah, my favorite book:
“Old Yeller”, second “Where the Red Fern Grows”, and third “Julius
Caesar. I like to read the Bible in whole, every year…
Wishes/Desires/Likes/Dislikes…
First to learn to type better, get more education, hug my kids, take
my sons fishing, to go on safari hunt, not to kill - to see animals,
go to Brazil, train dogs, cars, loud music, wood working, to leave
this hell hole on death row, get a better relationship with God, own
my own business, go to car shows & dog shows, swim, get married again
have a family. I’m easy to get along with, like movies, I love all
women but I have a like for mix breed women (red), I’m pretty much bi-
racial towards people I talk to, wish I could change the world-to end
racism, teach people the importance of life, I would dove to go to a
Pat Benetar concert as well as Match Box Twenty, love to go out with
the Everlast ad girl in the Source Magazine September issue 2003 page
128 But hey I’m just me, you treat me with respect, I’m cool, I can
get along with all people regardless of race or religion, go to
Indonesia, there are so many things that I would like to do, I can’t
name all of them… I love soccer, baseball, I no longer like boxing, I
don’t like how the state of Texas is denying us (capital defendants)
equal protection, I like to go scuba diving, I would love to go on a
cruise, go to a beach with white sand, I’d love to paint my cell sky
blue with stained wood siding and a little stucco as well, but to be
serious this is not a good place for no one, I love to go to Niagara
Falls, go to France, I wished I could live in the country with a big
ranch full of cows and horses and chickens etc…
Dale's Penpal Request From Lamp of Hope : http://www.lampofhope.org/999440.html
Hello,My name is Dale Devon Scheanette, 29 years old. I’m an Acadian
(aka Cajun) from Monroe, Louisiana. I am currently a Texas Death Row
inmate. I have been here for only a few days. I’m looking for a pen
pal to communicate with through the mail. I’m in my cell twenty three
hours a day with no one to talk to. I have no TV. I’m looking for
someone who understands my situation, someone to just correspond with
me. All races accepted (Note: would really like to especially
communicate with a penfriend from Mid East or North Africa, India,
Pakistan, Brazil etc.). There are no strings attached in order to
correspond with me. I’m waiting to hear from you.
Dale Scheanette #999440
Polunsky Unit
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston TEXAS 77351
Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503 (Tex.Crim.App.,2004) (Direct
Appeal).
Background: Defendant was convicted by jury in the Criminal District
Court No. 4, Tarrant County, Mark Kent, J., trial court of capital
murder and was sentenced to death.
Holdings: On automatic direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals,
Meyers, J., held that: (1) defendant was not entitled to ask
prospective jurors during voir dire whether they could consider and
give full deliberation to parole board requirements for release on
parole; (2) jury instruction on punishment telling jury to consider
all the evidence when considering mitigation was error; (3) error was
harmless; (4) defendant was not entitled to jury instruction linking
findings on future dangerousness to findings on mitigation; and (5)
record was insufficient to support claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Affirmed.
In January 2003, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder. Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2). Pursuant to the jury's answers to the
special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
37.071, §§ 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to
death. Art. 37.071, § 2(g).FN1 Direct appeal to this Court is
automatic. Art. 37.071, § 2(h). Appellant raises eight points of error
with two subpoints but does not challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence at either stage of trial.FN2 We affirm.
FN1. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Articles refer to
the Code of Criminal Procedure. FN2. After counsel filed a brief on
appellant's behalf, appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised
twenty-six additional points of error, including several sub-points.
Appellant also filed documents setting forth corrections to his
original brief and adding numerous additional points of error.
Appellant does not have a right to hybrid representation. Patrick v.
State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S.
1106, 116 S.Ct. 1323, 134 L.Ed.2d 475 (1996); Lockhart v. State, 847
S.W.2d 568, 569 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 849,
114 S.Ct. 146, 126 L.Ed.2d 108 (1993). Neither does he have a
constitutional right to represent himself on direct appeal. Martinez
v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S.
152, 163-64, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). Thus, we will not
address any of appellant's pro se points.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY STATUTE
In point of error two, appellant claims that the mitigation issue is
unconstitutional because it fails to require the trial court to
instruct the jury that the State bears the burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt on the mitigation issue. Appellant relies upon
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435
(2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d
556 (2002), to support his position. We have previously addressed and
rejected this argument. Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 386
(Tex.Crim.App.2004). Point of error two is overruled.
Appellant claims in his fifth point of error that the Texas death-
penalty scheme is unconstitutional under the Fifth and Eighth
Amendments “because it leads the State to execute an unacceptable
number of innocent defendants.” He further asserts that, under the
cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, “the
constitutionality of the death penalty must be determined and
redetermined by the courts in keeping with evolving standards of
decency and current knowledge about its operation.”
While the execution of an innocent person might violate federal due
process and be considered cruel and unusual punishment, appellant does
not claim that he is innocent. He therefore fails to demonstrate that
his due process rights or his right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment have been violated by application of our death-penalty
statute. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d
203 (1993); Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).
Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled.
Appellant complains in his sixth point of error that the Texas death-
penalty statute under which he was sentenced violates the Eighth
Amendment as interpreted in Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 121 S.Ct.
1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001)(“Penry II”), because the mitigation
instruction sends “mixed signals” to jurors. This Court has previously
addressed and rejected this claim. Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 790
(Tex.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 2836, 159
L.Ed.2d 270 (2004). Point of error six is overruled.
VOIR DIRE
In his eighth point of error, appellant alleges that the trial court
erred in restricting voir dire on the issue of parole. Specifically,
appellant wanted to inform the prospective jurors that two-thirds of
the members of the parole board must vote in favor of releasing an
inmate on parole, after first receiving a copy of a report on the
probability that the inmate would commit another offense upon release.
See Tex. Gov't Code § 508.046. Appellant then wanted to ask them
whether they could “consider and give full deliberation to the parole
board requirements for release on parole.” Appellant also sought to
question the prospective jurors about whether they could consider the
parole board release information when deliberating and answering the
special issues. He argues that recent legislative changes open the
door for full consideration by the jury of any procedures relating to
parole and the parole board. Art. 37.071, § 2(e)(2)(B).
This precise issue was raised in Hankins, 132 S.W.3d at 384. In that
case, this Court reiterated that it has historically held that parole
is not a proper matter for jury consideration. Id. We recognized that
the Legislature amended Article 37.071, effective September 1, 1999,
to provide that a jury may now be instructed on a capital defendant's
eligibility for parole, however, we held that this provision was
narrowly drawn and did not render every aspect of parole law an issue
for jury consideration.FN3 Hankins, 132 S.W.3d at 385. We further held
that:
FN3. Article 37.071 was amended as follows: Under the law applicable
in this case, if the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment in the
institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for
life, the defendant will become eligible for release on parole, but
not until the actual time served by the defendant equals 40 years,
without consideration of any good conduct time. It cannot accurately
be predicted how the parole laws might be applied to this defendant if
the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life because
the application of those laws will depend on decisions made by prison
and parole authorities, but eligibility for parole does not guarantee
that parole will be granted.
Art. 37.071 § 2(e)(2)(B). The provision expressly discourages
speculation on the parole process by providing that application of the
parole laws cannot be accurately predicted “because the application of
those laws will depend on decisions made by prison and parole
authorities.” [Citation omitted.] The legislature could have written
the 1999 amendments more broadly to impart more information but chose
not to. Accordingly, precedent maintaining that parole is not a proper
issue for jury consideration remains in effect except to the extent
explicitly provided for in Article 37.071 § 2(e)(2)(B). Hankins, 132
S.W.3d at 385. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by
refusing to allow appellant to voir dire the prospective jurors as
requested. Point of error eight is overruled.
CHARGE ISSUES
In points of error one and one-A, appellant asserts that the trial
court erred when it “judicially amended [the mitigation issue] by
grafting the evidentiary requirements of [the future dangerousness
issue] onto the mitigation issue.” He asserts that this error in the
charge rendered the death-penalty statute unconstitutional as applied
to him and violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Specifically, appellant
complains of the following instruction given in the punishment
charge:
In deliberating on Special Issue No. 1 [future dangerousness] and
Special Issue No. 2 [mitigation], the Jury shall consider all the
evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence phase and the punishment
phase, including evidence of the defendant's background or character
or circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates
against imposition of the death penalty.
Appellant claims that the judge's change in the statutory language
improperly allowed the jury to consider evidence supporting a death
sentence as well as evidence mitigating against a death sentence when
answering the mitigation issue. Thus, appellant claims his “vehicle
for consideration of mitigation evidence [was] a legal shell void of a
legitimate opportunity for a jury to grant ‘mercy’ in the context of a
capital-murder sentencing.” In other words, appellant argues that
Article 37.071, § 2(e)(1) requires the jurors to be informed that when
deliberating on the mitigation issue, they should consider only that
evidence that mitigates against imposition of the death penalty, as
opposed to the charge that was given that instructed them to consider
aggravating as well as mitigating evidence.
Appellant is correct that the judge slightly amended the statutory
language when he included this instruction in the charge. Article
37.071, § 2(d)(1) requires a trial court to charge the jury that: in
deliberating on the [future dangerousness and anti-parties] issues ...
it shall consider all evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence
stage and the punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant's
background or character or the circumstances of the offense that
militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death
penalty.
The trial court's amendment to the language of this instruction made
it apply when the jury was deliberating on the mitigating issue as
well as on the future dangerousness issue. Although this was an
incorrect recitation of the statute, appellant failed to object to its
inclusion in the charge. Thus, the record would have to show that
appellant suffered egregious harm from any error in the instruction in
order for this case to be reversed. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157,
171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)(op. on reh'g).
Article 37.071, § 2(e)(1) directs the court to instruct the jury to
“tak[e] into consideration all of the evidence” when determining
whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstance to warrant the
imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. This language was given
to the jury. By its plain language, the statute requires the jury to
look at all of the evidence and not just evidence a juror might
consider to be mitigating. For example, victim-impact evidence may be
relevant to counteract the mitigating evidence the defendant is
entitled to introduce. See, e.g., Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 536
(Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1840, 146
L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). Following appellant's analysis, none of this
evidence would be admissible because it would be rendered irrelevant.
This is not the law. Because the jury is entitled to consider all of
the evidence, any improper addition to the language in the instruction
did not harm appellant. Points of error one and one-A are overruled.
In points of error seven and seven-A, appellant claims that the trial
court erred at punishment in failing to submit to the jury two charges
he requested. Specifically, appellant asserts that the court should
have submitted the following: 1. In answering [the mitigation issue],
you are instructed to disregard any finding you made beyond a
reasonable doubt against the mitigation issue related to [the future
dangerousness issue]. In considering [the mitigation issue], you may
not consider any negative finding previously made on the issue of
mitigation. 2. To release on parole an inmate who is convicted of a
capital felony who must serve 40 calendar years before becoming
eligible for release on parole, all members of the board must vote on
the release on parole of the inmate and at least two-thirds of the
members must vote in favor of the release on parole. A member of the
board may not vote on the release unless the member first receives a
copy of a written report from the department on the probability that
the inmate would commit an offense after being released on parole.
During your deliberations, you will not consider or discuss any
possible action of the Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Governor.
The future dangerousness question asks the jury to consider all of the
evidence, including factors that a jury may consider aggravating, to
determine whether there is a probability that a defendant will
continue to commit criminal acts of violence which constitute a threat
to society. The jury is also permitted, although not required, to
consider this same evidence when deliberating on the mitigation issue.
Hankins, 132 S.W.3d at 385; Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 263 n. 18
(Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 1466, 143
L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). However, the factfinder's purpose differs when
considering evidence in the context of each respective issue. Hankins,
132 S.W.3d at 385. In the context of the future dangerousness
question, the jury considers all of the evidence in order to determine
whether to “impose” the death penalty, whereas, in the context of the
mitigation issue, the jury considers the evidence in order to
determine whether the jury should “decline to impose” the death
penalty. Hankins, 132 S.W.3d at 385-86. An affirmative finding on the
future dangerousness question does not necessarily compel a negative
answer on the mitigation question. Id. The trial court did not err in
refusing the first requested issue.
Further, the trial court did not err in refusing the second requested
issue. With the exception of the instruction explicitly set out in
Article 37.071, § 2(e)(2)(B), parole is otherwise not a proper issue
for jury consideration in capital cases. Id. The court's punishment
charge tracked the Article 37.071, § 2(e)(2)(B) statutory language.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's
requested charge. FN4 Points of error seven and seven-A are
overruled.
FN4. Appellant also complains that the capital-punishment statute
allows a jury to give full consideration to parole, in contrast to the
noncapital-punishment statute which admonishes the jury that they are
“not to consider the manner in which the parole law may be applied to
this particular defendant” and provides that “evidence on the
operation of parole and good conduct time laws” is not permitted.
Compare Art. 37.071 with Art. 37.07. We do not address this argument
since he did not complain about the charge on this basis at trial.
Tex.R.App. Proc. 33.1.
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Appellant asserts in his third point of error that trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by presenting punishment
testimony “that established ... beyond a reasonable doubt” that he was
a continuing threat to society. Specifically, appellant complains
about the testimony of defense psychologist Gilda Kessner. Based upon
studies of violence in the penitentiary setting, various statistical
values, and extrapolation from the various data sources, Kessner
testified that there was an “18.8% chance” that appellant would commit
acts of violence in the penitentiary.
In his fourth point of error, appellant contends that his counsel
rendered ineffective assistance when counsel presented testimony from
S.O. Woods, the former assistant director of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), that
“delegitimatized a capital life sentence as a viable sentencing
option.” Woods generally testified about how inmates are classified at
TDCJ-ID. He also offered testimony on how he expected appellant to be
classified. The State then used cross-examination to establish that a
wide range of weapons are available to the inmates in the penitentiary
system, and the penitentiary does not guarantee a violence-free
environment.
The proper standard for reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim was established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104
S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and adopted by this Court in
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). Under
Strickland, an appellant must first demonstrate that his trial
counsel's performance was deficient. Secondly, he must show that his
counsel's deficient performance was so serious that it prejudiced his
defense, rendering the trial unfair and the verdict suspect.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506
U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Appellate review of
defense counsel's representation is highly deferential and presumes
that counsel's actions fell within the wide range of reasonable and
professional assistance. Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833
(Tex.Crim.App.2002); Chambers v. State, 903 S.W.2d 21, 33
(Tex.Crim.App.1995). The analysis is undertaken in light of the
“totality of the representation” rather than by examining isolated
acts or omissions of trial counsel. Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d
542, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct.
1590, 94 L.Ed.2d 779 (1987). The fact that another attorney may have
pursued a different tactic at trial is insufficient to prove a claim
of ineffective assistance. McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 844
(Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 963, 113 S.Ct. 2937, 124
L.Ed.2d 686 (1993).
Under most circumstances, the record on direct appeal will not be
sufficient to show that counsel's representation was so deficient and
so lacking in tactical or strategic decision-making as to overcome the
strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonable and
professional. Bone, 77 S.W.3d at 833. As this Court recently
explained, rarely will the trial record contain sufficient information
to permit a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of such a
serious allegation: “[i]n the majority of cases, the record on direct
appeal is simply undeveloped and cannot adequately reflect the
failings of trial counsel.” Id. A reviewing court can frequently
speculate on both sides of an issue, but ineffective assistance claims
are not built on retrospective speculation; rather, they must “be
firmly founded in the record.” Id.
From the information available to us, we can only speculate as to why
counsel acted or failed to act as they did. Id.; Ex parte Torres, 943
S.W.2d 469, 475 (Tex.Crim.App.1997); Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768,
771 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Without more, we must presume that counsel
acted pursuant to a reasonable trial strategy. Id. Points of error
three and four are overruled.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. WOMACK, J., concurs.
Scheanette v. Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Not Reported in
F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3147874 (N.D.Tex. 2005) (Pro Se).
Scheanette v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 2007) (Habeas).
Background: Following affirmance of state conviction for capital
murder and sentence of death, and exhaustion of state post-conviction
remedies, state prison inmate sought federal habeas relief. The United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, John H.
McBryde, J., 2006 WL 929334, denied petition, and denied request for
certificate of appealability (COA). Inmate applied for COA before
Court of Appeals.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, W. Eugene Davis, Circuit Judge, held
that: (1) defense attorney did not engage in ineffective assistance at
penalty phase by introducing expert evidence related to future
dangerousness; (2) Fourteenth Amendment claim arising from alleged
misstatement of law in mitigation instruction was procedurally barred;
(3) no prejudice resulted from alleged misstatement of law in
mitigation instruction; (4) “all evidence” mitigation instruction did
not violate Eighth Amendment; (5) future dangerousness instruction was
not impermissibly vague; and (6) state's treatment of mitigation issue
did not violate Sixth Amendment. Motion denied.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
Convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, Dale Devon
Scheanette (“Scheanette”) petitions for a Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”) from the district court's denial of federal habeas corpus
relief. Because we find that reasonable jurists could not debate the
propriety of the district court's decisions regarding Scheanette's
multiple alleged constitutional errors, we deny Scheanette's
application for a COA.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The district court summarized the facts in its opinion denying
Scheanette's habeas corpus petition as follows:
On Christmas Eve of 1996, Norman and Brenda Norwood became worried
about their twenty-year old niece, Wendie Prescott, when she failed to
show-up for a planned shopping trip with her sister. Around 11:00
p.m., Norman went to Prescott's apartment, only to discover her naked
body lying face down in a partially filled bathtub. Her neck, hands
and feet were tied in duct tape, which trailed from her neck down
behind her back to her hands and feet. The medical examiner believed
that she had been bound in this fashion prior to death. The autopsy
revealed that Prescott had been manually strangled, with the
possibility that her immersion in the tub also played a role in her
death. A sexual assault examination was conducted and sperm samples
collected and preserved for DNA testing.
Though investigators found a high-quality dust print at Prescott's
apartment, initial comparisons yielded no matches. In the summer of
2000, however, the print was resubmitted to the FBI computer system,
which, through the use of new technology, was able to narrow the list
of possible matches. One of the matches scored over 2500 points,
almost a 1000 points more than the next highest score. A FBI analyst
concluded the print found in Prescott's apartment matched the known
print of Scheanette. This conclusion was later confirmed by two
Arlington investigators. After obtaining a search warrant, officers
obtained saliva samples from Scheanette. DNA testing matched the DNA
extracted from these samples to the DNA extracted from Prescott's
corpse with a statistical certainty of one in 763 million.
At the punishment phase, the State connected Scheanette to yet another
capital murder, that of twenty-six year old Christine Vu. [The State
also tied Scheanette to five brutal sexual assaults.]The State also
introduced evidence that, while incarcerated awaiting trial, jail
guards found concealed in Scheanette's cell a contraband triangular
piece of plexiglass that could have been used as a weapon. Finally,
the State introduced evidence of a burglary conviction from 1999.
During the punishment phase, various family members and a chaplain
testified on Scheanette's behalf. A retired employee of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, S.O. Woods, also testified concerning
the security measures taken in prison for handling violent inmates.
Finally, Dr. Gilda Kessner testified concerning Scheanette's future
dangerousness.FN1. Scheanette v. Dretke, No. 4:05-CV-718-A, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 2006 WL 929334 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 10, 2006).
In January 2003, a Texas jury convicted Scheanette of capital murder
and sentenced him to death for the murder of Wendi Prescott while in
the course of committing or attempting to commit sexual assault on
her. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the “TCCA”) affirmed
Scheanette's conviction and sentence. FN2 The Supreme Court denied
Scheanette's pro se petition for writ of certiorari in January
2005.FN3 FN2. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).
FN3. Scheanette v. Texas, 543 U.S. 1059, 125 S.Ct. 872, 160 L.Ed.2d
785 (2005).
Scheanette subsequently initiated state habeas proceedings. The trial
court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending the
denial of state habeas relief. However, on April 13, 2005, the TCCA
remanded Scheanette's case to the trial court for the development of
additional facts pertaining to his ineffective assistance of counsel
claims.FN4. Ex parte Scheanette, No. WR-59,466-01, 2005 WL 913120
(Tex.Crim.App. Apr.13, 2005).
While his state application was pending before the TCCA, Scheanette
filed a pro se federal habeas petition in the Eastern District of
Texas. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas. The
district court granted Director Dretke's motion to dismiss without
prejudice so that Scheanette could exhaust all available state court
remedies.FN5. Scheanette v. Dretke, No. 4:05-CV-489-A (N.D.Tex. Aug.
25, 2005).
After the TCCA denied all habeas relief,FN6 Scheanette filed a federal
habeas petition in the district court. The district court denied
relief. FN7 Scheanette filed a notice of appeal, which the district
court construed as a request for certificate of appealability (“COA”),
which was denied.FN8 Scheanette now petitions this court directly for
a COA. FN6. Ex parte Scheanette, No. WR-59,466-01, 2005 WL 3429304
(Tex.Crim.App. Dec.14, 2005). FN7. Scheanette v. Dretke, No. 4:05-
CV-718-A, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2006 WL 929334 (N.D.Tex. Apr.
10, 2006). FN8. Scheanette v. Dretke, No. 4:05-CV-718-A, Order
(N.D.Tex. Apr. 11, 2006).
* * *
III. DISCUSSION
Scheanette requests a COA on seven separate claims. We review the
claims in turn.
A. Claims One and Two
Scheanette argues that his defense counsel were constitutionally
ineffective because they called two punishment phase witnesses, Dr.
Gilda Kessner (“Dr. Kessner”) and S.O. Woods (“Woods”), whose
testimony provided little or no benefit to the petitioner, but rather
helped the State establish his future dangerousness.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Scheanette must
satisfy the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington.FN21
First, Scheanette must show that his counsel's performance was
deficient.FN22 We determine whether counsel's performance was
deficient “by examining whether the challenged representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness.”FN23 “ Strickland does
not allow second guessing of trial strategy and must be applied with
keen awareness that this is an after-the-fact inquiry.”FN24 Therefore,
Scheanette must overcome a strong presumption that his counsel's
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
assistance.FN25
FN21. 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). FN22.
Id. FN23. Cotton v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 746, 752 (5th Cir.2003) (citing
Kitchens v. Johnson, 190 F.3d 698, 701 (5th Cir.1999)). FN24. Granados
v. Quarterman, 455 F.3d 529, 534 (5th Cir.2006). FN25. Strickland, 466
U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
To prevail, Scheanette must also show that his counsel's deficient
performance was prejudicial, i.e., that the errors were so serious as
to “deprive [him] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is
reliable.”FN26 But because, as will be discussed immediately below, no
reasonable jurist could debate the district court's conclusion that
Scheanette's counsel rendered adequate performance, we will not
consider whether the alleged errors Scheanette relies on could have
prejudiced his defense. FN26. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
In light of the horrendous evidence the state produced against
Scheanette, defense counsel sought to offer mitigating evidence to
support an argument that Scheanette would not pose a future danger if
given a life sentence. Counsel presented testimony from Scheanette's
sister, Scheanette's mother, and a chaplain concerning positive
evidence of Scheanette's background and character. Defense counsel
also presented the testimony of Dr. Kessner regarding risk assessment
evidence, which focused on the statistically low probability of prison
violence. In defense counsel's “strategic view, evidence, such as risk
assessment, that focused on statistically low prison violence, would
enhance [the] theme that the jury would not have to kill”
Scheanette.FN27 On direct examination, Dr. Kessner testified that
there was an 18.8% chance that Scheanette would commit acts of
violence in prison, which was just over the standard base rate of
16.4% for all individuals serving life sentences for murder. Dr.
Kessner also testified concerning Scheanette's decreased risk factors,
such as his age, and remarked on Scheanette's good family support
network, average intelligence, and vocational ability. Dr. Kessner
noted that Scheanette was among other inmates when he was in county
jail, and he did not exhibit assaultive behavior. In its closing
arguments, the State argued that the 18.8% figure provided by Dr.
Kessner is a “ probability that the defendant would commit criminal
acts of violence,” as required by Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
37.071, § 2(b); and therefore, the jurors “know what the answer to the
[future dangerousness] question is.” FN27. Affidavit of defense
counsel, David A. Pearson.
As additional mitigation evidence, defense counsel presented the
testimony of Woods regarding institutional evidence, which emphasized
the heightened security provided for prisoners such as Scheanette.
Defense counsel “concurred with the leading capital litigators that
Woods would appeal well to a practical juror who would be impressed
with the professional expertise of the Institutional Division at
controlling life sentenced offenders.”FN28 On direct examination,
Woods generally testified about how inmates are classified at the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). He also testified that,
if sentenced to life in prison, Scheanette would likely be assigned to
a high-risk “level-five” security institution. The State then used
cross-examination to establish that a wide range of weapons are
available to the inmates in the penitentiary system, and the
penitentiary does not guarantee a violence-free environment. The
prosecutor also elicited testimony that a shank found in Scheanette's
cell at the Dallas County jail is a stabbing/puncture instrument.FN29
On re-direct, Woods testified that the shank led to a disciplinary
infraction which must be reported under state law when Scheanette is
transferred such that the classification committee would take it into
consideration. FN28. Affidavit of defense counsel, David A. Pearson.
FN29. Scheanette also complains of the following testimony elicited on
cross-examination:
Q. [The Prosecutor]: From your review of the reports, did it appear to
you that Dale Scheanette had exercised a level of planning in each of
these cases? A. [Woods]: Very much so. Q. [The Prosecutor]: Just like
the Texas Seven? A. [Woods]: Very similar.
The TCCA reviewed these claims on direct appeal and found the record
insufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
FN30 In reaching its conclusion, the TCCA presumed that defense
counsel acted pursuant to a reasonable trial strategy. On state habeas
review, the convicting court made findings of fact and conclusions of
law concerning Scheanette's allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel and found that defense counsel had “sound and strategic
tactical reasons for introducing” the expert testimony of Woods and
Dr. Kessner. The TCCA adopted all of the trial judge's findings and
conclusions.FN31
FN30. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d at 510. FN31. Ex parte
Scheanette, No. WR-59466-01, 2005 WL 3429304.
After considering Scheanette's arguments, the federal district court
also denied relief, concluding that Scheanette failed to meet either
Strickland prong. Regarding deficient performance, the court concluded
that trial counsel objectively employed a reasonable strategy and it
was “at a loss as to what other types of evidence ... counsel could
have introduced on his behalf to rebut the existing evidence as to his
future dangerousness,” given the State's evidence establishing
Scheanette as a brutal murderer and serial rapist.
The state court reasonably concluded that Scheanette's defense counsel
did not render ineffective assistance by offering the punishment phase
testimony of Woods and Dr. Kessner. “[S]trategic choices made after
thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options
are virtually unchallengeable.”FN32 In light of the thorough
investigation conducted by Scheanette's trial counsel,FN33 we conclude
that these carefully considered tactical decisions introduced at the
punishment phase were objectively reasonable. Scheanette has not
demonstrated that the state court's decision is contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Accordingly, the district court's assessment was not debatable.
FN32. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d
471 (2003) (internal citation and quotations omitted). FN33. For
example, defense counsel employed a mitigation specialist, and
obtained mental health and juvenile records in an attempt to uncover
potential mitigation evidence. Defense counsel Pearson attended a
seminar focused on presenting risk assessment evidence and personally
observed the use of such risk assessment evidence in capital cases. In
addition, a featured speaker at the seminar recommended that
litigators present the institutional evidence offered by Woods and
Pearson knew that two defense attorneys had been successful in
obtaining a life sentence in a death penalty case using similar
evidence. In preparation for Woods's testimony, Pearson read a
transcript of Woods's testimony in another capital case and also
personally observed Woods's testimony in a capital case.
B. Claim Three
For the first time, Scheanette argues that his defense counsel were
ineffective for failing to object to an instruction limiting the
statutory effect of the mitigation special issue.FN34. Specifically,
the jury was instructed that: In deliberating on Special Issue No. 1
and Special Issue No. 2, the Jury shall consider all of the evidence
admitted at the guilt or innocence phase and the punishment phase,
including evidence of the defendant's background or character or
circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against
imposition of the death penalty.
We need not consider whether jurists of reason would find the district
court's resolution of this issue debatable because Scheanette did not
first raise this claim in the district court.FN35 We have stated that
“[a] district court must deny the COA before a petitioner can request
one from this court.” FN36 Thus, prior to appellate review, the
district court must “deny COA as to each issue presented by the
applicant.”FN37 Because Scheanette failed to seek a COA from the
district court on this issue, we will not consider the issue.FN38
FN35. See Brewer v. Quarterman, 466 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.2006).
FN36. Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1998) (internal
citation and quotations omitted). FN37. Id. FN38. Scheanette's claim
also fails on the merits because the two-prong Strickland test is not
satisfied. Assuming that prong one of Strickland is satisfied by trial
counsel's failure to object to the instruction, Scheanette was not
prejudiced because the instruction gave adequate guidance to the jury
to consider both aggravating and mitigating evidence when determining
its response to the special issues.
C. Claim Four
In his fourth claim, Scheanette argues that the trial court violated
his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when its instruction went
beyond the language of the mitigation special issue (Special Issue No.
2). Specifically, the jury was instructed that:
In deliberating on Special Issue No. 1FN39 and Special Issue No. 2,
the Jury shall consider all of the evidence admitted at the guilt or
innocence phase and the punishment phase, including evidence of the
defendant's background or character or circumstances of the offense
that militates for or mitigates against imposition of the death
penalty. FN39. Special Issue No. 1 is the future dangerousness special
issue.
Scheanette argues that, contrary to the instruction, the statute
requiring the jury to consider the special mitigation issue prohibits
the jury-in its consideration of this issue-from considering evidence
that militates for the death penalty. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art.
37.071, § 2(e)(1) requires Texas juries in capital cases to answer the
following question on mitigation:
Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the
circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and
background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there
is sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that
a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death
sentence be imposed.FN40. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(e)(1)
(emphasis added).
On direct appeal, Scheanette argued, as he does now, that the charge
in question violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.FN41
However, before the district court, Scheanette argued violations of
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because Scheanette did not first
request a COA from the district court on Eighth Amendment grounds, we
will not consider his claim in that regard.FN42
FN41. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d at 507. FN42. See Whitehead,
157 F.3d at 388.
Scheanette's Fourteenth Amendment claim is procedurally barred. A
federal habeas court “will not consider a claim that the last state
court rejected on the basis of an adequate and independent state
procedural ground.” FN43 Scheanette failed to object to the jury
charge at the time of trial. We have recognized a federal petitioner's
failure to comply with the Texas contemporaneous objection rule as an
adequate and independent state procedural bar to federal habeas
review.FN44
FN43. Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 718 (5th Cir.2004)(citing Coleman
v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-32, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640
(1991)). FN44. See Rowell v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir.2005);
Graves v. Cockrell, 351 F.3d 143, 152 (5th Cir.2003).
On direct appeal, the TCCA specifically stated that because Scheanette
failed to object to the jury instruction, he would have to show
egregious harm from any error in the instruction in order to obtain
relief.FN45 The TCCA found no harm from the instruction because the
jury was entitled under the law to consider all of the evidence in
determining its answer to the mitigation issue. For this reason, the
TCCA denied Scheanette's claim. On state habeas review, the TCCA
adopted the trial court's conclusion that Scheanette's claim was “not
cognizable because the issue[ ] had already been raised and rejected
on direct appeal.”FN46 After recognizing that Scheanette failed to
object to the jury charge in the trial court, the district court
agreed with the TCCA that any improper language in the jury
instruction did not harm Scheanette, and thus, concluded that
Scheanette failed to show that the TCCA's decision was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law. FN45. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d at 507. FN46. See Ex parte
Scheanette, No. WR-59,466-01, 2005 WL 3429304. This issue was
designated as points of error twenty-one and twenty-two in
Scheanette's state habeas application.
As a result, Scheanette's Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the jury
instruction is procedurally barred unless Scheanette can show cause
and actual prejudice for the default or that failure to address the
merits of the procedurally defaulted claim will work a fundamental
miscarriage of justice. FN47 Scheanette has failed to show cause for
his counsel's failure to object.FN48 In addition, even assuming
Scheanette could show cause for his default, he is unable to show any
resultant prejudice because, as stated by the TCCA on direct appeal:
FN47. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. at 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546. FN48.
Scheanette now raises a Strickland claim regarding this issue.
However, he does not allege his counsel's ineffectiveness as cause to
excuse the procedural default. Regardless, a constitutional claim
alleged as cause for a procedural default must itself be exhausted;
and, as previously discussed, Scheanette's ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in this regard is unexhausted. See Edwards v. Carpenter,
529 U.S. 446, 453, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000).
Article 37.071, § 2(e)(1) directs the court to instruct the jury to
“tak [e] into consideration all of the evidence ” when determining
whether there are sufficient mitigating circumstance[s] to warrant the
imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment. By its plain language,
the statute requires the jury to look at all of the evidence and not
just evidence a juror might consider to be mitigating.FN49 Scheanette
v. State, 144 S.W.3d at 507-08 (emphasis in original).
Scheanette has offered no contrary clearly established federal law to
dispute this finding. Furthermore, Scheanette presents no evidence
indicating that our dismissal of this claim for procedural default
would work a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” As a result,
reasonable jurists could not debate whether the district court was
correct in its ruling of procedural default. FN50. Even if
Scheanette's claim was not procedurally barred, the state court's
resolution of the issue raised by Scheanette did not involve an
unreasonable application of federal law. No clearly established
federal law supports Scheanette's argument that the jury is precluded
from considering all of the evidence when determining its answer to
the mitigation special issue, and we have never adopted such a rule.
At most, the judge's amendment to the mitigation instruction amounts
to a violation of the Texas statute, and not a constitutional
violation.
D. Claim Five
Scheanette argues that the mitigation instruction was not effective in
telling the jury how to consider the mitigating evidence because it
sent “mixed signals” in violation of the Eighth Amendment as
interpreted in Penry v. JohnsonFN51 (“ Penry II”). More specifically,
Scheanette argues that the amended jury instruction prevented the jury
from considering and giving effect to any mitigating evidence when
answering the mitigation special issue, and that any mitigating
evidence could not be given effect in the future dangerousness special
issue. FN51. 532 U.S. 782, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001).
On direct appeal, the TCCA noted that it had “previously addressed and
rejected this claim,” and denied Scheanette relief.FN52 On state
habeas review, the TCCA adopted the trial court's conclusion that this
claim was not cognizable because the issue was already raised and
rejected on direct appeal. FN53 The federal district court concluded
that Scheanette “failed to show that the complained-of instructions
were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law.”FN54 Specifically, Scheanette failed to
persuade the court that the jury was not able to consider and give
effect to his mitigating evidence, as required by Penry II.FN55
Reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's decision.
FN52. Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d at 506. FN53. Ex parte
Scheanette, No. WR-59,466-01, 2005 WL 3429304 (Tex.Crim.App. Dec.14,
2005). FN54. Scheanette v. Dretke, No. 4:05-CV-718-A, Memorandum
Opinion and Order (N.D.Tex. Apr. 10, 2006). FN55. Id.
In Penry II the Supreme Court reiterated its previous holding in Penry
v. Lynaugh FN56 (“ Penry I ”) that the key is “that the jury be able
to ‘ consider and give effect to [a defendant's mitigating] evidence
in imposing sentence.’ ”FN57 In order to grant relief on a Penry I
claim, this court must determine: “(1) whether the mitigation evidence
has met the low threshold for relevance, and, if so, (2) that the
evidence was beyond the effective scope of the jury.”FN58
FN56. 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989). FN57.
Penry II, 532 U.S. at 797, 121 S.Ct. 1910 (citing Penry I, 492 U.S. at
319, 109 S.Ct. 2934) (emphasis in original). FN58. Bigby v. Dretke,
402 F.3d 551, 564-65 (5th Cir.2005) (internal citation and quotations
omitted).
The Supreme Court defined relevant mitigating evidence as “evidence
which tends logically to prove or disprove some fact or circumstance
which a fact-finder could reasonably deem to have mitigating
value.”FN59 Scheanette presented testimony from Dr. Kessner and from
Woods, both concerning Scheanette's future dangerousness; and
testimony from Scheanette's sister, a chaplain, and Scheanette's
mother to provide positive evidence of Scheanette's background and
character. “Relevant mitigating evidence does not have to be linked to
his conduct, but only show that it could lead a jury to find that a
sentence other than death is warranted.”FN60 Applying the low
threshold articulated by the Supreme Court in Tennard v. Dretke,FN61
it is clear that the evidence submitted by Scheanette constitutes
relevant mitigating evidence. Thus, Scheanette must have been-and was-
allowed to present this evidence to the jury.
We now turn to Scheanette's contention concerning the
constitutionality of the jury instruction given by the trial judge
during the sentencing phase. A mere possibility that the jury was
precluded from considering mitigating evidence does not establish
Penry I error. FN62 “[T]he proper inquiry ... is whether there is a
reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged
instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of
constitutionally relevant evidence.”FN63
FN62. See Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108
L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). FN63. Id.; see Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484,
490-92, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990).
We conclude that the jury was able to consider and give effect to
Scheanette's relevant mitigating evidence. In Scheanette's case, the
jury was required to answer the following special issues:
Special Issue No. 1
Do you find the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a
probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence
that would constitute a continuing threat to society?
Special Issue No. 2
Taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the
circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character or background,
and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, do you find that
there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to
warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death
sentence be imposed?
Unlike Penry II, the trial judge's instruction in this case did not
suggest to the jury that it should provide false answers to either of
these special issues. Scheanette's claim that the instruction in
effect “nullified” the mitigation special issue is unsupported. As
discussed above, in determining its answer to the mitigation issue,
the jury was entitled to consider all of the evidence. In addition, we
have no reason to believe that the jury was confused or misled in
answering the mitigation special issue.
Moreover, even assuming that Scheanette is correct that the
instruction “nullified” the mitigation special issue, Scheanette's
mitigating evidence could be considered and given effect under the
future dangerousness special issue.FN64 Specifically, the testimony of
Woods addressing the rigorous security measures at TDCJ and Dr.
Kessner regarding Scheanette's relative likelihood of committing a
serious violent act in prison over the course of a capital life term
could be fully considered within the future dangerousness special
issue. In addition, Scheanette's familial and chaplain mitigation
testimony is good character evidence, recognized as falling within the
future dangerousness special issue.
FN64. See Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 368, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 125
L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (“We believe that there is ample room in the
assessment of future dangerousness for a juror to take account of the
difficulties of youth as a mitigating force in the sentencing
determination.”); Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 475-76, 113 S.Ct.
892, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (holding that Texas special issues
permitted jurors to consider mitigating evidence of youth, family
background and positive character under future dangerousness issue);
Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 178, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 101 L.Ed.2d
155 (1988) (plurality opinion) (finding that petitioner's evidence of
a good disciplinary record during his period of incarceration was
“fully considered by the jury when it was asked to answer the [future
dangerousness] [i]ssue”); see, e.g., Newton v. Dretke, 371 F.3d 250,
256-257 (5th Cir.2004) (youth, good character, church attendance,
cooperation with police, unfaithful/drug dealing spouse, and
impoverished background); Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, (5th Cir.
2001) (good character); Boyd v. Johnson, 167 F.3d 907, 912 (5th Cir.
1999) (positive character traits); James v. Collins, 987 F.2d 1116,
1121-22 (5th Cir.1993) (cooperation with police, remorse, impoverished
and abusive family history, positive familial ties despite troubled
upbringing); Barnard v. Collins, 958 F.2d 634, 640-41 (5th Cir.1992)
(good character, including evidence of carpentry skills, work history,
and familial responsibility and support).
In sum, the state court's decision was neither contrary to, nor an
unreasonable application of, federal law. As a result, reasonable
jurists would not debate the district court's resolution of this
issue.
E. Claim Six
In claim six, Scheanette argues that his death sentence offends due
process of law because the future dangerousness issue dilutes the
State's burden of proof and fails to define “probability.” The future
dangerousness issue instructed the jury to answer the following
question:
Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is
a probability that the Defendant would commit criminal acts of
violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?FN65.
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1) (emphasis added).
On state habeas review, the TCCA adopted the findings of the state
trial court that this claim is procedurally defaulted because
Scheanette failed to raise the claim on direct appeal.FN66 Procedural
default aside, the state trial court further found that state law
precedent precluded relief. FN66. Ex parte Scheanette, No.
WR-59,466-01, 2005 WL 3429304.
The district court agreed with the TCCA that this claim was
procedurally defaulted because Scheanette did not raise the claim on
direct appeal and Scheanette failed to show cause and prejudice for
his default or that failure to consider this claim would result in a
fundamental miscarriage of justice. The district court also addressed
the merits of Scheanette's claim, concluding that the state court's
substantive resolution of the issue did not involve an unreasonable
application of federal law because submission of the future
dangerousness issue to a jury in a capital case had been specifically
held constitutional by the Supreme Court, and thus, acceptance of
Scheanette's argument was barred by Teague v. Lane.FN67 Moreover, the
court noted that this court has “repeatedly rejected attacks on a
court's failure to define ‘probability’ in this context on the ground
that such term is not constitutionally vague.” FN67. 489 U.S. 288, 109
S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).
Reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's dismissal of
Scheanette's claim on grounds of procedural default. Texas law
requires that a petitioner must raise a claim on direct appeal before
it can be raised on state habeas,FN68 and this rule is an “adequate
state ground capable of barring federal habeas review.”FN69 In
addition, the Texas court's alternative resolution of this claim was
neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law.
The future dangerousness issue has been held constitutional by the
Supreme CourtFN70 and we have repeatedly held that the term
“probability” as used in the Texas special issue is not so vague as to
require additional instructions (such as definition by the court).
FN71 As a result, reasonable jurists could also not debate the
district court's dismissal of Scheanette's claim on substantive
grounds. FN68. See Ex parte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81-82
(Tex.Crim.App.2004); Ex parte Nelson, 137 S.W.3d 666, 668
(Tex.Crim.App.2004). FN69. See Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d at 719. FN70.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976);
see Rowell v. Dretke, 398 F.3d at 379. FN71. See, e.g., Woods v.
Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1033-34 (5th Cir.1996); James v. Collins, 987 F.
2d at 1120 & n. 5.
F. Claim Seven
Lastly, Scheanette relies on Apprendi v. New JerseyFN72 and Ring v.
ArizonaFN73 to argue that the Texas mitigation special issue is
unconstitutional because it does not require the prosecution to prove
the nonexistence of mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.FN74
FN72. 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). FN73. 536
U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). FN74. In particular,
Scheanette asserts violations of the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. Scheanette refers to a Fifth Amendment violation in the
title of this claim, but refers to violations of the Sixth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments in his closing remarks. If Scheanette is now
arguing a Fifth Amendment violation, Scheanette's Fifth Amendment
claim is waived because he did not seek a COA from the district court
on this basis. See Brewer v. Quarterman, 466 F.3d at 346.
On direct appeal, the TCCA denied relief on this claim, finding that
it had “previously addressed and rejected this argument.”FN75 On state
habeas review, the TCCA adopted the state trial court's conclusions
that this claim be denied because it had already been raised and
rejected on direct appeal; and because the TCCA had already ruled on
and rejected this claim. The district court also denied relief on this
claim, concluding that because neither Apprendi nor Ring require a
mitigating factor to be established beyond a reasonable doubt,
Scheanette failed to identify any erroneous or unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law. FN75. Scheanette v.
State, 144 S.W.3d at 505 (citing Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 386
(Tex.Crim.App.2004)).
Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's dismissal of
this claim because it has been previously rejected in both stateFN76
and federal court, and is not supported by Supreme Court authority.
FN76. The TCCA has previously remarked that “the burden is implicitly
placed upon the [defendant] to produce and persuade the jury that
circumstances exist which mitigate against the imposition of
death ...;” and the court is “unaware of any constitutional
requirement that the burden of proof regarding mitigating evidence be
placed on either party, and to the extent that the burden is on [the
defendant], we note that it is not unconstitutional to so place the
burden.” Lawton v. Texas, 913 S.W.2d 542, 557 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (en
banc); see Hankins, 132 S.W.3d at 386.
We have specifically held that the Texas death penalty scheme did not
violate either Apprendi or Ring by failing to require the state to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of mitigating
circumstances.FN77 In Granados v. Quarterman, we stated that “the
state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every finding
prerequisite to exposing [the defendant] to the maximum penalty of
death,”FN78 and we concluded that “a finding of mitigating
circumstances reduces a sentence from death, rather than increasing it
to death.”FN79
In sum, the Texas court's denial of relief was neither contrary to,
nor an unreasonable application of, federal law. As a result,
reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's dismissal of
Scheanette's claim.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the motion for a Certificate of
Appealability. MOTION DENIED.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Dale+Devon+Scheanette+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

Lots more articles on the creep that hurt Chima and killed others.
Too bad he didn’t suffer like his victims.

[Avanti]

"D-W" <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62u085d0vb8anmdt3...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
> <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
>>Rapist
>>
>

> Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
> the girl who was attacked ???

But Chima and plenty of newspapers articles say that she is.

[Brian Smith]

"D-W" <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62u085d0vb8anmdt3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
> <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
>>Rapist
>>
>

> Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
> the girl who was attacked ???

No. People actually posted a lot of info that proved it was indeed Chima.

Brian

[Avanti]

"D-W" <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62u085d0vb8anmdt3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
> <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
>>Rapist
>>
>

> Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
> the girl who was attacked ???
>

Yes...it was stated here, but disproven. It was her.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

He was an interesting perp. Instead of escalating, he de-escalated.
He killed two women in his apartment complex (hog-tied to cause
asphyxiation, then placed face down in tub to drown in case) for his
first two kills. Thereafter, he was tied to at least five (5) other
rapes but no more killing.

A single fingerprint wasn't able to match up with him, then a burglary
arrrest and full, clear fingerprinting led the cold case squad to
him. Fortunately, Chima bit his wanger during forced oral sex, so he
then he raped her. She fought him, and he fled... She may, or may
not, have been duct taped.

Texas is good for killing killers :)

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

> Chima told her fellow Big Brother 11 houseguests that she had to have
> two facial surgeries because the attack had been so brutal.

What Chima didn't tell fellow HGs is the amount of settlement paid to
her for the University of Texas Arlinigton's negligence and failure to
keep her safe.

Would you want to know how many million she received?

[madamS]

"MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71a5ad56-ea6f-486f...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

No amount of money would make up for what she suffered.

--
madamS
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill

[Kate]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:44:08 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
><goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
>>Rapist
>>
>

>Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
>the girl who was attacked ???
>

According to http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/accent/299504.php
our Chima's last name is Simone. Is Chima married? It doesn't say in
her bio but she did tell Natalie she might have sex with Russel so I
don't think she is. It's possible that her age and first name match
the real Chima (Benson) so she's using it for game advantage. That
would be no different than Natalie lying about her age. Anything goes
in Big Brother.

[Kate]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:31:22 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>So... we are back to maybe it was her, maybe she's full of shit...
>
>Right where I left off last time, I think...

I read the rest of the thread after posting that, but I still have my
doubts too. I haven't seen positive proof yet and the names don't
match so I guess we'll never know.

[Ron]

On Aug 10, 9:04 pm, Kate <welle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:31:22 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:12:07 -0700, Kate <welle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:44:08 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
> >>><goldenmike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
> >>>>Rapist
>
> >>>Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
> >>>the girl who was attacked ???
>

> >>According tohttp://www.azstarnet.com/sn/accent/299504.php

> >>our Chima's last name is Simone.  Is Chima married? It doesn't say in
> >>her bio but she did tell Natalie she might have sex with Russel so I
> >>don't think she is.  It's possible that her age and first name match
> >>the real Chima (Benson) so she's using it for game advantage.  That
> >>would be no different than Natalie lying about her age.  Anything goes
> >>in Big Brother.  
>
> >So... we are back to maybe it was her, maybe she's full of shit...
>
> >Right where I left off last time, I think...
>
> I read the rest of the thread after posting that, but I still have my
> doubts too.  I haven't seen positive proof yet and the names don't
> match so I guess we'll never know.  

Her name is Chima Simone Benson.

[Dale Hicks]

In article <vnd185p1i648ck9ff...@4ax.com>, weller_4
@hotmail.com says...

Her name is Chima Simone Benson, she goes by Chima Simone as her
stage name in the entertainment reporting industry.

--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net

[Kate]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron <BigEL...@msn.com>
wrote:

I didn't know that but thanks - that makes sense. I really shouldn't
post about subjects I'm not keeping up with so my bad.

[Brian Smith]

"Kate" <well...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvp185linme2lm4fe...@4ax.com...

If this wasn't true I highly doubt CBS would have even mentioned it. If you
do some checking her story totally checks out.

Brian

[do...@webtv.net]

That 'DOUBT' was started by Morby who immediately came up with the line
that the REAL Chima was white.

I thought that he was just kidding...and figured people would realize
it.

Guess not.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

You don't trust me, W? Remember, I found the vid cap that had Taj
wearing Eddie's orange t-shirt.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

On Aug 10, 6:04 pm, Kate <welle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:31:22 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:12:07 -0700, Kate <welle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:44:08 -0700, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN aka MRS. ROPER"
> >>><goldenmike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
> >>>>Rapist
>
> >>>Wasn't it stated here early in the season that the BB Chima was NOT
> >>>the girl who was attacked ???
>

> >>According tohttp://www.azstarnet.com/sn/accent/299504.php

> >>our Chima's last name is Simone.  Is Chima married? It doesn't say in
> >>her bio but she did tell Natalie she might have sex with Russel so I
> >>don't think she is.  It's possible that her age and first name match
> >>the real Chima (Benson) so she's using it for game advantage.  That
> >>would be no different than Natalie lying about her age.  Anything goes
> >>in Big Brother.  
>
> >So... we are back to maybe it was her, maybe she's full of shit...
>
> >Right where I left off last time, I think...
>
> I read the rest of the thread after posting that, but I still have my
> doubts too.  I haven't seen positive proof yet and the names don't

> match so I guess we'll never know.  - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Please, I have been an attorney for 38 years and I read all the
transcripts before posting. I do my homework.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

On Aug 10, 10:30 pm, "Brian Smith" <dcg_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Kate" <welle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:tvp185linme2lm4fe...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:03:05 -0700 (PDT), Ron <BigELil...@msn.com>

> Brian- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I always flashback to Johnny Fairplay's grandmother....

[Ron]

On Aug 11, 11:58 am, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:51:43 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER"

>
> <goldenmike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You don't trust me, W?  Remember, I found the vid cap that had Taj
> >wearing Eddie's orange t-shirt.
>

> lol - yes, I recall that and you generally have good scoops and
> excellent deductive reasoning skills.
>
> But if there were factual evidence on this matter, I don't think there
> would be any lingering doubts.
>
> And I would not accept random web postings or hearsay stories as
> "factual evidence".

*I* don't have any "lingering doubts".

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

On Aug 11, 8:58 am, D-W <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:51:43 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER"
>
> <goldenmike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >You don't trust me, W?  Remember, I found the vid cap that had Taj
> >wearing Eddie's orange t-shirt.
>

> lol - yes, I recall that and you generally have good scoops and
> excellent deductive reasoning skills.
>
> But if there were factual evidence on this matter, I don't think there
> would be any lingering doubts.
>
> And I would not accept random web postings or hearsay stories as
> "factual evidence".

I read transcripts, attorney for 38 years, a criminal defense attorney
for years, and follow true crime for entertainment. It was Chima, she
did testify at sentencing so he would be executed, and she did get a
substantial settlement of UT Arlington.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

> Well then, if YOU are stating this as fact, I will take YOUR word for
> it...

Since I spent nearly 6 hours researching before I posted, I'd say you
can BET ON IT!

[do...@webtv.net]

Dubya said to Mrs. C...

"But if there were factual evidence on this matter, I don't think there
would be any lingering doubts.

And I would not accept random web postings or hearsay stories as
"factual evidence"."

Oh SURE you would.

You believed the ENRON guy. :-)

[do...@webtv.net]

'Te Big E' said:

"*I* don't have any "lingering doubts"."

Of COURSE not.

Oh...another great Dubya line...

"So are you SURE that this is a good deal Mr. Madoff?"

:-)

[Avanti]

"MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:987af895-cdd0-40c1...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> You don't trust me, W? Remember, I found the vid cap that had Taj
> wearing Eddie's orange t-shirt.

If she wasn't the 'real' Chima, don't you think the real one would have
said something by now...or at least her lawyer? I mean this has been
publicized for a while now so they'd 'have' to know. Why would they allow
her to continue the masquerade?

[Brian Smith]

"MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER" <goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f8e13f22-7c9e-46f9...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

__________________________________________

Yeah, I thought about his as well but if Chima had been lying about her
story it would have easily trumped Fairplay's.

Brian

[Avanti]

"D-W" <D-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:one3855l0d3jaikvp...@4ax.com...

> I doubt that the "real" victim, if she were to exist, would exactly be
> clamoring for celebrity status on that basis...

That's exactly why I included her lawyer.

[MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER]

> *I* don't have any "lingering doubts".

Go to the head of the class! Good for you!

[Snooky]

On Aug 11, 11:53 am, "MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER"

omg that is exactly the example I gave my family tonight when they
doubted my supposition that Chima was looking for sympathy with that
huge fabrication - I'm having a hard time believing that someone who
was raped would get implants (perhaps even lip ones), wear skin tight
clothes and accentuate those lips with bright colors...

[Avanti]

"Snooky" <lizann...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab95df3d-bce4-42be...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

***************************************************************
Wow!! Even after all the articles you still doubt her?

[Snooky]

On Aug 12, 6:41 pm, "Avanti" <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> "Snooky" <lizannelov...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I couldn't find any articles from that time period with her name
associated with the serial killer just stuff that was generated by
what she claimed. Post a link to a genuine newspaper archive
specifying her name along with the serial killer and I'll believe....

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "MRS. CLEAN OR MRS. ROPER"
<goldenm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I always flashback to Johnny Fairplay's grandmother....

Heh heh - I know exactly what you mean.

That's why I think it's a darned good thing Jeff Probst spent a
reasonable amount of time with her at the Survivor finale!

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Snooky
<lizann...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I always flashback to Johnny Fairplay's grandmother....
>
>omg that is exactly the example I gave my family tonight when they
>doubted my supposition that Chima was looking for sympathy with that
>huge fabrication - I'm having a hard time believing that someone who
>was raped would get implants (perhaps even lip ones), wear skin tight
>clothes and accentuate those lips with bright colors...

In fairness she has NOT been talking about it constantly the way
Fairplay did...

[willyja...@gmail.com]

I worjed with this guy for a year at a place in Desoto Tx called Synergy. He was definitely a very aggressive person. He was always trying to start shit with someone. He claimed he was a former boxer, it could have been a lie. I know that when our company watched the Holyfield- Tyson fight, he was aggressively talking to my ex. We lived in Lancaster, TX at the time. I thank God that I never had him to my house. The State of Texas did right by executing this "human". He was an asshole in life, and I bet Hell is not hot enough for his ass either.

[kimberly...@gmail.com]

I just watched this on TV. It was so horrible.

[darrell...@gmail.com]

I just watched this on TV. It was so horrible.

Chima is a hero‼️ She inspires me. Plus, she received several million dollars in settlement because THE UNIVERSITY FAILED TO KEEP THE COEDs SAFE.

[texasdr...@aol.com]

On Monday, August 10, 2009 at 2:15:12 PM UTC-5, MRS. CLEAN wrote:
> Big Brother 11 Houseguest *Chima Benson* was Final Victim of Bathtub
> Rapist
>

> http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/37367103.html?page=2

Chima was not the final victim. Chima was raped February 23, 1999. Adriane Fields was raped October 26, 1999.