in the superior court of wayne county state of … · state of georgia the state of georgia,...

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

THE STATE OF GEORGIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE,

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 86 CR 119

MOTION TO BAR PROSECUTION OF LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE BASED ON THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

IN VIOLATION OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii

I. Introduction. ...............................................................................................................................1

II. Background. ...............................................................................................................................1

III. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Mandates that the State Preserve Exculpatory and Potentially Exculpatory Evidence. .................................................................4

A. The State’s Failure to Preserve Exculpatory Evidence Violates a Defendant’s Right to Due Process. ...........................................................................................................4

B. The Bad Faith Failure to Preserve Potentially Exculpatory Evidence Violates a Defendant’s Right to Due Process. ......................................................................................6

IV. Mr. Lee’s Due Process Rights were Violated. ...........................................................................8

A. The Findings of the Habeas Court Have Collateral Estoppel Effect Here. .........................8

1. The Findings of a Habeas Court are Entitled to Preclusive Effect. ...............................8

2. The Requirements of Collateral Estoppel are Satisfied Here. .....................................10

a. This Motion Involves Issues Already Decided by the Habeas Court. ...................10

b. These Issues Were Actually Litigated and Adjudicated on the Merits. .................11

c. The Warden and the State Are in Privity. ..............................................................12

B. The State Acted In Bad Faith Because It Failed to Preserve Evidence Whose Exculpatory Value Was Apparent. ....................................................................................13

1. The Exculpatory Nature of the 47 Lost or Destroyed Fingerprint, DNA, and other Evidence, was Apparent Before their Destruction. ............................................13

2. Mr. Lee is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence. ...................................................17

C. Even if It Were Necessary to Show Bad Faith, the Habeas Findings Meet That Standard. ............................................................................................................................22

V. Barring Further Prosecution of Mr. Lee is the Only Appropriate Remedy. ............................26

VI. Conclusion. ..............................................................................................................................28

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s) CASES

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) ...............................................................................................................6, 22

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) ...................................................................................................................8

Ballard v. Georgia, 285 Ga. 15 (2009) ......................................................................................................................4

Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485 (2010) ..................................................................................................................10

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) .......................................................................................................4, 13, 26

City of Demorest v. Roberts & Dunahoo Props., LLC, 288 Ga. App. 708 (2007) .........................................................................................................10

Davis v. State, 287 Ga. 414 (2010) ................................................................................................................8, 9

Georgia Neurology & Rehab., P.C. v. Hiller, 310 Ga. App. 202 (2011) .............................................................................................10, 11, 12

Georgia v. Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) ............................................................................ passim

Georgia v. Brawner, 297 Ga. App. 817 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) ................................................................................4, 15

Hunter v. State, 260 Ga. 762 (1991) ....................................................................................................................8

Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (2004) .............................................................................................................6, 22

Lee v. Terry, No. 89-2325 (Butts Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2008) ................................................................. passim

Martin v. State, 228 Ga. App. 548 (1997) ...............................................................................................8, 12, 13

iii

Penny v. State, 248 Ga. App. 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001) ................................................................................4, 26

QOS Networks Ltd. v. Warburg, Pincus & Co., 294 Ga. App. 528 (2008) .........................................................................................................12

Shields v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 273 Ga. 774 (2001) ....................................................................................................................9

Simmons v. State, 276 Ga. 525, 526 (2003) ......................................................................................................9, 12

Spiller v. State, 282 Ga. 351 (2007) ..............................................................................................................8, 12

State v. Miller, 298 Ga. App. 584 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) ....................................................................................27

Syas v. State, 273 Ga. App. 161 (2005) ...........................................................................................................9

United States v. Bohl, 25 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................8, 24

Walker v. Penn, 271 Ga. 609 (1999) ....................................................................................................................8

STATUTES

OCGA § 9-12-40..............................................................................................................................8

1

Now comes LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE (“Mr. Lee”), by his attorneys, pursuant to the

Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Due

Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution, who respectfully moves this Court for an order

barring the State from further prosecution of Mr. Lee. In support of this motion, Mr. Lee

submits the following.

I. Introduction.

Mr. Lee’s trial was so marred by prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of

counsel that it resulted in a binding decision granting Mr. Lee’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, and reversing his convictions for murder, armed robbery, burglary, and possession of a

firearm during the commission of a felony. Mr. Lee respectfully moves this Court to bar any

further prosecution of him, based on his right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment

of the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution,

because the State has lost or destroyed compelling and irreplaceable exculpatory evidence.1

In the alternative, Mr. Lee moves for an evidentiary hearing to establish that modern

scientific testing of that lost or destroyed evidence could have yielded additional exculpatory

evidence that would have further exonerated Mr. Lee.

II. Background.

On the morning of Saturday, April 26, 1986, Clifford and Nina Jones, and their son

Jerold Jones, were murdered in their home in a rural area of Wayne County. Order, Lee v. Terry,

1 Together with this Motion, Mr. Lee is filing two other motions asserting two other grounds for relief.

First, the prosecutorial misconduct at Mr. Lee’s first trial was so pervasive that it would violate double jeopardy were the State permitted to try Mr. Lee again. Second, the State should be barred from using the testimony of Sherry Lee and other now-deceased witnesses against Mr. Lee. Although Sherry Lee, at one point in time and after receiving incentives from the State, claimed to have been Mr. Lee’s accomplice, she later recanted that testimony. Sherry Lee has since passed away. Permitting the State to use Sherry Lee’s testimony implicating Mr. Lee would violate the confrontation clause of the Constitution.

2

No. 89-2325 (Butts Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2008) (“Order”) at 3.2 As described below, there was

compelling exculpatory evidence that the murders were committed by someone other than

Mr. Lee—specifically Joe and Robert Yarbrough.

The victims were last seen alive by Christie Jones, daughter of Clifford and Nina and

sister of Jerold, around 5:45 a.m. Id. The victims were shot with two .22 caliber weapons. Id. at

4. The only item of value missing from the Jones home was a money bag containing

approximately $1,500 in cash and checks from the Jones family’s restaurant. Id.

Among other evidence, 47 latent fingerprints, palm prints, and numerous unknown hairs,

were recovered from the crime scene. Id. None of the prints or hairs matched Mr. Lee, or his

alleged accomplices, Bruce Lee or Sherry Lee, Mr. Lee’s brother and sister-in-law.3 Id. at 4-5.

As the Habeas Order notes, “[t]here was and remains absolutely no forensic evidence which

pointed to [Mr. Lee] as the perpetrator or one of the perpetrators. . . . The State’s entire case

against [Mr. Lee] thus rested on the credibility of . . . two witnesses”: Sherry Lee, and David

Morris, a “jailhouse snitch” who testified that Mr. Lee confessed to him in prison. Id. at 4-5.

Sherry Lee, who initially admitted her role in a Glynn County burglary but denied any

role in the Jones murders because she had gotten married that day, only implicated Mr. Lee after

the prosecution: (1) falsely told her the State had evidence implicating her in the Jones murders;

(2) suggested she might be eligible for a $25,000 reward; (3) told her she had failed a polygraph

examination related to the Jones murders; and (4) granted her immunity from prosecution.4 Id. at

2 A copy of the Order is attached to Mr. Lee’s concurrently filed Motion to Bar Retrial Under the State

and Federal Double Jeopardy Clauses. 3 Bruce Lee died during the commission of a burglary in Glynn County. Order at 40-41.

4 As noted above, Bruce Lee, Sherry’s husband, died during the commission of the Glynn County

burglary. Order at 40-41. Having received an offer of immunity, and with Bruce dead, Sherry’s “confession” only had negative consequences for Mr. Lee, her in-law, and kept her from being charged with the crime as well.

3

42. Even then, her statements about the Jones murders were inconsistent in significant ways,

suggesting her story was a fabrication. Id. at 40-48. The inadmissibility of her testimony is the

subject of a separate motion. Likewise, the Habeas Court found that the veracity of David

Morris’s testimony was not only subject to significant doubts, but was also the source of various

acts of prosecutorial misconduct as the State attempted to bolster Morris’s credibility and

conceal its infirmities. Id. at 8-38. Those acts are also discussed more fully in a separate motion.

The Habeas Court found, in rulings which bind the State here, that Mr. Lee’s trial was

riddled with prosecutorial misconduct. Despite “a weak prosecution case dependent for its

success on the believability of two witnesses unfavored in the law and by the public—a jailhouse

snitch and a co-conspirator—with absolutely no forensic evidence to link [Mr. Lee] to the crime

scene,” the State proceeded to prosecute Mr. Lee in a manner so replete with prosecutorial

misconduct that Mr. Lee’s convictions and sentences have been reversed. Id. at 124. The court

found the State’s misconduct was compounded by the fact that the trial court “was seemingly

more concerned with the ‘cost’ to the county [than] with ensuring effective assistance of

counsel.” Id. at 143. Mr. Lee’s one lawyer, in turn, has been found to have provided ineffective

assistance at both the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of Mr. Lee’s trial. Id. at 124-25,

143.

After almost 25 years in prison, Mr. Lee’s convictions and sentences have been

overturned. Id. at 145. To compound its misconduct, the State has inexplicably lost or destroyed

crucial exculpatory evidence, including the 47 latent fingerprints and palm prints, as well as the

unknown hairs, which could exonerate Mr. Lee. Id. at 123. The State has destroyed the family

room rug from the Jones house, from which additional exculpatory evidence could have been

obtained. Id. at 123-24. The State destroyed that rug days after Mr. Lee’s attorneys requested

4

access to any physical evidence, and while the State was aware that Mr. Lee had pending legal

proceedings. PX 127, 129, 130, 133.5 The State has also lost or destroyed additional

exculpatory evidence including blood stains and .22 caliber shell casings from a house closely

associated with the primary alternative suspects in the Jones murders, as well as the FBI file in

this case. See, e.g., PX 81-87; PX 192, p. 17; PX 193, pp. 33, 42-49; PX 186, exhibits 11-13;

Order at 166 n.255. The State’s loss or destruction of this exculpatory evidence violates

Mr. Lee’s right to Due Process. The only appropriate remedy for these violations is to bar the

State from engaging in any further prosecution of Mr. Lee.

III. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Mandates that the State Preserve Exculpatory and Potentially Exculpatory Evidence.

A. The State’s Failure to Preserve Exculpatory Evidence Violates a Defendant’s Right to Due Process.

In California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485-89 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court found

that a state’s failure to preserve “constitutionally material” evidence violates the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutionally material evidence “must both [1] possess

an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and [2] be of such a

nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably

available means.” Id. at 489; Ballard v. Georgia, 285 Ga. 15 (2009); Penny v. State, 248 Ga.

App. 772, 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001); Georgia v. Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. 135, 138 (Ga. Ct. App.

2000).6 The fingerprint and DNA evidence destroyed or lost by the State here was

constitutionally material.

5 “PX” references are to documents used as Petitioner Exhibits during Mr. Lee’s 2006 habeas

proceedings. Those exhibits are attached hereto in chronological order according to their PX number. 6 “Exculpatory” means “supportive of a claim of innocence” or “tending to clear from alleged fault or

guilt.” Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. at 138. “Apparent” means “readily seen; visible; readily understood or perceived; evident; obvious.” Georgia v. Brawner, 297 Ga. App. 817, 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).

5

In Blackwell, the Court of Appeals found that the State violated the defendant’s due

process rights under Trombetta by destroying a urine sample that tested positive for drugs.

Blackwell was cited for DUI; three days later, his urine was tested for drugs and the results were

negative. Id. at 135. The same sample was then sent to the State Crime Lab, where a second test

revealed that Blackwell’s urine was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, and

Blackwell was indicted for possession of drugs as well as DUI and weaving on the road. Id.

Shortly after his arraignment, Blackwell filed a motion to permit an independent laboratory

analysis of his urine, which the court granted, but Blackwell was informed that the urine sample

had been destroyed. Id. The court found that both prongs of Trombetta’s two-part test were

satisfied. Id. at 138. First, because the initial drug test tended to show Blackwell’s innocence of

the drug charges, the urine sample had “obvious exculpatory value that was apparent before the

State destroyed it.” Id. Second, a destroyed sample cannot be replicated, meaning the defendant

was unable to obtain comparable evidence by other available means. Id. at 139. Because the

State violated Blackwell’s due process rights, the court affirmed the dismissal of the drug

charges in the indictment. Id. at 139.

The lost and destroyed fingerprint and other evidence, which was susceptible to DNA

testing as well as conventional manual and computerized fingerprint analysis and comparison

against national and international fingerprint databases and the known fingerprints of two local

men suspect of committing the murders, is legally indistinguishable from the urine sample in

Blackwell. Like the urine sample, the fingerprint and other physical evidence that was gathered

at the crime scene was directly exculpatory because it did not match Mr. Lee, Bruce Lee, or

Sherry Lee. Order at 4. Indeed, “[t]here was and remains absolutely no forensic evidence which

pointed to the Petitioner as the perpetrator or one of the perpetrators. Id. Given modern DNA

6

technology, this evidence was capable of identifying the real culprits. Additionally, the State

failed to compare the fingerprint evidence to the FBI’s automated fingerprint identification

system or the GBI’s own fingerprint identification system implemented by the GBI Crime Lab

less than two months after Mr. Lee’s trial. Id. At 114. The opportunity to compare those

fingerprints is now lost. Thus, the State has destroyed or lost the only scientific means of solving

this crime. No evidence could be more exculpatory or constitutionally material than this type of

fingerprint and DNA evidence.

As discussed below, the State’s destruction of this exculpatory evidence was necessarily

a bad faith destruction. The State cannot even explain how or when much of the evidence was

destroyed. Given its continuous pattern of misconduct, it is an affront to justice and beyond

dispute that the State destroyed evidence that would show the identity of the real killer and

definitively exonerate Mr. Lee.

B. The Bad Faith Failure to Preserve Potentially Exculpatory Evidence Violates a Defendant’s Right to Due Process.

Even if this evidence were not exculpatory and only had potential exculpatory value, its

destruction would violate due process. A defendant’s right to due process is violated when

potentially exculpatory evidence is lost or destroyed due to the bad faith of the State. Arizona v.

Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988); Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547-48 (2004).7

7 In Youngblood, the Supreme Court upheld Mr. Youngblood’s conviction for child molestation, sexual

assault, and kidnapping, because it found that the evidence at issue, bodily fluids on the victim’s clothing that had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer identify the perpetrator because the state failed to refrigerate the evidence, was not destroyed in bad faith. 488 U.S. at 58. Mr. Youngblood, who had served three years in prison before release during his appeals process, was returned to prison in 1993 after further state court proceedings following the Supreme Court’s ruling. Norman C. Bay, Old Blood, Bad Blood, and Youngblood: Due Process, Lost Evidence, and the Limits of Bad Faith, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 241, 276 (2008). Five years later, in 1998, he was released on parole, only to be returned to prison in 1999 after being charged with failing to register his new address as required by Arizona’s sex offender laws. Id. At that point the evidence from Mr. Youngblood’s original conviction was tested using new,

7

The Georgia Court of Appeals has found bad faith when the record shows, as is the case

here, that the State was aware of the evidence’s exculpatory potential prior to its destruction.

Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. at 140-141.

As discussed above, the Blackwell court found that, under Trombetta, the defendant’s due

process rights had been violated because the State failed to preserve evidence that was known to

be exculpatory. The court also proceeded to analyze the lost evidence under the Youngblood

standard as well, and found the requisite bad faith. The Blackwell decision quoted Youngblood

in noting “‘the presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the Due Process

Clause must necessarily turn on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence

at the time it was lost or destroyed.’ A finding of bad faith is reserved for ‘those cases in which

the police themselves by their conduct indicate that the evidence could form a basis for

exonerating the defendant.’” Id. at 141. In Blackwell, the evidence was destroyed without notice

to the defendant, after the defendant had requested an independent analysis of the evidence, after

a court order permitting the independent analysis, after the crime lab was notified that the

defendant wanted the evidence, and after the State had already told the defendant that the

evidence was unavailable. Id. “The questionable timing of the destruction suggests bad faith on

the part of the State.” Id.

sophisticated forensic DNA testing, and Mr. Youngblood’s conviction was proven incorrect to a scientific certainty. Id. at 276-77. Mr. Youngblood was exonerated, he was released from prison, and his conviction was vacated. Id. at 276. The DNA profile from the evidence was then entered into a national database for convicted offenders, and in early 2001 the police determined that the profile matched Walter Calvin Cruise, who was then serving time in a Texas prison on unrelated charges, had two prior child sex abuse convictions in Texas, and also fit the description of the perpetrator of the crime for which Mr. Youngblood had been convicted. Id. at 277. Cruise pled guilty, and was sentenced to 24 years of imprisonment. Id. After his years in prison for a crime he did not commit, Mr. Youngblood continued to have troubles; he was arrested in 2003 for assaulting an employee of a Tucson eatery, and died of a drug overdose in July 2007. Id. at 278.

8

Here, the timing and reasons for destruction are beyond suspicious—it is inexplicable.

The evidence was destroyed after Mr. Lee requested it, after the State engaged in an egregious

pattern of misconduct designed to conceal critical exculpatory evidence, and after new suspects

were identified against whom the evidence of guilt was “circumstantially stronger” than any

evidence against Mr. Lee, and who could have been linked to the crime by this critical physical

evidence.

Other courts have found bad faith in less compelling circumstances. For example, in

United States v. Bohl, 25 F.3d 904, 911-13 (10th Cir. 1994), the court relied in part on the state’s

inability to explain the destruction of evidence in finding bad faith. As here, the government

offered no innocent explanation of its failure to preserve the evidence at issue.

IV. Mr. Lee’s Due Process Rights were Violated.

A. The Findings of the Habeas Court Have Collateral Estoppel Effect Here.

1. The Findings of a Habeas Court are Entitled to Preclusive Effect.

Under OCGA section 9-12-40, “[i]ssues previously decided by a court of competent

jurisdiction are conclusive and constitute a procedural bar to relitigation.” Walker v. Penn, 271

Ga. 609, 610 (1999).8 “The principle . . . in OCGA § 9-12-40 applies to the rulings and findings

of habeas courts.” Martin v. State, 228 Ga. App. 548, 550 (1997) (citing Wells v. Keith, 213 Ga.

858 (1958)); see also Spiller v. State, 282 Ga. 351, 353 (2007) (same). Thus, “matters litigated

in a habeas proceeding are collaterally estopped from being re-litigated elsewhere.” Davis v.

State, 287 Ga. 414, 415 (2010); see also Hunter v. State, 260 Ga. 762, 762 (1991) (affirming trial

8 OCGA § 9-12-40 provides: “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be

conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside.”

9

court’s ruling that it was barred from reconsidering the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel

because the decision of the habeas court was “conclusive on the issue”).9

Following these principles, the Georgia Supreme Court in Simmons v. State held that the

doctrine of “collateral estoppel prevent[ed] the re-litigation of the issue of whether appellant was

responsible for the loss of his right to direct appeal” in light of the habeas court’s prior

determination that the petitioner “knowingly and voluntarily withdrew his motion [for new

trial].” 276 Ga. 525, 526 (2003) (second alteration in original). Similarly, the court in Davis

held that the trial court was barred from considering the appellant’s motion for out-of-time

appeal, which argued the appellant was “denied his right to a ‘public trial,’ that he did not waive

his constitutional rights at the time of his plea, and that he was not advised of his right to appeal

a guilty plea,” because the habeas court had in a prior proceeding concluded that the appellant’s

“‘plea of guilty and waiver of trial by jury certified form’ was signed by [appellant] and clearly

set[] forth the crime, the charges, and [appellant]’s rights,” and that the appellant had been

“informed of his right to trial by jury, to present witnesses, and to choose whether he wanted to

testify or not testify and of his right to cross-examination.” 287 Ga. at 414-15. In other words,

collateral estoppel precluded re-litigation of “the matters appellant raised in [his] motion”

because those issues “were already litigated in the previous habeas proceeding.” Id. at 415.

9 As with Georgia State law, “collateral estoppel [is] an established rule of federal criminal law.”

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970) (describing the doctrine as “an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice,” which “means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit”); see also Syas v. State, 273 Ga. App. 161, 162 (2005) (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel is embodied in the federal constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy”).

10

2. The Requirements of Collateral Estoppel are Satisfied Here.

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prevents the re-

litigation of an issue actually litigated and adjudicated on the merits between the same parties or

their privies.” Simmons, 276 Ga. at 526; see also Shields v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp.,

273 Ga. 774, 777 (2001) (“In Georgia, the collateral estoppel doctrine precludes the re-

adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in

another action between the same parties or their privies.”) (quoting Gwinnett Cnty. Bd. of Tax

Assessors v. Gen. Elec. Capital Computer Servs., 273 Ga. 175, 178 (2000)). Each of these

requirements is satisfied here.

a. This Motion Involves Issues Already Decided by the Habeas Court.

“[U]nlike res judicata, collateral estoppel does not require identity of the claim—so long

as the issue was determined in the previous action and there is identity of the parties, that issue

may not be re-litigated, even as part of a different claim.” Body of Christ Overcoming Church of

God, Inc. v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485, 486 (2010) (quoting Karan, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 280

Ga. 545, 546 (2006)). “Collateral estoppel also bars those issues that necessarily had to be

decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered.” City of Demorest v. Roberts

& Dunahoo Props., LLC, 288 Ga. App. 708, 713 (2007). The doctrine applies to issues of both

law and fact. Georgia Neurology & Rehab., P.C. v. Hiller, 310 Ga. App. 202, 204 (2011).

The habeas court made several findings and rulings regarding the loss or destruction of

forensic evidence, including 47 latent fingerprints and palm prints, numerous hairs found at the

crime scene, and the family room rug. For example, the habeas court found “[n]one of the prints

or hairs matched Bruce Lee, Larry Lee or Sherry Lee”, and “[t]here was and remains absolutely

no forensic evidence which pointed to the Petitioner as the perpetrator or one of the

11

perpetrators.” Order at 4. The court also found that “[o]f course, the District Attorney was

aware that he had absolutely zero forensic evidence to link the Petitioner to the crime scene”, id.

at 84, and that “[i]t is highly possible that Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to

make a more conclusive showing of prejudice by the State’s loss or destruction of the physical

evidence from the Jones case because that loss or destruction has prevented Petitioner from

obtaining the definitive scientific testing that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt who left the

47 latent fingerprints and numerous unknown hairs in the Jones home.” Id. at 118 (emphasis

added). See also, id. at 123-24 (stating “the State has lost or destroyed the exculpatory

fingerprints and hairs and has destroyed the family room rug from which additional trace

evidence could have been obtained” (emphasis added)); id. at 183 n.406 (stating “the State has

lost or destroyed the latent fingerprint work file in this case”); id. at 166 n.255 (stating “Despite

Mr. Lee’s requests for production under the Open Records Act and by subpoena, the GBI never

produced any records concerning its request for assistance from the FBI or the information it

supplied to the FBI. Neither the GBI’s 30(b)(6) designee nor Agent Rowe could account for loss

of all of the GBI’s records regarding its dealings with the FBI on this case. . . . the State’s loss or

destruction of the information provided to the FBI raises the specter of an independent due

process violation.” (emphasis in original)).

b. These Issues Were Actually Litigated and Adjudicated on the Merits.

The State “had [a] full opportunity to litigate” these issues during the habeas proceeding.

Georgia Neurology, 310 Ga. App. at 204 (collateral estoppel applies where party had a “full

opportunity to litigate the issue in question during the prior action”) (quoting Toporek v. Zepp,

224 Ga. App. 26, 28 (1996)). The parties to the habeas proceeding conducted discovery pursuant

to an agreed-upon schedule, the court conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing, and the parties

12

submitted post-hearing briefs on the merits of Mr. Lee’s habeas claims. Order at 3. The District

Attorney’s office advised the Warden’s counsel, aided in counsel’s preparation to confront

Mr. Lee’s evidence, and assisted counsel in obtaining evidence presented at the hearing.

With regard to the lost or destroyed evidence, the fact that this evidence was exculpatory

and missing was fully litigated. Id. at 122-24, 144. The Habeas Court declined to render an

opinion concerning the violations of Mr. Lee’s due process rights only because it found it was

restrained by the habeas statute and Georgia law from ordering that the State may not re-try

Mr. Lee. Id. at 144. The Habeas Court noted, however, that Mr. Lee’s claims could be

presented to the trial court in the event of a re-trial, “at which time the Petitioner obviously may

make use of the fully developed evidentiary record in this case. Obviously, that court’s decision

will be subject to lawful review, if such be necessary.” Id.

There can be no doubt that the issue of the materiality of the lost or destroyed exculpatory

evidence was “actually litigated and determined,” and is entitled to preclusive effect. See

Georgia Neurology, 310 Ga. App. at 204 (issue of whether defendant stole funds was “actually

litigated and determined” where prior court allowed introduction of evidence that defendant stole

funds for the purpose of establishing the right to a set off, and the court ruled from the bench that

no set off would be permitted).10

c. The Warden and the State Are in Privity.

“[P]rivity connotes those who are in law so connected with a party to the judgment as to

have such an identity of interest that the party to the judgment represented the same legal right.”

QOS Networks Ltd. v. Warburg, Pincus & Co., 294 Ga. App. 528 (2008) (quoting Miller v.

10

That the Warden opted not to appeal or otherwise challenge the Habeas Court’s Order is irrelevant. An un-appealed habeas order issued after an evidentiary hearing is a final order on the merits for the purpose of collateral estoppel. See Spiller, 282 Ga. at 352; Martin, 228 Ga. App. at 550.

13

Steelmaster Material Handling Corp., 223 Ga. App. 532, 535 (1996)). “The warden in whose

custody the State placed [Lee] after sentencing and against whom the petition for writ of habeas

corpus was filed, is the State’s custodial agent and has an identity of interest with the State,” the

party now seeking to re-try Mr. Lee. Simmons, 276 Ga. at 526. The Warden and the State are,

therefore, in privity, and the State may not rehash issues decided in the habeas proceeding. Id.

In light of the foregoing, “[r]egardless of [the State’s view] of the correctness of [the

Habeas Court’s] decision[s regarding lost or destroyed evidence], [they] cannot be relitigated.”

Martin, 228 Ga. App. at 551 (quoting Johnston v. Duncan, 227 Ga. 298, 298 (1971)).

B. The State Acted In Bad Faith Because It Failed to Preserve Evidence Whose Exculpatory Value Was Apparent.

The State’s failure to preserve evidence in a criminal trial violates the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when that evidence possessed an exculpatory value that

was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and was of such a nature that the defendant

cannot obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means. Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 489.

Based on the findings of the Habeas Court, this Court should find that Mr. Lee’s due process

rights have been violated by the loss or destruction of exculpatory evidence.

1. The Exculpatory Nature of the 47 Lost or Destroyed Fingerprint, DNA, and other Evidence, was Apparent Before their Destruction.

The Habeas Court issued findings regarding the exculpatory nature of lost or destroyed

fingerprint and hair (from which DNA could have been extracted) evidence that are binding upon

this Court. Among other findings, the Habeas Court said “the State has lost or destroyed the

exculpatory fingerprints and hairs and has destroyed the family room rug from which additional

trace evidence could have been obtained.” Order at 123-24 (emphasis added).

14

In addition to the fact that the Habeas Court found this evidence to be exculpatory, its

exculpatory nature was apparent prior to its destruction. At least 47 latent fingerprints and palm

prints and numerous unknown hairs and a rug were recovered from the crime scene. Order at 4,

123-24. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) reviewed the 47 prints, and by July 2,

1986, had concluded that none of the 47 prints matched Mr. Lee or his supposed accomplices,

Bruce Lee and Sherry Lee. Id. at 4, 41. The State’s fingerprint examiner, Larry Hankerson,

testified at Mr. Lee’s trial that none of the fingerprint evidence matched Mr. Lee. (T. VIII 137-

38.) The State’s hair comparison expert likewise testified that none of the hairs from the crime

scene matched Mr. Lee. (T. IX 77-80.) No forensic evidence of any kind pointed to Mr. Lee as

one of perpetrators of the Jones murders. Order at 4, 47. This evidence is exculpatory because it

tends to clear Mr. Lee of guilt. Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. at 138.

Indeed, the exculpatory nature of the 47 lost or destroyed unidentified latent fingerprints

and palm prints was so apparent that the Habeas Court cited Mr. Lee’s trial counsel’s handling of

the fingerprint evidence as a reason for finding that Mr. Lee was denied the effective assistance

of counsel at his trial in 1987. Order at 114-18, 122-25. “In the context of the State’s case as it

was revealed to Petitioner by the time of trial . . . [defense counsel’s failure to obtain forensic

expert assistance] was inarguably prejudicial to Petitioner”. Id. at 114. A fingerprint expert

could have conducted an independent analysis of the 47 unidentified latent fingerprints and palm

prints, advised counsel to request that the FBI use its automated fingerprint identification system

to compare the prints against its extensive database, and could have secured reproductions of the

prints for further analysis by the GBI’s own automated fingerprint identification system, which

was implemented less than two months after Mr. Lee’s trial. Id.

15

Additionally, the District Attorney “was aware that he had absolutely zero forensic

evidence to link the Petitioner to the crime scene,” Order at 84. Indeed, the exculpatory nature

of the lost or destroyed forensic evidence was not only apparent, but according to the Habeas

Court, was a motivating factor behind the numerous Brady violations detailed in the Order.

Aware of his lack of forensic evidence linking Mr. Lee to the crime, “the District Attorney

absolutely had to corroborate a ‘jailhouse snitch’ and a coconspirator, the two most distrusted

witnesses in the American justice system.” Id. Those efforts at corroboration led to the Brady

violations that resulted in the reversal of Mr. Lee’s convictions. Id. at 5-93.

The exculpatory nature of the family room rug, from which numerous pieces of evidence

were recovered, PX 84, items 11-20, and from which the Habeas Court found additional trace

evidence could have been obtained, Order at 123-24, presents another clear case in which the

State was aware of the exculpatory nature of a piece of evidence prior to its destruction. On

July 12, 1999, counsel for Mr. Lee sent a letter to the District Attorney’s office requesting access

to any physical evidence. PX 127. On July 19, 1999, the District Attorney’s office replied by

letter to say that the State did not have any physical evidence, with the exception of photographs.

PX 129. On August 9, 1999, the District Attorney’s office wrote another letter, which referenced

Mr. Lee’s desire to “present that supposed evidence in some sort of hearing regarding Larry

Lee.” PX 130. Four days later, on August 13, 1999, the District Attorney’s office authorized the

destruction of the family room rug despite the fact that, in the authorization memorandum, the

District Attorney’s office recognized that Habeas Corpus proceedings for Mr. Lee were

underway. PX 133. Despite this clear record regarding the destruction of the family room rug,

during his 2001 deposition, John Johnson, the Assistant District Attorney who ordered the

destruction of the family room rug, attempted to cover his tracks by stating that he had never

16

instructed the GBI to destroy any physical evidence in this case. PX 196, pp. 24-25. The

exculpatory nature of this evidence was “readily seen; visible; readily understood or perceived;

evident; [and] obvious” well before its destruction by both the prosecution and the defense.

Brawner, 297 Ga. App. at 819.

In addition to the exculpatory fingerprint evidence, exculpatory hair evidence, and the

family room rug from which additional exculpatory DNA evidence could have been gathered,

the State has lost or destroyed other exculpatory evidence. The Habeas Court found that

“[d]espite Mr. Lee’s requests for production under the Open Records Act and by subpoena, the

GBI never produced any records concerning its request for assistance from the FBI or the

information it supplied to the FBI. Neither the GBI’s 30(b)(6) designee nor Agent Rowe could

account for loss of all of the GBI’s records regarding its dealings with the FBI on this case. . . .

the State’s loss or destruction of the information provided to the FBI raises the specter of an

independent due process violation.” (emphasis in original) Order at 166 n.255. The loss of this

FBI information, which the State could not explain and which was also suppressed by the State

prior to Mr. Lee’s trial, “could have been fertile ground for a competent pretrial defense

investigation. Assuming that the State had disclosed all favorable information in possession of

the prosecution team . . . competent trial counsel [would have been led] to the Yarbrough

brothers,” id. at nn.258, 260, about whom the Habeas Court stated the case for their guilt is

“certainly circumstantially stronger against the two of them than against Petitioner.” Id. at 118.11

11

Additional exculpatory evidence related to the Yarbrough brothers has also been lost or destroyed. GBI reports indicate that several .22 caliber cartridge casings and a .22 caliber lead projectile, as well as samples of blood stains from the bathtub and a door, were collected from a house on Empire Road, near the Jones family home. PX 203. The Yarbrough family lived close to Empire Road, and the Yarbroughs owned several .22 caliber weapons. Order at 168-72, n.269. Amazingly, those blood samples never appear to have made it to the Georgia State Crime Lab, PX 81-87, the casings and projectile have since

17

The lost or destroyed information provided to and received from the FBI was therefore

exculpatory because it pointed to suspects other than Mr. Lee (or Bruce Lee or Sherry Lee), and

the exculpatory nature of this information was apparent prior to its loss or destruction.

The lost or destroyed latent fingerprints and palm prints, hairs, family room rug, and FBI

files, were exculpatory. Their exculpatory nature was apparent prior to their loss or destruction.

Trombetta’s first prong is met.

2. Mr. Lee is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence.

Trombetta’s second prong, i.e. that Mr. Lee is unable to obtain comparable evidence by

other means, is similarly met here. Although Mr. Lee remains capable of arguing that the 47

latent fingerprints and palm prints and unidentified hairs do not link him or his supposed

accomplices to the scene of the crime, that is just the tip of the exculpatory iceberg for this

evidence. While the fact that this evidence can neither confirm nor deny Mr. Lee’s presence at

the crime scene has exculpatory value, that value would have been exponentially multiplied had

this evidence been compared to and matched other suspects. Additionally, the fingerprint lifts,

hairs, family room rug, and other physical evidence should have yielded DNA evidence that

could have been compared to and matched other suspects. Similarly, the information provided to

the FBI by the GBI and the resulting information generated by the FBI would have made it

possible for Mr. Lee to investigate and identify other suspects and discover profiles that would

have exonerated Mr. Lee. This lost or destroyed evidence cannot be equaled by other available

evidence.

Indeed, the State was aware of other suspects, namely Robert and Joe Yarbrough, but the

State failed to compare the 47 fingerprints and palm prints and unknown hairs to the Yarbroughs.

been lost, PX 192, p. 17; PX 193, pp. 33, 42-49; PX 186, exhibits 11-13, and they had never been compared to the .22 caliber bullet evidence found at the Jones family home, PX 84, items 44A-C, p. 12.

18

Id. at 73-74. As the Habeas Court stated, the case for the Yarbrough’s guilt is “certainly

circumstantially stronger against the two of them than against [Mr. Lee].” Id. at 118. For

example, one witness, Jimmy Grant, saw two vehicles speeding away from the Jones’ home in

tandem around the time of the murders. Id. at 58. Grant described the cars as a silver-colored

car, like a Trans Am, and a small, beige pickup truck with writing on the side. Id. At that time,

the Yarbroughs owned a small pickup with writing on the side, and a silver sports car. Id at 162

n.215, 169 n.269.

At trial the State argued that the Lees began the crime as a burglary. But a typical

burglary, the kind allegedly committed by Mr. Lee, would likely have been conducted mid-day

and mid-week when no one would be home, the perpetrators would have fled if someone

happened to be home, and the home would have been completely ransacked in an effort to

collect loot and get out quickly. Id. at 116.

During the initial investigation of the Jones murders, however, the GBI profile of the

killers indicated that they: (1) were probably local residents who knew the victims; (2) probably

knew Clifford Jones and his son were leaving for a fishing trip on April 25, 1986; (3) probably

knew Christi Jones would be leaving for a high school graduation trip early on the morning of

April 26, 1986; (4) probably thought Nina Jones would be alone in the house after Christi left

early that morning; and (5) probably knew, in her husband’s absence, Nina Jones would have

closed up the family restaurant and had with her the receipts from the previous two evenings. Id.

at 70-73.

The GBI profile created a pool of suspects that excluded Mr. Lee. Id. at 71. The GBI

profile was not only favorable to Mr. Lee, however, but it also implicated the Yarbroughs. Id. at

71, 166-72 nn.260, 269. In particular:

19

• Robert Yarbrough was well-acquainted with traditional pre-graduation beach trips of local high school students, and had gone on them himself;

• Robert Yarbrough had approached a high school friend about joining him and Joe in casing the Jones family’s restaurant to see how much money they brought in;

• Joe and Robert Yarbrough knew the Joneses and had worked at the Jones home

doing remodeling work shortly before the murders;

• Joe Yarbrough knew Clifford Jones kept a lot of money in the safe in his home;12

• Joe Yarbrough was angry with Clifford Jones because Clifford had refused to pay the Yarbroughs for work they had done on the Jones home, leading Joe to say “I’m going to get that bastard.”

Id.

Other evidence linking the Yarbroughs to the Jones murders included:

• In the days after the Jones murders, Joe Yarbrough bore deep scratches on his arms consistent with a violent struggle, and the Joneses had been beaten, stabbed, and shot in the course of a violent struggle;

• Joe Yarbrough owned a number of .22 caliber weapons, and the Joneses were shot with .22 caliber weapons;

13

• Joe Yarbrough came home angry around 4:00 a.m. on the morning the Jones

family was murdered. He left his home around 5:30 a.m. saying he was going to open the store where he worked, but he did not open the store. Indeed, Joe did not go to work that day, and did not return home until the next day;

• The day after the murders, Joe Yarbrough told his wife that the Jones family had

been killed, and described the crime scene in considerable detail at a time when information about the crime scene had not been publicly disseminated;

12

The crime scene resembled one in which the perpetrators were local residents who went in knowing there would be a bank bag filled with cash from a busy Friday night at the family’s restaurant, and who tortured Clifford and Jerold Jones out of personal animosity or in an effort to get the combination to the family’s safe. Id. at 116. 13

Despite the relevance of .22 caliber evidence, the State never compared several .22 caliber cartridge casings and a .22 caliber lead projectile found at a house on Empire Road to the .22 caliber bullet evidence found at the Jones family home. PX 203; PX 84, items 44A-C, p. 12. The blood samples collected from the Empire Road house’s bathtub and door do not appear to have even made it to the Georgia State Crime Lab. PX 203; PX 81-87. The Yarbrough family lived close to Empire Road. Order at 168-72 n.269. That evidence from the Empire Road house has now been lost. PX 192, p. 17; PX 193, pp. 33, 42-49; PX 186, exhibits 11-13.

20

• Two days after the Jones family was murdered and a First National Bank bag was

stolen from their home, Joe Yarbrough brought an extra First National Bank bag to work;

• In the weeks after the Jones family was murdered, Joe Yarbrough spent lavishly

on his family in a way he had not done before and could not ordinarily afford;

• Investigators had observed a bloody impression of a combat boot at the Jones home, and Robert Yarbrough was in the National Guard and Guardsmen wear combat boots;

• Clifford Jones had marks on his back consistent with a shotgun being shoved in

his back. Joe Yarbrough’s wife said that Joe had previously shoved a shotgun in her back and threatened to kill her. Further, Joe used a shotgun in committing another crime, the murder of Glenda Anne Strickland. That shotgun was missing its fore-end. Investigators had discovered wood fragments in the rug where Clifford Jones had been assaulted.

Id.

In addition to the fact that the Yarbroughs fit the GBI’s initial profile and additional

evidence links them to the Jones family murder, on March 9, 1987, less than a year after the

Jones murders, the Yarbroughs murdered Glenda Anne Strickland in a manner that contains a

number of similarities to the Jones murder. Id. at 166-172 nn.260, 269. Among the similarities

between the Jones family and Strickland murders:

• Strickland was a store clerk with whom the Yarbroughs were acquainted; and the GBI profile for the Jones murders indicated that the perpetrators knew the victims;

• Joe and Robert laid in wait for Strickland near her rural house in the pre-dawn hours. The Jones family was murdered at their rural house very early on a Saturday morning;

• Strickland, like the Joneses, was murdered with extreme brutality;

• Strickland was murdered for money, and the only thing taken from her was a

money bag. The Yarbroughs knew that she would be carrying a bank bag full of money. The only thing of value taken from the Jones home was a money bag;

21

• Before Strickland’s body had even been discovered, Joe told an acquaintance about the crime and described it in detail;

• The Yarbroughs knew Strickland could identify them, and would have to be

killed. Similarly, because the perpetrators were likely known to the Joneses, anyone in the house would be able to identify the perpetrators, and would have had to be killed.

Id.

Substantial evidence suggests that the Yarbroughs were the Jones family’s true killers.

Yet the State failed to compare the 47 fingerprints and unknown hairs from the Jones crime

scene to the Yarbroughs. Id. at 73-74. The State failed to compare the .22 caliber shell casings

and bullet collected from a house on Empire Road with the ballistics evidence from the Jones

home, and failed to analyze or compare blood scrapings collected from the Empire Road house

to either the Jones family or the Yarbroughs. PX 203; PX 81-87. The State failed to reveal the

criminal profile developed by the FBI based upon extensive evidence provided to it by the GBI,

which likely would have pointed to the Yarbroughs. Order at 266 n.260. All of that that

evidence is now lost or destroyed.

If that evidence, all of which was known to be exculpatory at the time of its loss or

destruction, still existed, Mr. Lee (or, indeed, the State, the victims’ family, or any party

interested in a just outcome), would be able to use it to positively place the Yarbroughs, or other

potential perpetrators, at the scene of the crime. If necessary, expert testimony at an evidentiary

hearing could show that, with the assistance of modern DNA testing, the items of evidence lost

or destroyed by the State could have yielded DNA profiles. Those profiles could have been

compared against the known profiles of other suspects or close relatives of other suspects. Such

tests could have positively placed other suspects, potentially including the Yarbrough brothers, at

the scene of the crime. Similarly, manual or automated fingerprint comparison could have

22

positively placed other suspects at the Jones family home. That kind of scientific evidence

positively linking other suspects to the crime scene would be extremely powerful, but it is now

lost. Comparable evidence is simply not available. Trombetta’s second prong, like its first, is

met in Mr. Lee’s case. By losing or destroying this evidence, the State has violated Mr. Lee’s

right to due process.

C. Even if It Were Necessary to Show Bad Faith, the Habeas Findings Meet That Standard.

In the case of potentially exculpatory evidence, a defendant’s right to due process is

violated when the State, acting in bad faith, fails to preserve that evidence. Youngblood, 488

U.S. at 57; Fisher, 540 U.S. at 547-48. Because the exculpatory value of the 47 latent

fingerprints and palm prints, unidentified hairs, family room rug, FBI files, and evidence from

the Empire Road house, was apparent prior to their loss or destruction, Mr. Lee need not show

that the State acted in bad faith. Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. at 141. In the alternative, however, the

record shows that the State did act in bad faith in destroying evidence that could have exonerated

Mr. Lee. “‘[T]he presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the Due Process

Clause must necessarily turn on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence

at the time it was lost or destroyed.’ A finding of bad faith is reserved for ‘those cases in which

the police themselves by their conduct indicate that the evidence could form a basis for

exonerating the defendant.’” Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. at 141, quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at

56 n. *.

The State’s bad faith destruction of exculpatory evidence is most blatant in the case of the

family room rug, from which modern scientific testing could have elicited additional exculpatory

evidence. Order at 123-24. As noted above, on July 12, 1999, counsel for Mr. Lee requested

access to any physical evidence remaining in the case. PX 127. On July 19, 1999, the District

23

Attorney’s office replied that it did not have any physical evidence, with the exception of

photographs. PX 129. On August 9, 1999, the District Attorney’s office wrote another letter in

which it referenced Mr. Lee’s desire to “present that supposed evidence in some sort of hearing

regarding Larry Lee.” PX 130. Four days later, on August 13, 1999, the District Attorney’s

office authorized the destruction of the family room rug despite the fact that, in the authorization

memorandum, the District Attorney’s office recognized that Habeas Corpus proceedings for

Mr. Lee were underway. PX 133. When later asked about the destruction of physical evidence

during his 2001 deposition, Assistant District Attorney John Johnson evidenced his bad faith by

lying about his role in the destruction. PX 196, pp. 24-25. The State’s authorization of the

destruction of the family room rug so soon after Mr. Lee requested it, and while Mr. Lee’s

Habeas Corpus proceedings were ongoing, is an example where “[t]he questionable timing of the

destruction suggests bad faith on the part of the State.” Blackwell, at 141.

The destroyed family room rug presents one of most obvious instances in which timing

suggests bad faith, but that is only because in most instances the State is simply unable to explain

what happened to the exculpatory evidence it had in its possession. The 47 latent finger and

palm prints, though available at Mr. Lee’s trial, were never given an item number in the record of

evidence, PX 84, pp. 14-15, and at his 2006 deposition, the GBI Records Unit Manager could

say no more than that the fingerprint files are “definitely missing in action or not where we can

immediately get our hands on them,” and “[t]he only thing I can tell you is that we don’t have

clear knowledge of where they are at.” PX 186, pp. 124-25, 261-62. In the case of various hairs

reviewed by GBI microanalyst Terri Santamaria at Mr. Lee’s trial, (T.IX 77-86,) those hairs have

not been known to exist since they were transferred to court in 1987. PX 194, pp. 22-50, &

exhibit 10; PX 186, pp. 69-76, & exhibit 11. Other hairs were last known to exist in 1999 but,

24

according to the GBI Records Unit Manager, were “probably destroyed.” PX 186, pp. 50-59,

260, & exhibits 6-7; PX 187, pp. 310-321, & exhibit 28. Similarly, “Neither the GBI’s 30(b)(6)

designee nor Agent Rowe could account for [the] loss of all of the GBI’s records regarding its

dealings with the FBI on this case.” (emphasis in original) Order at 166 n.255. The fact that the

State cannot account for the whereabouts of so much critical exculpatory evidence proves that

this evidence was not destroyed according to some routine policy or procedure, or else the

State’s records would have evidenced that fact. Instead, the State has offered no reasonable

explanation for what has happened to this evidence. That alone is evidence of the State’s bad

faith. See Bohl, 25 F.3d at 911-13 (relying in part on the State’s inability to explain the

destruction of evidence in finding bad faith).

The mysterious “disappearance” of exculpatory evidence, neither according to routine

procedure or with the benefit of a credible excuse, must be seen against the backdrop of the

repeated Brady violations that marred Mr. Lee’s prosecution from its earliest days, and which led

to the reversal of his convictions. As more fully detailed in the Habeas Order and Mr. Lee’s

Motion to Bar Retrial Under the State and Federal Double Jeopardy Clauses, the State’s handling

of Mr. Lee’s prosecution was replete with Brady violations and other misconduct that indicates

the State’s entire prosecution of Mr. Lee was conducted in bad faith. For example, the State

failed to disclose evidence that could have been used to impeach David Morris, to whom Mr. Lee

supposedly confessed while in prison. Order at 8-38. The State then deliberately elicited and

failed to correct false testimony from Morris. Id. at 28-38. The State failed to disclose evidence

that could have been used to impeach Sherry Lee, “[t]he State’s most important witness”, and

25

show that her testimony, which she has since recanted, was a complete fabrication.14

Id. at 39-

50. The State then failed to correct false testimony from Sherry Lee at trial. Id. at 51-58. The

State suppressed evidence that could have been used to impeach Jimmy Grant and Hazel Moody

as witnesses concerning the vehicles they saw fleeing the Jones family home. Id. at 58-65. The

State suppressed information that would have discredited its erroneous attempt to link Mr. Lee to

the scene of the crime through three guns Mr. Lee supposedly took from the Jones home. Id. at

65-70. The State failed to disclose that neither the GBI’s theory of the crime nor the FBI’s

profile of the perpetrators fit Mr. Lee. Id. at 70-73. The State failed to disclose evidence

showing that it coached Christi Jones to testify how it wanted her to testify, and that Christi

Jones made inconsistent statements, as well as evidence that questioned her ability to testify. Id.

at 76-85. Indeed, in reference to the State’s treatment of Christi Jones’ testimony, the Habeas

Court stated that the State’s actions “[fly] in the face of all fundamental fairness and is more akin

to the Nazi Secret Service investigations than those required by the laws of this State and

Nation.” Id. at 81.

These profound and illegal Brady violations demonstrate that the State was more

interested in closing the book on a high-profile crime by railroading an innocent man than in

finding the true killers of the Jones family or providing Mr. Lee with a fair trial. The loss and

destruction of forensic evidence such as 47 latent fingerprints and palm prints, unidentified hairs,

and the family room rug, as well as the loss of the FBI-related files, and evidence from the

Empire Road house that could further implicate the Yarbroughs, must be viewed against that

background. The State was faced with “a weak prosecution case dependent for its success on the

believability of two witnesses unfavored in the law and by the public—a jailhouse snitch and a 14

See Motion to Exclude Prior Testimony of Sherry Lee, Hazel Moody, and Other Now-Deceased Witnesses; Opposition to State’s Motion to Exclude Recantations of the Testimony of Sherry Lee.

26

co-conspirator—with absolutely no forensic evidence to link the Petitioner to the crime scene.”

Order at 124. The prosecution wanted to ensure that once it obtained its conviction, aided by

numerous acts of prosecutorial misconduct, that conviction would not be overturned and they

would not be embarrassed by forensic evidence that pointed to other suspects. By destroying this

evidence, the State assured that it would never be tested by any additional scientific techniques,

particularly against rapidly advancing DNA technology. The State also prevented the 47 latent

fingerprints and palm prints from being compared against the FBI’s automated fingerprint

identification system, or even to the GBI’s own computerized fingerprint identification system,

which the GBI acquired less than two months after Mr. Lee’s trial. Id. At 123. “The

questionable timing of the destruction suggests bad faith on the part of the State.” Blackwell, at

141. The loss or destruction of this evidence qualifies as bad faith destruction as a matter of law.

V. Barring Further Prosecution of Mr. Lee is the Only Appropriate Remedy.

A trial court should remedy the violation of a defendant’s due process rights through the

loss or destruction of exculpatory evidence by suppressing the evidence or barring further

prosecution of the defendant. As the Supreme Court stated in Trombetta, “when evidence has

been destroyed in violation of the Constitution, the court must choose between barring further

prosecution or suppressing – as the California Court of Appeal did in this case – the State’s most

probative evidence.” 467 U.S. at 487; Penny, 248 Ga. App. at 774 (stating “the prosecution may

be penalized when it loses or destroys evidence that could potentially have been helpful to the

defense”.)

Here, suppression is not an appropriate remedy because it would penalize Mr. Lee and

aid the State precisely because there was no physical evidence from the crime scene that tended

in any way to implicate Mr. Lee. The evidence here is exculpatory because it shows Mr. Lee

27

was not present when the Jones family was murdered, and it necessarily suggests individuals

other than Mr. Lee, or any of the Lees, committed the crime. Suppression of this evidence would

prevent Mr. Lee from showing he was not at the crime scene, and that this evidence suggests

other individuals were the true perpetrators. The State should not be rewarded for its violations

of Mr. Lee’s due process rights. Only by barring further prosecution of Mr. Lee can the State be

punished for its unlawful violations of Mr. Lee’s constitutional rights without further hindering

Mr. Lee’s ability to defend himself at a fair trial.

In Blackwell, where the State destroyed a urine sample that, field tested, did not indicate

the defendant had drugs in his system, the Georgia Court of Appeals stated that “the State

violated Blackwell’s due process rights under Trombetta, and the trial court properly dismissed

the drug charges in the indictment.” 245 Ga. App. at 139. See also, State v. Miller, 298 Ga.

App. 584, 591-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009), rev’d, 287 Ga. 748 (2010) (holding that the trial court

was authorized to find a denial of defendant’s right to due process under the Federal Constitution

and to order dismissal of the criminal charges because of the State’s destruction of a cell phone).

Barring further prosecution of Mr. Lee, as the Georgia Court of Appeals did in Blackwell,

is the only constitutionally permissible and adequate remedy for the State’s destruction of

evidence.

In the alternative, Mr. Lee moves for an evidentiary hearing to establish the kind of

modern scientific testing to which the lost or destroyed evidence, if it still existed, could be

subjected, including DNA testing, fingerprint analysis and comparison, and criminal profiling.

An evidentiary hearing is also necessary to determine the type of evidence that such testing could

be expected to generate. If the Court chooses not to dismiss the charges against Mr. Lee in their

entirety due to the State’s multiple and repeated violations of Mr. Lee’s due process rights, this

28

Court should order an evidentiary hearing regarding precisely what the lost or destroyed

exculpatory evidence could have shown in Mr. Lee’s defense.

VI. Conclusion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due

process is violated when the State destroys exculpatory evidence, or when the State destroys

potentially exculpatory evidence in bad faith. Here, the State has lost or destroyed the 47 latent

fingerprints, palm prints, unidentified hairs, the family room rug, and other forensic evidence

that indicated Mr. Lee was not at the Jones house when the crime was committed. That evidence

is exculpatory, and through its loss or destruction, the State has violated Mr. Lee’s right to due

process. In the alternative, that evidence was potentially exculpatory, and its loss or destruction

was the result the State’s bad faith that manifested itself at every stage of Mr. Lee’s prosecution.

Because of the loss or destruction of this evidence, Mr. Lee’s rights have been violated, and the

State must be held accountable. This Court should hold that the State’s violations of Mr. Lee’s

right to due process should bar his further prosecution.

Date: _______________ Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Joseph W. Vigneri OFFICE OF THE GEORGIA CAPITAL DEFENDER 225 Peachtree Street NE South Tower, Suite 900 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Tel: (404) 739-5151 Fax: (404) 739-5155

29

Newell M. Hamilton, Jr. OFFICE OF THE GEORGIA CAPITAL DEFENDER 11 Judicial Lane, Suite 225 Brunswick, Georgia 31520 Tel: (912) 261-3905 Fax: (912) 261-3912 Michael A. Coval FORD & HARRISON LLP 271 17th Street NW, Suite 1900 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 Tel: (404) 888-3892 Fax: (404) 888-3863 David J. Bradford (pro hac vice application pending) Terri L. Mascherin (pro hac vice application pending) Daniel J. Weiss (pro hac vice application pending) John M. Power (pro hac vice application pending) Paul B. Rietema (pro hac vice application pending) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60654 Tel: (312) 222-9350 Fax: (312) 527-0484 Jean M. Doherty (pro hac vice application pending) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Lost Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 239-5100 Fax: (213) 239-5199 Attorneys for the Defendant.

e· ~.,.".., ,r--- .

lj,.,.",. '.

, ,. -,., , .. "

STATE OF GEORGIA

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES OFFICIAL REPORT

PAGE 1 OF 3

886-01532 CASE NUMB£A

DATE _____ O_C_T_, _1_0_, __ 19~6

VICTIM,

JONES, NINA M.

SUSPECT,

OFFICERS:

JERRY ROWE H. H. HIRES

DESCRIPTION:

AGENCY:

REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE Cg.RONER ~A SUPERIOR COURT

COUNTY:

GEtI WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE

ON APR. 27, 1986 AT 2130 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY 1

~ 1. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD V 2. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING TWO

VAGINAL SWABS ~ 3. YELLOW PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

LEFT SHOULDER OF NINA JONES ~'4. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES

~. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN ~IC HAIR OF NINA JONES V 6. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAININGI

A. ONE LAVENDER GOWN V B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE PANTIES

ITEM , REMOVED FROM NINA JONES

ON MAY 13, 1986 AT 11129 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. 8. MAIL:

THREE COPIES OF CL THREE

SERVICE REQUESTED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL : PETITIONER'S J EXHIBIT , - ~/-

· .. '-, lJ .. ·······

I •. ,.' ••••

RESULTS,

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



DATE

ITEM 1 THE BLOOD IS NEGATIVE FOR ETHVL ALCOHOL.

BT BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS,

PAGE 2 OF 3

S8&-01:532 CAlf NUMBER

OCT. 10.

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 1 - NINA JONES) IS POSITIVE,FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC CHARACTERISTICS, INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ESTERASE D 2-1 (EsD 2-1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 2-1 (PGM 2-1) ERVTHROCVTE ACID PHOSPHATASE BA (EAP BA) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENVLATE kINASE 1 (AK 1).

CR CRIMINALISTICS

-.....,./ RESULTS,

EXAMINATION OF THE GOWN (ITEM bA) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF HAIR.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE PANTIES (ITEM 6B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 4).

FA FIREARMS AND TOOLMARkS

RESuLTS,

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLET (ITEM 3) REVEALS THAT IT HAS 6 LANDS AND GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST AND IS CONSISTENT WITH BULLETS FIRED FROM GPC. IMP, OMEGA AND PIC .22 REVOLVERS.

SF SEMINAL FLUID

RESULTS:

EXAMINATION OF THE SWABS (ITEM 2) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF

· . , ..

AI ~

RESULTS,

SEHINAL FLUID.

surE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 3 OF

S86-01532 CAiE HUMIIEII

OCT. 10 .. DATE _______ _

1>-;/

JaMes W. Panter~ B.S. Foren~1c Che;1,

hnL1/~gef1!tf:~1 ! orensic Ser010g~'

lM-' ~~~ Terri R. SantaMaria, S. S.

i~ni~r Hi/PO'~lYS1

Ik~ltJy~.S. !Chi~ FirearMs ExaMiner

3

86 18_

. -: • •

.B -. STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 1 OF 4

586-01533

DATE ___ .=:..J=U.:::::,L..,:..."f __ 7:....L-) __ HI 87

VICTIM:

JON~S, JR., CLIFFORD

SUSPECT:

OFFICERS:


AGENCY:

REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE yORONER

COUNTY:

~A SUPERIOR COURT

GBI WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE

DESCR IP TION:

ON APR. 27, 1986 AT 4:00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT lHE. ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY:

1. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOUD 2. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, JR. 3. ZlP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUES1IUNED HAIR FROM BODY OF

CLIFFORD JONES, JR. 4. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING UNE WHITE SHEET CONTAINlNG:

A. ONE PAIR OF STRIPED PAJAMAS B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE JOCKEY STYLE UNDERSHORTS

IlEM 4 REMOVED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR.

ON MAY 13, 1986 AT 11:28 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAll:

THREE COPIeS OF CL THREE

ON AUG. 08 , 1986 AT 12:58 THE FOLLOWING EVIDLNCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAll:

SEALED MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING: 5. PLASTIC VIAL CONTAINING TEST BULLETS FIRED FROM A .22 RIFLE

SERIAL 4D825186 6. PLASTIC VIAL CONtAINING TEST BULLETS FIRED FRUM A RUGER .22

PISTOL SERIAL 418-24818

UN MAR. 19, 1987 AT 11:25 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE '--" WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE: _ PET\T\ONER'S

:i EXH\Sn i ,,,.\ ~ &r i

i

. -

ITATE OF GEORGIA PAGE. 2 OF 4

• GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

'- ~ DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

'. ,.,' OFFICIAL REPORT 886-01533 CAll NUMKII

DATE JULY 7/. 18 87

--'"

DESCRIPTION:

7. ONE RED STOPPERED TEST TUBE AND ONE PURPLE STOPPERED TEST TUBE EACH LAB~LED "LARRY LEE" EACH CONTAINING BLOOD

8. ONE RED STOPPERED TEST TUBE AND ONE PURPLE STOPPERED TEST TUBE EACH LABELED "SHERRY LEE" EACH CONTAINING BLOOD

9. WHITE lNVELOPE SEALED WITH ,'APE IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING KNOWN - PUBIC HAIR OF SHE.RRY LEE

10. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED WIrH lAPE IDENrlfIED AS CUNrAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF SHERRY L£E

11. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE IDENTIFlED AS CONTAINING KNOWN BODY HAIR OF SHERRY L~E

12. WHITE ~NVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE IDEN1IFIED AS KNOWN PUBlC HAlR OF LARRY LEE

13. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE IDENrlFIED AS KNOWN BODY HAIR OF LARRY LEE

14. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED WITH lAPE IDENrIFIED AS KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF LARRY LEE

1~. A PLASTlC BAG CONfAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF WHITE TENNIS SHOES IDENriFIED AS BELONGING TO

BRUCE LEE . B. ONE BLUE STRIPED BELT

SERVlCE REQUES1ED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL

RESULTS:

V/ ITl:~M 1 THE BLOOD IS NeGATIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL.

BT BLOOD T'l'PE

RESULTS:

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 1 - CLIFFURD JONES, JR.) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELEC1ROPHORETIC CHARAC1ERlSTICS: INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ES1ERASE D 1 (EsD 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCY1E ACID PHOSPHATASE BA (EAP BA)

JS'II

, . ....... '

••••••••

'- ~'-, . . . ..' .

STATE OF GEORGIA



DATE

PAGE 3 OF 4

586-01033 CAlf HUMBER

J.-=U=L;...:.V_--=-7.J,..) __ HI 87

RESULTS:

ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLAIE KINASE 1 (AK 1),

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 7 - LARRY LEE) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELEC1ROPHORETIC CHARACTERISTICS: IN1ERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP 0 ES1ERASE D 2-1 (EsD 2-1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 2 (PGM 2) ~RY1HROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE BA (EAP BA) ADENOSINE DEAMINAS~ 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLA1E KINASE 1 (AK I),

THt BLOOl) SAMPLE (ITEM 8 - SHERRY LEE) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELEC1ROPHORETIC CHARACTER [STICS: INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ES1ERASE D 2-1 (EsD 2-1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ~RY1HROCYlE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B> ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLA1E KINASE 1 (AK 1).

SERULOGICAL EXAMINATION OF SlAINS ON LEFT SHOE (ITEM 15A) REVEALS THE PR~S~NCE OF BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN) HOWEVfR INADEQUAIE SAMPLE PRECLUDES DETERMINATIUN OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP.

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULlS:

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 3) PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSIS1ENT WITH lHE HAIR (ITEM 2), TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (11EM 35, 586-1531) ,

REVEALS THE KNOWN HEAD CAUCASIAN CASE

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUES1IONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE WHITE SHEET (ilEM 4) REVEALS lHE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN BODY OR LiMB

~ HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSlSTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (CASE S86-1032) Il~M 4),

. , .. ' lTATE OF GEORGIA PAGE:: 4 OF

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION '- ' fJ

··-~· DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

OFFICIAL REPORT ", .. , .... " S86-01533

............

CASf NUMBER

DATE ___ -"'-J...;;;U..;;;;L...;.Y_--:....7,Ll __ '8 87

RESULTS:

MICROSCOPIC ~XAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM TH~ PAJAMAS (11tH 4A) REVEALS THE PRES~NCE OF SlVERAl CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WI1H THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 2), S~VERAl CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASiAN HEAD HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAlR (ITEM 2,) AND (ITEM 35, CASE S86-1531 AND ITEM 4, CASE 586-1532) .

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE ... /' UND~RSHOR1S (11 EM 4B) RE.VEALS THE PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN H£AD ~ HAlRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 2).

/ EXAMINATION OF lHE lENNlS SHOES (IIEM 15A) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRE.SENCE OF ANY APPARENf SIGNIFICANT TMACE EVIDENCE.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF lHE QU£STIONED HEAD HAIRS R(MOV~D FROM THE PAJAMAS (ITEM 4A) REVEALS THEM TO BE INCONSISTENT WI1H THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF l. LEE (llEM 88, CASE 586-1531).

FA FIREARMS AND TOOLMARKS

RESULTS:

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF THE TEST BULLETS (IT~M 6) WI1H EVIDENCE BULLETS FROM lHE JUNES CASES REVEALED ~VIDENCE ro CONCLUDE ITEM 6 DID NO'r FIRE ANY OF THE BULLETS.

RESPECTFULLY SUB. J4-I'l '1 ED I /1 t I - [ ,; ,... -- ..

l. n J " - .-

JaMes W. Panter I • S. forenSic CheMist

ftJ ·1:~t J~~6 R0~~~

Terri R. SantaMaria, B. S. Senior Microanalyst

Ib~~ . ~hiel FirearMS ExaMiner

I

• .... ... e'

~

'"

. , . . (

STATE OF GEORGIA



De, J"tHu~

PAGE 1 OF 3

S86-01533

DATE __ -.;...;.MA __ R ____ . _...;;6-1.' __ 1~?

VICTIM:

JONES, JR., CLIFFORD

SUSPECT:

OFFICERS:


DESCRIPTION:

AGENCY:

REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE CgRONER ~ SUPERIOR COURT

ON APR. 27, 1986 AT 4:00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE

COUNTY:

GItI WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE

WAS RECEIVED FROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSYa

1. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD 2. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, JR. 3. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR FROM BODY OF

CLIFFORD JONES, JR. 4. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAINING:

A. ONE PAIR OF STRIPED PAJAMAS B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE JOCKEY STYLE UNDERSHORTS

ITEM 4 REMOVED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR.

ON MAY 13, 1986 AT 11:28 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:


ON AUG. 08, 1986 AT 12a58 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

SEALED MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING: 5. PLASTIC VIAL CONTAINING TEST

SERIAL ID825186 BULLETS FIRED

./ 6. PLASTIC VIAL CONTAINING TEST PISTOL SERIAL. t18-24878

BULLETS FIRED

... :ri.

t I:

i z I:

FROM A .22 RIFLE

FROM A RUGER .22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT

-B3 /

, . (

•.. '~- ..

, -"

", , .. '

ST ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 2 OF 3

S86-0t533

DATE ___ M_A_R_, _....:6:...!,, __ ,Il?

SERVICE REQUESTED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL

RESULTS,

ITEM t THE BLOOD IS NEGATIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL.

BT BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS:

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM t - CLIFFORD JONES, JR,) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC CHARACTERISTICS: INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AS ESTERASE D 1 (EsD t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE BA (EAP BA) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK 1).

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULTS:

/

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUES'IIONED HAIR (ITEM 3) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSIS1ENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 2), TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35, CASE S86-1531) ,

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE WHITE SHEET (ITEM 4) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (CASE S86-t532, ITEM 4),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE PAJAMAS (ITEM 4A) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 2), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 2,) AND (ITEM 35, CASE S86-1531 AND ITEM 4, CASE

I

- ... . ..

•... ~ ..

-,

'., .".'

I I

ST ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 3 OF 3

S86-01533 CAli NUIo8lI1

DAT .... E ___ t1_A_R_. __ 6~) __ 1887

RESULTS:

S86-1532) ,

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE UNDERSHORTS (ITEM 4B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD

~. HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 2),


RESULTS:

" / -...!

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF THE TEST BULLETS (ITEM 6) WITH EVIDENCE BULLETS FROM THE JONES CASES REVEALED EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE ITEM 6 DID NOT FIRE ANY OF THE BULLETS.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMll1ED, i

I '

o ~ ( .. .,"-'

~

i . . . oJ a Me s W. Pan t e r, B. S .

i~~lliJ,~. f .. ~enior Forensic ~Ol~1 · ~ t( \jvlt;~I~

Terri R. SantaMaria, B. S. Senior Microanalyst

Chi f FirearMs ExaMiner

/

li···-~·

. . -" " . , .. ,,'

ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 1 OF 1~

S8b-01531

DATE ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2.;.... __ 1. 81

VICT1M:

JONES, SR •• CLIFFORD

SUSPECT:

MULLIS, RAY JAMES MOORE, BRUCE HAROLD BROWN, ERIC HOLIDAY, EDDIE LEE, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, WAYNE LEE, CHERYL L. BROWNFIELD, CHRIS ALLEN

OFFICERS: AGENCY: COUNTY:


DESCRIPTION:

REGION 4 DOUGLAS ~HERIFF'S OFFICE

IDA SUPERIOR COURT CORONER

ON APR. 26, 198b AT 18125 THE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION:


ON 4-26-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 18:25, LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY R IDDE.LL WENT 10 ROUlE 1 ODUM I GEORGiA A I I HE RESIDI:":NCt:: OF CLIFfORD JONES, SR. AND THERE PROCESSED THI:": SCENE AND BROUGHl BACK TO THE LABORATORY THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1. TWO EVIDENCE BAGS SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ONE LIGHT BLUE BLANKET RECOVERED FROM MAST~R BEDROOM

2. LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED FLAT SHEET RECOVERED FROM MASTER BEDROOM

3. LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE AQUA BLANKET RECOVERED FROM BED IN MAS1ER BEDROOM

4. LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRlPED FI1TED SHEET RECOVERED FROM MAS1ER ~EDROOM

5. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING TWO PILLOWCASES RECOVERED fROM BED IN MASTER BEDROOM

6. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING SEVERAL QUE.STIONED HAIRS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR NEAR BATHROOM IN MASTER BEDRUOM

7. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED FROM MASTER BEDR OOM DOOR ~ PETltlONER'S

~ EXHlSlt

;;L5'97 1 ~t - / 5 -!

-~ IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE. 2 OF 15

886-01531 CAst: NUMalIl

DATE ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2_1 __ '1 81

DESCRIPTIONl

e. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR RECOVERED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

9. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM UNDERNEATH CLIfFORD JONES, JR.

10. METAL PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM FLOOR NEAR COMMODE IN MAS1ER BATHROOM

11. ONE:LARGE THROW RUG RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 12. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTION~D METAL FRAGMEN"r 13. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING LARGER QU~STIONED METAL

FRAGMENT 14. SMALL 2IP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QU~STIONED SPRING

ASSEMBLY 15. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE GOLD CHAIN WITH REDDISH

BROWN STAINS lb. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED NEAR

CHAIN 17. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED PIECE OF

PAPER SCRAP 18. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CAR1RIDGE

CASE 19. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE 20. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS FOUND NEAR

CARTRIDGE. CASES I1EMS 12 - 20 RECOVERED FROM ITEM 11 21. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH SlAPL~S CONTAINING ONE HURRICANE SIYLE

GLASS SHADE RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 22. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE CLEAR PLASflC

CONTAINER RECOVEKED FROM HUTCH IN FAMILY ROOM 23. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CON1AINING lWO QUESTIONED WOOD

FRAGMENTS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM 24. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE RECOVERED FROM NEAR DESK ON FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM 25. BLUE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BUllET RECOVERED

FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR ENTRANCE HALL 2b. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

RECOVERED FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR REFRIGERATOR 27. PIllOW WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM COUCH IN fAMILY

ROOM 28. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING A ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE

DISPOSABLE RAlOR WI1H REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOV~R£D FROH GUEST BATHROOM

29. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE YELLOW PILLBOX CONTAINING SCRAPINGS OF REDDISH BROWN SlAINS ON KITCHEN FLOOR

30. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ON~ T~LEPHONE BOOK

•........ -

~ , .... ".,

STATE OF GEORGIA



\

PAGE 3 OF 15

S86-01531 CAll NUlllB£R

DAT ..... E ___ J._U_L_Y __ 2,.;;..' __ 18 87

DESCRIPTION:

RECOVERED FROM KITCHEN FLOOR ON 4-27-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 02:30 A. M., LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO GORDON-HARRISON FUNERAL HOME AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING:

31. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 32. THE INKED POSTMOR1EM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. 33. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF NINA JONES

ON APR. 26, 1986 AT 20:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VlA AUTOPSY:

34. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD 35. PLASTlC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAlR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, SR. 36. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FHOM

BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 37. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

LIVER Of CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 38. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLEr REMOVED FROM

RIGHT ILEUM OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 39. PINK PILLBOX CONrAINING.ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FNOM

LEFT HIP OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 40. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAINING:

A. ONE WHIlE T-SHIRT B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE BOXER SHORTS

I1EM 40 REMOVED FROM CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

ON MAY 05, 1986 AT 9:00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM SIA R. S. STONE:

41. ONE BAG LABELED N ••• TODD, DANNY CHARLES .•• N CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS

42. ONE BAG LABELED N ••• DANNY C. TODD .•• " CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF WHn E ATHLETIC SHOES B. ONE BELT

43. ONE BAG LABELED "DANNY C. TODD .•. " CONrAINING ONE WHITE LONG SLEEVE SHIRT.

* * * ON MAY 5, 1986, ITEMS 41, 42 AND 43 ARE FORWARDED TO THE SEROLOGY SECTION OF THE A1LANTA LABORATORY VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

')

'I." .... . .

", "".>

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 4 OF 15

SB6-01ti31 CAS( HUM8llI

\../

DATE ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2..;..' __ 1' 87

DESCRIPTION:

ON MAY 07, 198b AT 10137 THE FOLLOWIN~ EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM MAILa

44. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING: A. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE .22 CAR1RIDGE CASES B. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING FOUR .22 CARTRIDGE CASES C. SEALED WHIlE ENV~LOPE CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD ~ULLET

ON MAY 06, 198b AT 9150 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY fROM THE

SAVANNAH LABORATORYa

CARDBOARD BOX SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING I1£MS 41, 42, AND 43 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE

ON MAY 09, 198b AT 11;50 THE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE:

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT LACE UP BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT LACE UP Boor ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD B~ARING TH~ INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANNY C. TODD TWO INKED FINGERPRINT CARDS BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH ONE PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF THOMAS MATHIS ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JOHN 8. JOHNSON, III ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF HARRY TYRE ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF TIMOTHY TODD ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WILLIAM LUTHER HIR~S ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF NORMAN LAWRENCE MOSLEY ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSlONS OF CYNTHIA MCCALL ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING TH~ ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JAMES DAVIS ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

" •",--"

" -, '

", .....

STATE OF GEORGIA



PACE 5 OF 15

S86-01~J1 CAN NUMII£R

DAT~E ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2..;..' __ 18 81

DESCRIPTION:

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES 61. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES, SR. 62. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING lHE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF CHRISTI J. JONES 63. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF GREGORY ROGERS

ON HAY 12, 1986 AT 8:30 THE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

64. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF WORK BOOTS 65. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF "DINGO" BOOTS 66. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING:

A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS B. ONE. WALLET C. ONE EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX D. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE E. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING HAIR

61. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 36 B. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SlZE 34

ON MAY 13, 1986 AT 11:24 THE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAlL:

THR~E COPIES OF CL THReE

ON MAY 19, 1986 AT 14:33 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM J. J. MCGLAMERY:

68. ONE BROWN ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE BLACK FILM CANISTERS CONTAINING 35 HM FIL"

ON JUNE 11, 1986 AT 9:45 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. HAIL:

69. ONE MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE INKED FINGERPRlNT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF RAY JAMES MULLIS

ON JUNE 16, 1986 AT 10:45 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

10. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHE.ETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHRIS

•...• ~ ...

- .. -,

", ......

( . 1 )

STUE OF GEORGIA

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESllGA liON


PAGE 6 OF 15

S86-01:;)31 CASE HUlllHII

DATE-__ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ 18 81

DESCRIPTIONI

ALLEN BROWNFIELD 11. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER

BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALM IMPRESSIONS OF BRUCE HA~OLD HOORE

ON JULY 01, 1986 AT 9:55 THE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILI

12. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING: A. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE B. TWO SHEETS OF WHIlE PAPeR ~EARING lHE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS

OF LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE

ON JULY 14, 1986 AT 10:30 lHE FOLLOWING EVID~NCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILI

73. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER lMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE

74. ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LE.E

75. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD B~ARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

76. ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BcARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

ON AUG. 26, 1986 AT 10:10 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

~1. SIX MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED FINGERPRINTS Of RICHARD SHANE DAVIS

ON OCT. 02, 1986 AT 13:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE, GBl:

78. ONE MACHINE COPY OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY

79. TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF ~DDIE HOLIDAY

80. ONE MACHINE COpy OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN 81. TWO SHEETS OF WHIlE PAPER ~EA~ING THE MACHINE COPIES OF lHE

INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN

· .•.. , ... ... -, . , ..... , .. ,

au TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 7 OF 15

SBb-01~31

DATE. ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ 11 87

DESCRIPTION&

ON OCT. 20, 198b AT 9:1b THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE:

82. RUGER .22 PISTOL S~RIAL NUMBER 487878

ON NOV. 07, 198b AT 9:39 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE AND EARL CALLAWAY:

83. ONE REMINGTON .22 SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE SERIAL tA224b5BO

ON NOV. 10, 1986 AT 14:00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE:

84. J. C. HIGGINS .22 S~MI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE

ON NOV. 25, 1986 AT 10:52 IHE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROW~:

85. BROWN PAPER BAG CONfAINING ONE .32 REVOLVER IN VERY OXIDIZED CONDITION

86. FIVE-GALLON PLASTIC BUCKET CONTAINING: A. ONE SMITH AND WESSON .38 REVOLVER Sf RIAL tl12226 B. ONE SMITH AND WESSON .38 REVOLVER SERIAL 15432

ON JUNE 24, 1987 AT 13:43 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

87. A SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE LABELED "LARRY LEE'S PUBIC HAIR" ee. A SEALED WHIlE ENVELOPE LABELED "LARRY LEE'S HEAO HAIRM

SERVICE REQUESTED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL

•' .. " ..

" .. -.... , .. "

, )

ITA TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE a OF 15

886-01531 CAN NJMHII

JULY 2, 81 DATI:.E _________ 1'_

RESULTS.

ITEM 34 THE BLOOD IS POSITIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL 0.02 GRAMS X. THE RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE DUE TO PUlRE'FACTION.

ST BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS: '

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 34 - CLIFfORD JONES) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING S~ROLOGICAL AND ELEC1ROPHORETIC CHARAC1ERISTICS, IN1ERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ES1ERASE D 1 (EsD 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINA~E 1 (AK 1).

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON CHAIN AND PILLOW (ITEMS 15 ~ 27) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS lHE PRESENCE OF: A AND B ANTIG~NS CHARAC1ERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOUD GROUP AB OR A COMBlNATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB ES1ERASE D 1 (EsD 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

TH~ RED BROWN STAINS ON RAZOR (I1EM 28) AR~ POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. ELEC1ROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI ADENOSINE DEAMINASE t (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK t)

THE RED BROWN SCRAPINGS (ITEM 29) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AS

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON JEANS (ITEM 67A) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND EL£C1ROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REV£ALS

· ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 9 OF 15

S86-01531

DATE JULY 2, " 8'1 ------------------RESULTS I

";" ',- .... THE PRESENCE pF: A ANTIGEN CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ESllRASE D 1 (EsD 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF STAINS ON PAPER (ITEM 17) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN} HOWEVER INADEQUATE SAMPLE PRECLUDES DETERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP.

EXAMINATION OF BOOTS AND CLOTHING (ITEMS 45, 46, 47, 48, 64, 65, 41, 42A, 428, 43, 66 & 67B) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON SHEET (ITEM 4) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REV~ALS THE PRESENCE UF:

,-,' A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1)

' .........

AD~NYLATE KINASE 1 (AK I),

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULTS:

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE BLUE BLANKET (I1EM 1) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAlR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISIENT WITH THE KNOWN HAiR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAlWS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (11EM 5, CASE S86-1532).

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE BLANKET (ITEM 1) WERE SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, S86-1532) .

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE FLAT SHEET (ITEM 2) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR

"

lj,.,._.

.. -"

", •. ,,0'

ITATE OF O£OAOIA



PAGE 10 OF 15

S80-01531

DATE __ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ 11 87

RESULTS:

(IT~M 35) AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES <ITf.M 4, CASE 58'0-1532).

MICROSCOPlC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE AQUA ~LANKET (I1EM J) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN ~ODY OR

- lIMB HAIRS, ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S8b-1532), SEV~RAl CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR~ CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. (ITEM 2, CASE S80-1533),

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET WERE ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAlR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (IIf.M 3S} ITEM 4, CASE 586-1532 AND ITEM 2, CASE 580-1533) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAlR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ilEM 5, CASE S80-1532),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVeD FROM THE FIllED SHEET (ITEM 4) REVEALS 1HE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR lIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (I1EM 35),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF TH~ QU~ST!ONED HAlR REMOVED FROM TH~ PILLOWCASES (11EM 5) REVEALS 1HE PRESENCE UF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRA~MENTS, ONE CAUCASlAN BODY OR LIMB HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSIS1~NT WITH lHE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S80-1532) ,

MICRUSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 0) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVlRAl CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WI1H THE KNOWN HAIH (ITEM 35), TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 4, CASE S80-1532), ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIH CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE sa6-1~32) AND TWO CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSIS lENT WITH lHE KNOWN HAIR Of NINA JONES (11EM 5, CASE 580-1532),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QU~STION~D HAIR (I1EM 7) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAlRS.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (I1EM 8) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSIS1ENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD

• .. ~~.-

,., -. . . "" ", .. ,

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



-, PAGE 11 OF 15

586-01531

DATE ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2...;.1 __ " 87

RESULTSs

HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CAS~ S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOV~D fROM THE RUG (ITEM 11) REV~ALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIM~ HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAlR (ITEM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSIS1ENT WITH lHE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (IllM 5, CASE S86-1532).

ALSO REMOVEO FROM THE RUG WERE TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35, ITEM 4, CASE S86-15J2 AND Il~M 2, CASE 586- 1533).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 16) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITlH 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATIUN OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 20) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSIS1ENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICRUSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTINED HAIR (ITEM 36) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGM~NTS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (I1EM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WllH lHE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532).

MlCROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOV~D FROM THE WHITE SHEET (ITEM 40) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSlSTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 4, CASE SB6-1~32).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE T-SHIRT (I1EM 40A) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSlSTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (I1EM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE SHORTS (ITEM 40B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD

•... ~ ....

'"' -. . .' '., ., ....

/

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 12 OF 15

S8b-01~31

JULY 2. 81 DATE _________ 19_

RESULTS:

HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAlRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CAS£ S8b-t532) •

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION~D HAIR REMOVED FROM ITEMS 1, 3, b, 7 AND 11 REVEALS THEM TO BE INCONSIS1~NT WI1H lHE KNOWN HAIR Of L. LEE (ITEMS 87, 88 AND ITEM 13, CASE S8b-1533).


RESULTS:

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 25, 2b~37-39) REV~ALS THAT TH~Y HAVE b LANDS AND GROOVES WITH A R1GHT lWIST AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH BULLETS FIRED FROM CDM, IMP, OM~GA AND PIC .22 REVOLVERS.

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (I1EMS 9~10) REVEALED lHEM TO BE .22 LONb ~. RIFLE LEAD BULLETS SHOWING SIX GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST. THESE

BULLETS COULD HAVE B~EN FIRED FROM A NUMB~R OF .22 WEAPONS. EXAMINATION OF THE CARTRIDGE CASES <ITEMS 18, 19~24) REVEALS EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE lHEY WERE FIRED IN A REPEATING lYPE WEAPON.

TH~ PIECES OF METAL (lTEMS 12~13) AND THE SPRING (ITEM 14) ARE PROBABLY FROM AN INEXPENSIVE PAIN1ED .22 R~VOLVER.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF TEST BULLETS AND CARTRIDGE CASES FIRED FROM AND IN THE REVOLV~R (ITEM 82) WITH lHE BULLET (ITEM 9) AND CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEMS 18~19) REVEALED EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE

'THE BULLET AND CAR1RIDGE CASES WERE NOT FIR~D FROM AND IN THE REVOLVER.

TEST BULLETS FIRED FROM THE RIFLES (ITEMS 83 ~ 84) W~RE COMPARED WITH OPEN HOMICIDE BULLETS IN OUR FILES WI1H NEGATIVE RESULTS.

EXAMINATION OF THE REVOLVERS (ITEM 8b A~B) REVEALED THEM TO BE SPUR TRIGGER S~W REVOLVERS WI1H SERIAL NUMBERS 11222b AND 5432.

FP FINGERPRINTS

II···~~·

,.. -" ... , .. ,

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 13 OF 15

88b-01531 CASE~

DAT .... E ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ l' 87

RESULTS:

---,,'

'- .

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPAREP TO THE INKEO FINGERPRINTS OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS,

NAME DATE RESULT

ALFONZO STUDSTILL JUN 17, 1980 NEGATIV£

BRUCE MOOI~E JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

BRUCE WILLIAM L~E JUN 23, 1980 NEGATIVE

CARL CARTER MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

CHRIS BROWNFIELD JUN 17, 1986 NfGATIVE

DANIEL ALEXANDER MAY O~, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL R. PUGH MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANNY C. TODD MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DARRYLL A. JONfS MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DAVID LEE ALEXANDER MAY 05, 1986 NEGATIVE

DENNIS E. WILLIAMS MAY Db, 1986 NEGATIVE

DON R. WILLIAMS MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

GARY M. HERDON MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

GEORGE HARDWICK MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE.

HARRY VARGAS JUN 11, 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN JOHNSON MAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN T. CAULEY MAY Do, 1986 NEGATIVE

• (

1I".'~"

. ,,' -" ..... .

-IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE. 14 OF 15

S8b-Ol~Jl

DATE. ___ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ 11 B'l

RESULTS,

NAME DATE RESULT

HE.RSCHEL HIRES KAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE:

HOWARD TILLMAN JUN 17, 1986 NE.GATIVE

JOHN G. WILLIAMSON JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

JOHN W. DUNSON MAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE JUL 02, 198b NeGATIVE

RAY MULLIS JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

RONALD WA1S0N MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

STEVE W. RHYMES MAY 13, 1986 NE.GATIVE

WAYNE LEE JUN 2J, 1986 NEGATIVE

WILLIAM L. HIRES MAY 13, 1986 N£GATIVE.

SUPPLEMENTAL

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY AND lRIC ~ROWN WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE. INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF WAYNE LE.E, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LE.E AND CHERYL LE.E HAVE ~~E.N COMPAR~D WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD DAVIS AND BOBBY HARRIS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO LA1ENT PRINTS WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

I

• .. .

•.... ~ ..

.. -,

". , .. "

STA TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 15 OF 15

S8b-015.31 CAs! HUWSEII

DATE. ____ J_U_L_Y __ 2_, __ 18 87

RESULTS,

THE LATENT PRINTS WILL BE FILED UNDER TH£ ABOVE-M~NrIONED CASE NUMBER AND ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD MAKE REFEREN~E TO THIS NUM~ER.

RESPECT~L~MIT1EO'

G. Wegel, tf;vl. . nior ForenSicJ~~l R~~

Terri R. San1a~aria, B. S. Senior Microanalyst

~~?~~iner o av,..c..! N~It.u4(J.~

// .'

1./

Larry Hankerson, A.A. Latent Print EC.Miner

() f l., J / ~.---1,'1 • ;. ,~ .

• J'. .;. !:!/ I' '-':t.; ,~-"'.. /0"'"'/ -~.- ,,-... \.' 0 .

JaMes W. Panter, B.S. Forensic: CheMist

•"d~~".'

...... ,.'.

......... -

ITA TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 1 OF 15

S86-01531 CASE~

DATE ___ -..II)IL!E"'-!C~.'_______&l...,.a- u~J6

VIeTI",

JONES, SR., CLIFFORD

SUSPECT,

MULLIS, RAY JAMES MOO~E, BRUCE HAROLD LEE, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, WAYNE LEE, CHERYL L. BROWNFIELD, CHRIS ALLEN BROWN, ERIC HOLIDAY, EDDIE

OFFICERS: AGENCY: COUNTY:


REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE

/DA SUPERIOR COURT CORONER


DESCRIPTIONI

ON APR. 26, 198b AT 18:25 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION:

ON 4-26-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 18:25, LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO ROUTE 1 ODUM, GEORGIA AT THE RESIDENCE OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. AND THERE PROCESSED THE SCENE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1 •

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

TWO EVIDENCE BAGS SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ONE LIGHT BLUE BLANKET RECOVERED FROM MAS1~R BEDROO" LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED FLAT SHEET RECOVERED FROM MASTER BEDROOM LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE AQUA BLANKET RECOVERED FROM BED IN MASTER BEDROOM LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED FITTED SHEET RECOVERED FROM MASTER B~DROOM EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING TWO PILLOWCASES RECOVERED FROM BED IN MASTER BEDROOM SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING SEVERAL QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR NEAR BATHROOM IN MASTER BEDROOM WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAl VERED FROM MASTER BEDROOM DOOR ~ PETITIONER'S

1 EXHIBIT , -B5

•

••• w •• ~.

.... ". -"". '. ,.'

ITA TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 2 OF 15

S86-01531

DATE ___ -=D:...:E;;.:C:..,::._--=-l.L., _ 18-.16

DESCRIPTION:

B. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR RECOVERED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES. SR.

9. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM UNDERNEATH CLIFFORD JONES. JR.

10. METAL PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM FLOOR NEAR COMMODE IN HASTER BATHROOM

11. ONE LARGE THROW RUG RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 12. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED METAL FRAGMENT 13. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING LARGER QUESTIONED METAL

FRAGMENT 14. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED SPRING


BROWN STAINS 16. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED NEAR

CHAIN 17. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED PIECE OF

PAPER SCRAP 18. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE



CARTRIDGE CASES ITEMS 12 - 20 RECOVERED FROM ITEM 11 21. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE HURRICANE STYLE

GLASS SHADE RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 22. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE CLEAR PLASTIC

CONTAINER RECOVERED FROM HUTCH IN FAMILY ROOM 23. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING TWO QUESTIONED WOOD

FRAGMENTS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM 24. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE RECOVERED FROM NEAR DESK ON FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM 25. BLUE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED

FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR ENTRANCE HALL 26. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

RECOVERED FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR REFRIGERATOR 21. PILLOW WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM COUCH IN FAMILY

ROOM 28. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING A ZIP·LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE

DISPOSABLE RAZOR WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM GUEST BATHROOM

29. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE YELLOW PILLBOX CONTAINING SCRAPINGS OF REDDISH BROWN STAINS ON KITCHEN FLOOR

30. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE TELEPHONE BOOK

· . .)

....... ~~~. ,<, -

..... < ••••••

ITA TE OF -GEORGI •



PAGE 3 OF 1:5

se6-01~J1

_./

DATE ___ -=D .... E=C:..:.. __ l.:o....J-. _18.-16

DESCRIPTIONI

RECOVERED fROM KITCHEN FLOOR . ON 4-21-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 02130 A. H., LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO GORDON-HARRISON FUNERAL HOME AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING I

31. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFfORD JONES, SR. 32. THE INKED POSTMOR1EM PRINTS Of CLIffORD JONES, JR. 33. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF NINA JONES

ON APR. 26, 1986 AT 20150 THE fOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED fROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY:

34. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD 35. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, SR. 36. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED fROM

BODY OF CLIFfORD JONES, SR. 31. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED fROM

LIVER Of CLIffORD JONES, ·SR. 38. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED fROM

RIGHT ILEUM OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 39. PINK PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

LEfT HIP OF CLIFfORD JONES, SR. 40. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAININGI

A. ONE WHITE T-SHIRT B. ONE PAIR Of WHITE BOXER SHORTS

ITEM 40 REHOV~D fROM CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

ON HAY 05, 1986 AT 9100 THE fOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM SIA R. S. STONEI

41. ONE BAG LABELED • ••• TODD, DANNY CHARLES ••. M CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS

42. ONE BAG LABELED • .•. DANNY C. TODD .•. M CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF WHITE ATHLETIC SHOES B. ONE BELT

43. ONE BAG LABELED MDANNY C. TODD ••. • CONTAINING ONE WHITE LONG SLEEVE SHIRT.

* * * ON HAY 5, 1986, ITEMS 41, 42 AND 43 ARE FORWARDED TO THE SEROLOGY SECTION Of THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

-•.... ~ ... .. -...........

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 4 OF 15

DATE ___ -=D~E:..::C:....!.~~1..L1_ 11-.16

DESCRIPTION I

ON MAY 01. 198b AT 10131 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM MAILa

44. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING: A. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE .22 CARTRIDGE CASES B. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING FOUR .22 CARTRIDGE CASES C. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

ON MAY Ob, 1986 AT 9&50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY FROM THE

SAVANNAH LABORATORY:

CARDBOARD BOX SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ITEMS 41, 42, AND 43 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE

ON MAY 09, 1986 AT 11:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

45. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT BOOT 46. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT BOOT 41. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT LACE UP BOOT 48. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT LACE UP BOOT 49. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS

OF DANNY C. TODD 50. TWO INKED FINGERPRINT CARDS BEARING THE INKED FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH 51. ONE PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF

DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH 52. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF THOMAS MATHIS 53. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF JOHN B. JOHNSON, 111 54. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF HARRY TYRE 55. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF TIMOTHY TODD 56. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF WILLIAM LUTHER HIRES 51. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS bF NORMAN LAWRENCE MOSLEY 58. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF CYNTHIA MCCALL 59. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF JAhES DAVIS 60. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

•• ." ITA n OF -GEORGIA PAGE 5 OF 15


DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES OFFICIAL REPORT 586-01531

CAN~

DATE, ___ .....;D=:E=C::..:.~--::.1~, _ 1.--.B6

DESCRIPTIONI

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES 61. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES, SR. 62. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF CHRISTI J. JONES 63. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER


ON MAY 12, 1986 AT 8130 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

64. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF WORK BOOTS 65. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF MDINGO· BOOTS 66. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAININGI

A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS B. ONE WALLET C. ONE EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX D. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE E. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING HAIR

67. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 36 B. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 34

ON MAY 13, 1986 AT 11:24 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILI


ON MAY 19, 1986 AT 14133 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH J. J. MCGLAMERY:

68. ONE BROWN ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE BLACK FILM CANISTERS CONTAINING 35 HM FILM

ON JUNE 11, 1986 AT 9145 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. HAILI

69. ONE MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF RAY JAMES HULLIS

ON JUNE 16, 1986 AT '10145 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILI

70. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHRIS

/

•... ~~ ..

.. -'" •. ".,t'

STATE OF-GEORGIA



PAGE 6 OF 15

S86-01531

•. j

OAT ..... E __ ---.;D::..:E::..:C::..;.=----=-t .L.' _ 11-,!6

DESCRIPTIONI


BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALH IMPRESSIONS OF BRUCE HAROLD HOORE

ON JULY 01, 1986 AT 9:55 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. HAIL,

72. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAININGI A. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING T~E INKED FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE B. TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS


ON JULY 141 1986 AT 10:30 T~E FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

73.

74.

75.

76.

ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

ON AUG. 26 1 1986 AT 10:10 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH U. S. MAIL:

77. SIX MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD SHANE DAVIS

ON OCT. 02, t986 AT 13150 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE, GBII

78. ONE MACHINE COpy OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY

79. TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALH IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY

80. ONE MACHINE COPY OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN 81. TWO S~EETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF T~E


;J.. (11 /

/' \

\

-.•. '>~". 8T ATE OF GEORGIA PAGE ., OF 15

,. -" .. , ....


DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES OFFICIAL REPORT S86-01531

CAN NMHII

DAT .... E ___ D=E=C~. _..a.1.J,.'_ 1e--1l6

DESCRIPTION:

ON OCT. 20~ 1986 AT 9116 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE,

82. RUGER .22 PISTOL SERIAL NUMBER 487878

ON NOV. 07~ 1986 AT 9a39 'THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE AND EARL CALLAWAY a

83. ONE REMINGTON .22 SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE SERIAL IA2246580

ON NOV. 10, 1986 AT 14100 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEa

~- 84. J. C. HIGGINS .22 SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE

ON NOV. 25, 1986 AT 10,52 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

v

85. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE .32 REVOLVER IN VERY OXIDIZED CONDITION

86. FIVE-GALLON PLASTIC BUCKET CONTAINING: A. ONE SMITH AND WESSON .38 REVOLVER SERIAL 1112226 B. ONE SMITH AND WESSON .38 REVOLVER SERIAL 15432

SERVICE REQUESTED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL

RESULTS:

ITEM 34 THE BLOOD IS POSITIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL 0.02 GRAMS X. THE . RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE DUE TO PUTREFACTION.

BT BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS a

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 34 - CLIFFORD JONES) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC CHARACTERISTICS,

/

. . .

•'.'.~~.

... -....... , .,1':.

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE e OF 1:;

S8b-01531 CAll NUMBlII

DATE ___ -=D:..::E;;.:C:.,.:._--=-1.L,. _ 1t~b

RESULTS,

v

INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ES1ERASE D 1 (EsD t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE t (PCH 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSIN~ DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1).

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON CHAIN AND PILLOW (ITEMS 15 ~ 27) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB ESTERASE D 1 (EsD t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON RAZOR (ITEM 28) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFs ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK t)

THE RED BROWN SCRAPINGS (ITEM 29) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AS

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON JEANS (ITEM b7A) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI A ANTIGEN CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ESTERASE D 1 (EsD t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGH 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF STAINS ON PAPER (ITEM 17) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGINl HOWEVER INADEQUATE SAMPLE

./

.

•

.•• >~~.

..... ,

........ , ..

ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 9 OF 15

S8b-01531 CA'" NUMNII

DAT_E __ ---'D~E=C~.!......;..--:.1 -I-t _ uiI-i6

RESULTS I

v

v

PRECLUDES DETERMINATION OF INTERNA,TIONAL BLOOD GROUP.

EXAMINATION OF BOOTS AND CLOTHING (ITEMS 45, 46, 47, 48, 64, 65, 41, 42A, 42B, 43, 66 & 61B) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON SHEET (ITEM 4) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA t) ADENYlATE KINASE 1 (AK 1).

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULTS.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE BLUE BLANKET (I1EM 1) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532),

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE BLANKET (ITEM 1) WERE SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC vr; HAIRS INCONSIS1ENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5,

586-1532) .

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE FLAT SHEET (ITEM 2) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35) AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET (ITEM 3) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. (ITEM 2, CASE 586-1533).

' •...• w~. ,., -...... ,.,."

,'~ '\

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 10 OF 15

886-01531

DATE ___ -=D::..:;:E=..;:C::..,:,:.-..---=-'...r... _ ,g..-J!6

RESULTS I

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET WERE ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR " INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35} ITEM 4, CASE 886-1532

~ AND ITEM 2, CASE S86-1533) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 5, CASE 886-1532),

v

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE FITTED SHEET (ITEM 4) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE PILLOWCASES (ITEM 5) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, ONE CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532) .

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 6) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35), TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 4, CASE S86-1532), ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR C~NSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532) ~ND TWO CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSIS TENT WITH T~E KNOWN HAIR OF

NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532),

MICR08COPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (I1EM 7) REVEALS THE ~ PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 8) REVEALS THE ,~ PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD ~ HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 4, CASE S86-1532) •.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE RUG (ITEM 11) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD

~ HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (I1EM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE RUG WERE TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT ~ WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35 i ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532 AND I1EM 2,

. )

~-. ~

STATE Of GEORGIA



PAGE 11 OF 1~

S86-0t531

-

DATE ___ ....:D:.,:E:,.:C:....:.._--!!...1 .L' _ 1,---'iit6

RESULTS,

.,/

CASE 686- 1533).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 16) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN ~EAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 20) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTINED HAIR (ITEM 36) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS) SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4) CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE WHITE SHEET (ITEM 40) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (I1EM 4) CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE T-SHIRT (I1EM 40A) REVEALS T~E PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (I1EM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE SHORTS (ITEM 40B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS

'CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS ~v1NCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE

S86-1532) •


RESULTS.

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 25) 26~37-39) REVEALS THAT THEY v' HAVE 6 LANDS AND GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH

__ ....... w ... .

'"'' "' .... , ..

-IT A TE OF GEORGIA



)

PAGE 12 (U· I ;:)

S86-01531

DATE ___ -=D:.,:E:.,:C:..,.:._-=-1 L.' _ 11L..!6

RESULTS,

BULLETS FIRED FROM CDM, IMP, OMEGA AND PIC .22 REVOLVERS.

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 9~10) REVEALED THEM TO BE .22 LONG RIFLE LEAD BULLETS SHOWING SIX GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST. THESE BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM A NUMBER OF .22 ~EAPONS. EXAMINATION OF THE CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEMS 18, 19~24) REVEALS EVIDENCE

~. TO CONCLUDE THEY WERE FIRED IN A REPEATING TYPE WEAPON.

THE PIECES OF METAL (ITEMS 12~1J) AND THE SPRING (ITEM 14) ARE C/' PROBABLY FROM AN INEXPENSIVE PAINTED .22 REVOLVER.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF TEST BULLETS AND CARTRIDGE CASES FIRED FROM AND IN THE REVOLVER (ITEM 82) WITH THE BULLET (ITEH 9) AND CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEMS 1B~19) REVEALED EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THE BULLET AND CARTRIDGE CASES wERE NOT FIRED FROM AND IN THE REVOLVER.

TEST BULLETS FIRED FROM THE RIFLES (ITEMS 83 ~ 84) WERE COMPARED WITH OPEN HOMICIDE BULLETS IN OUR FILES WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

EXAMINATION OF THE REVOLVERS (ITEM Bo A~B) REVEALED THEM TO BE SPUR TRIGGER S~W REVOLVERS WITH SERIAL NUMBERS 112220 AND 5432.

FP FINGERPRINTS

RESULTS,

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS:

NAME

ALFONZO STUDSTILL

BRUCE HOORE

BRUCE WILLIAM LEE

DATE RESULT

JUN 17, 1986 NECATIVE

JUN 11, 1986 NEGATIVE

JUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

/

-.

IT ATE Of GEORGIA PAGE 13 OF 1~

" GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

,., - DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES .... , ..... , OFFICIAL REPORT 886-01531

CAH.....ut

DATE DEC. 1 • 11--.16

RESULTS,

NAHE DATE RESULT

CARL CARTER HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

CHRIS BROWNFIELD JUN 11, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL ALEXANDER HAY 05, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL R. PUGH HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANNY C. TODD HAY 13 J 1986 NEGATIVE

DARRYLL A. JONES HAY 13 1 1986 NEGATIVE

DAVID LEE ALEXANDER HAY 05 1 1986 NEGATIVE

DENNIS E. WILLIAHS HAY 06 J 1986 NEGATIVE

--' DON R. WILLIAMS HAY 13 1 1986 NEGATIVE

GARY tt. HERDON HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

GEORGE HARDWICK HAY 13 1 1986 NEGATIVE

HARRY VARGAS JUN l1J 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN JOHNSON HAY 06 J 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN T. CAULEY HAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

HERSCHEL HIRES HAY 13 1 1986 NEGATIVE

HOWARD TILLMAN JUN 11., 1986 NEGATIVE


JOHN W. DUNSON HAY 06 J 1986 NEGATIVE

'-' /

-.•... ~~ .. .. -........ ,.>

(

~

IT A T£ OF GEORGIA



)

PAGE 14 OF 15

S86-01531 CAH~

DATE. ___ ....ID!.IoELlICu.,_-'-l"... _ 18-..&6

RESULTS.

--

NAME DATE RESULT

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE JUL 02, 1986 NEGATIVE


RONALD WATSON HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

STEVE W. RHYMES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

WAYNE LEE JUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

WILLIAM L. HIRES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

SUPPLEMENTAL

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY AND ERIC BROWN WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF WAYNE LEE, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE AND CHERYL LEE HAVE B~EN COMPARED WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD DAVIS AND BOBBY HARRIS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO LATENT PRINTS WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE LATENT PRINTS WILL BE FILED UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE NUMBER AND ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD HAKE RlFERENCE TO THIS NUMBER.

RESPECTF~ SU~H~:;DI

n G. Wegell~~~/~;Z ior Forensic se~:i~

" R~~ Terri R. Santa~aria, B. S. Senior Microanalyst

~~J~8.S. ~hief\[irearKS ExaKiner

/

-. -

•

•••• ~k ...

....

...........

-'

(

STATE Of GEORGIA



PAGE 15 OF 15

886-015:31 CAli NUMNJI

DATE. ___ -=D=.EC:..:... __ 1.:...1...' _ 1.--16

oF;::;u;;;;:;;~ Larry Hankerson, A.A. Latent Print ExaMiner

w.f~ Panter, B.8. CheMist

· .

0-~

aT ATE Of GEORGIA



PACE 1 OF 14

886-01:53i

--.........."

DAT .... E ___ N_O_V_, __ t_,..:.., _ 1e-.!'

VICTI",


SUSPECT a

HULLIS, RAY JAMES HOORE, BRUCE HAROLD LEE, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, WAYNE LEE, CHERYL L. BROWNFIELD, CHRIS ALLEN BROWN, ERIC HOLIDAY, EDDIE

OFfICERS. AGENCY.

.JERRY ROWE H. H. HIRES

REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE DA SUPERIOR COURT CORONER

COUNTY I


DES~lPTIONI

ON APR. 26, 1986 AT 18125 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH INVESTIGATION I

ON 4-26-86, AT APPROXIHATELY 18.25, LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO ROUTE 1 ODUH, GEORGIA AT ThE RESIDENCE OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. AND THERE PROCESSED THE SCENE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCEa

t ,

I.

3.

4.

:5.

6.

7.

TWO EVIDENCE BAGS SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ONE LIGHT BLUE BLANKET RECOVERED FROH HASTER BEDROOH LARGE EVIDENCE lAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED FLAT ~HEET RECOVERED FROK HASTER BEDROOH LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE AQUA BLANKET RECOVERED FROK BED IN HASTER BEDROOH LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED FITTED SHEET RECOVERED FROK HASTER BEDROOH EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING TWO PILLOWCASES RECOVERED FROH BED IN HASTER BEDROOH SHALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING SEVERAL QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED FROK FLOOR NEAR BATHROOH IN KASTER BEDROOK WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED FROH HASTER BEDROOK DOOR

..; PETITIONER'S .. EXHIBIT 86 I

9

•... ~~~.

'-. ", -...........

)

ITA TE Of GEORGIA


DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES . OFFICIAL REPORT

PAGE 2 OF 14

88'-01531 CAN NUMRII

DATE, ____ NO_V_. _1_'_,_ 18~6

DESCIUPTION I

,..'

8. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR RECOVERED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

9. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROH UNDERNEATH CLIFFORD JONES, JR.

10. METAL PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROH FLOOR NEAR COMMODE IN MASTER BATHROOM

11. ONE LARGE THROW RUG RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM t2. SMALL ZIP-lOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED METAL FRAGMENT 13. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING LARGER QUESTIONED METAL

FRAG~NT 14. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED SPRING


BROWN STAINS 16. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED NEAR

CHAIN 17. SHALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED PIECE OF

PAPER SCRAP 18. SHALL ZIP-LOCk PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE



CARTRIDGE CASES ITEMS 12 - 20 RECOVERED FROM ITEM 11 21. ~VIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE HURRICANE STYLE

GLASS SHADE RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 22. £VIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE CLEAR PLASTIC

CONTAINER RECOVERED FROM HUTCH IN FAMILY ROOM 23. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAC CONTAINING TWO QUESTIONED WOOD

FRAGMENTS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM 24. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CO~TAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE RECOVERED FROM NEAR DESK ON FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOK 25. BLUE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED

FROK WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR ENTRANCE HALL 26. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

RECOVERED FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR REFRIGERATOR 2'1. 'PILLOW WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM COUCH IN FAtULY

ROO" 28. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING A ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE

DISPOSABLE RAZOR WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM GUEST BATHROOM

29. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE YELLOW PILL90X CONTAINING SCRAPINGS OF REDDISH BROWN STAINS ON KITCHEN FLOOR

30. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE TELEPHONE BOOK

·"

.. ~

IT ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 3 OF 14

SB6-01~31

DATE ____ NOV_. __ t _6_, _ UL_!6

DESCRIPTION,

RECOVERED FROH KITCHEN FLOOR ON 4-27-B6, AT APPROXIHATELY 02.30 A. "., LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO GORDON-HARRISON FUNERAL HOHE AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING,

31. THE INKED POSTHORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 32. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. 33. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF NINA JONES

ON APR. 26, t9B6 AT 20.~0 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH IR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY,

34. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD 35. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, SR. 36. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM

BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 37. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REHOVED FROM

LIVER OF CLIFFORD JONES, ~R. 3B. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REHOVED FROM

RIGHT ILEU" OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. a9. PINK PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FRO"

LEFT HIP OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 40. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAINING.

A. ONE WHITE T-SHIRT B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE BOXER SHORTS

ITE" 40 REMOVED FRO" CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

ON HAY 05, 19B6 AT 9.00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FRO" S/A R. S. STONE.

41. ONE BAG LABELED • ••• TODD, DANNY CHARLES ••• • CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS

42. ONE BAG LABELED • ••• DANNY C. TODD ••• • CONTAINING. A. ONE PAIR OF WHITE ATHLETIC SHOES 8. ONE IELT

43. ONE BAG LABELED ·DANNY C. TODD ••• • CONTAINING ONE WHITE LONG SLEEVE SHIRT •

• • • ON KAY ~, 19B6, ITEHS 41, 42 AND 43 ARE FORWARDED TO THE SEROLOGY SECTION OF THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

(

.. ~

ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 4 OF 14

886-01:531 CAli! NUM8UI

. ---...-'

DATE ____ NO_V_, __ 1_6_, _ 18--.!6

DESCRIPTION.

ON HAY 07, 1986 AT 10137 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROK HAIL.

44, KANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING. A, SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE .22 CARTRIDGE CASES B. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING FOUR .22 CARTRIDGE CASES C. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

ON HAY 06, 1986 AT 91~' THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY FROH THE

6A~NNAH LABORATORY I

CARDBOARD BOX SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ITEKS 41, 42, AND 43 AS DESCRIBEI>' ABOVE:

ON HAY 09, 1986 AT 11150 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

~O •

:51.

:52.

~3,

~4.

S5.

S6.

S7.

sa. S9 •

60.

BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT LACE UP BOOT BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT LACE UP BOOT ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANNY C. TODD TWO INKED FINGERPRINT CARDS BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH ONE PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF THOMAS MATHIS ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIKINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JOHN B. JOHNSON, III ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF HARRY TYRE ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF TIMOTHY TODD ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WILLIAH LUTHER HIRES ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF NORMAN LAWRENCE HOSLEY ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CYNTHIA MCCALL ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JAKES DAVIS ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

is ~

STATE OF GEORGIA

GEORGIA BUREAU Of INVESTIGATION


PAGE S OF 14

S86-01531

DATE ____ NOV_. __ 1_6 _, _ 1IL_!6

DESCRIPTIONI

IHfRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES 61. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIHINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES, SR. 62. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIHINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF CHRISTI J. JONES 63. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIHINATION FINGER

IHPRESSIONS OF GREGORY ROGERS

ON HAY 12, 1986 AT 8130 THE FOlLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH JERRY ROWEl

64. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF WORK BOOTS 65. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF -DINGO· BOOTS 66. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAININGI

A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS B. ONE WAllET C. ONE E"PTY CARDBOARD BOX D. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE E. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING HAIR

67. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING. A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 36 B. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 34

ON HAY 13, 1986 AT 11124 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH U. S. HAILI


ON HAY 19, 1986 AT 14133 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FRO" J. J. "CGLA"ERYI

68. ONE BROWN ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE BLACK FILH CANISTERS CONTAINING 35 H" FILH

ON JUNE 11, 1986 AT 9,45 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS ~ECEIVED FRO" U. S. KAILI

69. ONE MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IHPRESSIONS OF RAY JA"ES HULLIS

ON JUNE 16, 1986 AT 10145 THE FOLLOWI~G EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH U. B. HAIL.

70. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALH IMPRESSIONS OF CHRIS

(

•

ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE , OF 14

88'-01531

DAT-=-E ___ N_O_V_, ____ ._t '_':....-_ 18.-!'

DESCRIPTION a


BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PAL" IKPRESSIONS OF BRUCE HAROLD HOORE

ON JULY Gl, 1986 AT 9155 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH U, 8. MAILI

72. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAININGI A, ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER


OF LAWRENCE WILLIAH LEE

ON JULY 14, 198b AT 10,30 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILI

73. ONE INKED FIN~ERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE

74. ONE INKED PALH PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE

15. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

16. ONE INKED PALH PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

ON AUG. 26, 198' AT 10,10 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. 8. HAlLa

77. SIX MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD SHANE DAVI8

ON OCT, 02, 1986 AT 13150 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FRO" JERRY ROWE, GBII

78. ONE MACHINE COPY OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY

79. TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PAL" IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY

88. ONE MACHINE COpy OF THE INKEO FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN 81. TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE


•... ~~ ..

., -~.

...... , .. ,

(1

-STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 7 OF 14

686-01531 CASf.~

DATE ___ N_O_V_, __ 1_6_, _ 18~6

DESCRIPTION.

ON OCT, 20, 1986 AT 9116 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROH JERRY ROWEl

82. RUGER ,22 PISTOL SERIAL NUMBER 487878

ON NOV, 07, 1986 AT 9139 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE AND EARL CALLAWAY,

83. ONE REMINGTON .22 SEHI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE SERIAL IA2246580

ON NOV. 10, 1986 AT 14100 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE,

84. J. C. HIGGINS .22 SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE

SERVICE REQUESTED.

&A BLOOD ALCOHOL

--- RESULTS I

ITEM 34 THE BLOOD IS POSITIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL 0.02 GRAMS X. THE RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE DUE TO PUTREFACTION.

BT BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS.

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 34 - CLIFFORD JONES) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC CHARACTERISTICS. INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AD ES1ERASE 0 1 (E.O 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE D (EAP D) ADENOSINE DEAHINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AX 1).

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON CH1tIN AND PILLOW (ITEMS 15 & 27) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUHAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC

•... ~~.

"""". -"" .. ",

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 8 OF 14

S86-01531

DATE ____ NO_V_, _1_'_, _ 'I--.!' RESULTS,

EXAMINATION REVEAL~ THE PRESENCE OFc A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB ESTERASE D 1 (E.D t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA t) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK t)

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON RAZOR (ITEM 28) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA t) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (Ak 1)

THE RED BROWN SCRAPINGS (ITEM 29) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AS OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON JEANS (ITEM 67A) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OFI A ANTIGEN CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ESTERASE D t (EaD 1) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF STAINS ON PAPER (ITEM 17) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN) HOWEVER INADEQUATE SAMPLE PRECLUDES DETERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP,

·EXAMINATION OF BOOTS AND CLOTHING (ITEMS 45, 46, 41, 48, 64, '5, 41, 42A, 42B, 43, 66 & 67B) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

~HE RED ~ROWH STAINS ON SHEET (ITEM 4) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. A ANI B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB

(

•.. '~- ...

,--" ,

..... . ....

ITATE OF GEORGIA


DIVISIQN OF FORENSIC SCIENCES OFFICIAL REPORT

PACE 9 OF t4

S86-0H5Jt

DATE ____ NOV_, __ l_'_, _ 1e~6

RESULTS a

A»ENOSINE DEAMINASE t (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK t).

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULTS,

HICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE BLUE BLANKET (ITEH t) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUhEROUS BODY OR LIHB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTE~T WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEH 5, CASE S86-1532),

ALSO REHOVED FROH THE BLANKET (ITEM 1) WERE SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS lNCONSlSTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEH 5, S86-1~32) •

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE FLAT SHEET (ITEM 2) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35) AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEH 4, CASE S86-1532).

HICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET (ITEM J) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR L1MB HAIRS, ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), O~E CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. (ITE" 2, CASE S86-1~33).

ALSa REMOVE. FROM THE AQUA BLANKET WERE ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEH 35} ITEH 4, CASE 586-1532 AND ITEH 2, CASE S86-1~33) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEH ~, CASE 586-1532),

HICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROH THE FITTED SHEET (ITEH 4) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE

•• ~ lUTE OF GEORGIA

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INYESTIGA TION


DATE

PAGE 10 OF 14

S86-01531

__ N_O_V_.~, _16_, _ 1I-.!6

RESULTS.

KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE PILLOWCASES CITEH 5) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR fRAGMENTS, ONE CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE 186-1532) •

HICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 6) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35), TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES CITEM 4, CASE S86-1532), ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532) AND TWO CAUCASIAN PU8IC HAIRS INCONSIS TENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

"ICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 7) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEH 8) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITE" 4, CASE S86-1532),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE RUG (ITEM 11) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PU8IC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE RUG WERE TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35, ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532 AND ITEM 2, CASE 696- 1533).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 16) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 3~).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 20) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN

•

• '>~ ••

" -" . .......... '

IT ATE Of GEORGIA



PAGE 11 OF 14

886-01531 CAN JIUIIIRA

DATE, ____ NO_V_, _t_6..:..., _ 18.--!6

RESULT81

HEAD HAIR CITE" 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTINED HAIR (ITE" 36) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR CITE" 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE SS6-1532),

-MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE WHITE SHEET (ITEM 40) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUHEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEH 4, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROH THE T-SHIRT (ITEH ~OA) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITE" 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE SHORTS (ITE" 40B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEH 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE kNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE 886-1532) •


"RE8ULTS,

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 25, 26~37-39) REVEALS THAT THEY HAVE , LANDS AND GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH BULLETS FIRED FROM CDM, I"P, OMEGA AND PIC .22 REVOLVERS.

EXAHINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITE"S 9~10) REVEALED THE" TO BE .22 LONG RIFLE LEAD BULLETS SHOWING SIX GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST. THESE BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM A NUMBER OF .22 WEAPONS. EXAMINATION OF THE CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEHS 18, 19~24) REVEALS EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THEY WERE FIRED IN A REPEATING TYPE WEAPON.

JI ... ~ ...

,,' -.............

STATE OF GEORQIA



PAGE 12 OF 14

S86-0H53t CAN~"

DATE ___ N_O_V_, __ t 6--=--, _ 'IL.!6

RESULTS.

THE PIECES OF METAL (ITEHS 12~13) ~ND THE SPRING (ITEH 14) ARE PROBABLV FROK AN INEXPENSIVE PAINTED ,22 REVOLVER,

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF TEST BULLETS AND CARTRIDGE CASES FIRED FROt1 AND IN THE REVOLVER (ITEM 82) WITH'THE BULLET (ITEM 9) AND CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEHS 1S~19) REVEALED EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THE 8ULLET AND CARTRIDGE CASES WERE NOT FIRED FROH AND IN THE REVDLVER,

TEST BULLETS FIRED FROH THE RIFLES (ITEMS 83 ~ 84) WERE COHPARED WITH OPEN HOHICIDE BULLETS IN OUR FILES WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

FP FINGERPRINTS

RESULTS.

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS.

NAME DATE RESULT

Al-FONZO STUDSTILL JUN 1" 198& NEGATIVE

BRUCE MOORE JUN 1" 198& NEGATIVE

BRUCE WILLIAH LEE JUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

CARL CARTER HAY 13, 198& NEGATIVE

CHRIS BROWNFIELD JUN 1" 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL ALEXANDER HAY 05, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL R. PUGH MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANNY C. TODD HAY 13, 198& NEGATIVE

DARRYLL A, JONES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

..

" --"

IT A TE OF GEORGIA PAGE 13 OF 14

• GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

,.. - DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES 886-01:531 " ..... " .. OFFICIAL REPORT CASE NUM8EII

DATE NOV. 16, 1t-.!'

RESULTS,

NAME DATE RESULT

DAVID LEE ALEXANDER "AY O~, 1986 NEGATIVE

DENNIS E. WILLIAHS "AY 06~ 1986 NEGATIVE

DON R. WILLIAMS HAY 13~ 1986 NEGATIVE

GARY". HERDON "AY 13~ 1986 NEGATIVE

GEORGE HARDWICK "AY 13~ 1986 NEGATIVE

HARRY VARGAS .TUN 17. 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN .TOHNSON HAY OE. ~ 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN T. CAULEY HAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

HERSCHEL HIRES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

HOWARD TILLMAN .TUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE


JOHN W. DUNSON HAY 06~ 1986 NEGATIVE

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE .TUL 02, 1986 NEGATIVE


RONALD WATSON "AY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

STEVE W. RHYHES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

WAYNE LEE .TUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

WILLIAM L. HIRES "AY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

--------------------------------------------------------------------

,'.

... •

-..

/

ITA TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE t4 OF t4

S86-0t~31 CAll NUMUII

DAT~E ___ N_0_V_, __ 16--..:-, _ 18~6

RESULTS,

SUPPLEMENTAL

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PAL" PRINTS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY AND ERIC BROWN WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF WAYNE LEE. LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE AND CHERYL LEE HAVE BEEN COMPARED WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD DAVIS AND BOBBY HARRIS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO LATENT PRINTS WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS.

THE LATENT PRINTS WILL BE FILED UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE NUHBER AND ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD HAKE REFERENCE TO THIS NUHBER.

< /.

r /

{/

J.~e. W. P.nter. B.S. Forensic Ch.~ist

.~ .

lI· .. ~~"'·

,., -t <

••••• ' •• ,00':

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 1 OF 14

586-01531 CAIE NUMftA

.~

DATE ____ O_C_T_. _2_1--=-, _ 1G~6

VICTIM:


SUSPECT:

MULLIS, RAY JAMES HOORE, BRUCE HAROLD LEE, LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, WAYNE LEE, CHERYL L. BROWNFIELD, CHRIS ALLEN BROWN, ERIC HOLIDAY, EDDIE

OFFICERS:


DESCRIPTION:

AGENCY:

REGION 4 DOUGLAS SHERIFF'S OFFICE

vDA SUPERIOR COURT CORONER

ON APR. 26, 1986 AT 18:25 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION:

COUNTY I


ON 4-26-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 18:25, LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO ROUTE 1 ODUM, GEORGIA AT THE RESIDENCE OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. AND THERE PROCESSED THE SCENE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

V 1 •

v' 2.

V' 3.

V" 4.

V 5.

V 6.

\,... 7. MASTER

/ /) /I/'l

\

1I .. ~w ...

.. -t" ."

", ".".,

I' )

ITATE OF GEORGIA



'\

PAGE 2 OF 14

586-01531 CASt: NUMBER

DATE ____ O_C_T_._2_1.....::-1 _ 18.-!6

DESCRIPTION:

~e. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR RECOVERED FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

~ 9. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM UNDERNEATH CLIFFORD JONES, JR.

- ~ 10. METAL PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED FROM FLOOR NEAR COMMODE IN HASTER BATHROOH

V 11. ONE LARGE THROW RUG RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM ~ 12. SHALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED METAL FRAGMENT ~ 13. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING LARGER QUESTIONED METAL

FRAGMENT ~14. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED SPRING

ASSEMBLY ~ lS. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE GOLD CHAIN WITH REDDISH

BROWN STAINS ~ 16. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS RECOVERED NEAR

CHAIN ~ 17. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED PIECE OF

PAPER SCRAP v 18. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE ~. 19. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE ~ 20. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS FOUND NEAR

CARTRIDGE CASES ITEMS 12 - 20 RECOVERED FROM ITEM 11 21. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE HURRICANE STYLE

GLASS SHADE RECOVERED FROM FAMILY ROOM 22. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE CLEAR PLASTIC

CONTAINER RECOVERED FROM HUTCH IN FAMILY ROOM 23. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING TWO QUESTIONED WOOD

FRAGMENTS RECOVERED FROM FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM ~ 24. SHALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE RECOVERED FROM NEAR DESK ON FLOOR IN FAMILY ROOM L/ 25. BLUE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET RECOVERED

FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR ENTRANCE HALL ~ 26. WHITE PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

RECOVERED FROM WALL IN FAMILY ROOM NEAR REFRIGERATOR ~ 27. PILLOW WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM COUCH IN FAMILY

ROOM vr 28. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING A ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE

DISPOSABLE RAZOR WITH REDDISH BROWN STAINS RECOVERED FROM GUEST BATHROOM vr 29. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE YELLOW PILLBOX " CONTAINING SCRAPINGS OF REDDISH BROWN STAINS ON KITCHEN FLOOR

30. EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE TELEPHONE BOO/

,)1,'1-1

- -"- ---.-~--,-:..;:" -

.'

lJ· .. ow~.

,.. -, ....... '., ....

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 3 OF 14

S86-01531 CAIE~

DATE ____ O_C_T_. __ 2_1..:..,_18~6

DESCRIPTIONs

RECOVERED FROM KITCHEN FLOOR ON 4-21-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 02:30 A. H., LARRY HANKERSON AND RANDY RIDDELL WENT TO GORDON-HARRISON FUNERAL HOME AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWINGs

31. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. 32. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. 33. THE INKED POSTMORTEM PRINTS OF NINA JONES

ON APR. 26, 1986 AT 20:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM DR. J. BYRON DAWSON AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSYs

~ 34. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD ~ 35. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD

JONES, SR. V 36. PLASTIC ZIP-LOCK BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM

BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. - 37. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

LIVER OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. v 38. GREEN PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

RIGHT ILEUM OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. '-. 39. PINK PILLBOX CONTAINING ONE .22 SHORT LEAD BULLET REMOVED FROM

LEFT HIP OF CLIFFORD JONES, SR. ~ 40. EVIDENCE BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAINING:

A. ONE WHITE T-SHIRT B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE BOXER SHORTS

ITEM 40 REMOVED FROM CLIFFORD JONES, SR.

ON HAY 05, 1986 AT 9,00 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM SIA R. S. STONE,

~41. ONE BAG LABELED " •.• TODD, DANNY CHARLES ..• " CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS

~42. ONE BAG LABELED " •.. DANNY C. TODD ... " CONTAINING: v A, ONE PAIR OF WHITE ATHLETIC SHOES

Y B, ONE BELT V-43. ONE BAG LABELED "DANNY C. TODD. ,," CONTAINING ONE WHITE LONG

SLEEVE SHIRT.

* * * ON MAY 5, 1986, ITEMS 41, 42 AND 43 ARE FORWARDED TO THE SEROLOGY SECTION OF THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

.'

'.'.'~~ -'" """

ITA TE OF GEORGIA

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGA liON


PAGE 4 OF 14

S86-0153i CASE NUMBER

'-../

DATE ____ O_C_T_._2_1_,~_ 19~6

DESCRIPTION:

ON MAY 01, 1986 AT 10:31 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM MAILI

44. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING: A. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE .22 CARTRIDGE CASES B. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING FOUR .22 CARTRIDGE CASES C. SEALED WHITE ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE .22 LEAD BULLET

ON MAY 06, 1986 AT 9150 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM UNITED PARCEL SERVICE AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY FROM THE

SAVANNAH LABORATORY 1

CARDBOARD BOX SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING ITEMS 41, 42, AND 43 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE

ON MAY 09, 1986 AT 11:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE:

V 45. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT BOOT V-46 • BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT BOOT ......... 41. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE RIGHT LACE UP BOOT .,.,48. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE LEFT LACE UP BOOT

49. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANNY C. TODD

V50. TWO INKED FINGERPRINT CARDS BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH

V'S1. ONE PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF DANIEL RANDOLPH PUGH

-52. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF THOMAS MATHIS

53. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JOHN B. JOHNSON, III

54. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF HARRY TYRE

55. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF TIMOTHY TODD

V 56. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WILLIAM LUTHER HIRES

51. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF NORMAN LAWRENCE MOSLEY

58. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CYNTHIA MCCALL

59. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF JAMES DAVIS

60. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

, 7 ..

lJ'·"~-"'··

, ,. -............

ST A TE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 5 OF 14

S86-01531

DATE ____ O._C_T_, _2_1.-,;1=--_ 1S1~6

DESCRIPTIONl

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES . 61, ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF EUGENE JONES) SRi 62. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER

IMPRESSIONS OF CHRISTI J, JONES 63, ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE ELIMINATION FINGER


ON MAY 12) 1986 AT 8:30 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWEl

a..- 64. V- 65 • \..--""'" 66.

BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF WORK BOOTS BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE PAIR OF -DINGO N BOOTS BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS B. ONE WALLET C. ONE EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX D. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE

V67. .......

E. PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING HAIR BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 36

V B. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 34

ON HAY 13, 1986 AT 11:24 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. HAIL:


ON MAY 19) 1986 AT 14:33 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM J. J. MCGLAMERY:

68. ONE BROWN ENVELOPE CONTAINING THREE BLACK FILM CANISTERS CONTAINING 3~ MM FILM

ON JUNE 11, 1986 AT 9145 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U, S. MAIL:

v 69. ONE MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF RAY JAMES MULLIS

ON JUNE 16) 1986 AT 10:45 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

70. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALM IMPRESSIONS OF CHRIS

v

· . (

...... ~-.... " -

, ". ""

ITATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 6 OF 14

S86-01531

'---

-../'

DAT .... E ___ O_C_T_._~,2_1 ,,-I _ 11-.-!6

DESCRIPTION:

ALLEN BROWNFIELD / 71. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER ~ BEARING THE INKED FINGER AND PALM IMPRESSIONS OF BRUCE HAROLD

MOORE

ON JULY 01, 1986 AT 9:55 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

V 12. MANILA ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE CONTAINING I A. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER



ON JULY 14, 1986 AT 10:30 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAIL:

V 13. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE

t,.../' 14. ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF WAYNE LEE

V 15. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF CHERYL L. LEE

16. ONE INKED PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE PALM IMPRESSIONS OF V CHERYL L. LEE

ON AUG. 26, 1986 AT 10:10 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM U. S. MAILa

~ 11. SIX MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD SHANE DAVIS

ON OCT. 02, 1986 AT 13:50 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE, GBI:

V'18.

V 19.

V' 80. 8t.

ONE MACHINE COPY OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY ONE MACHINE COpy OF THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN

(

•">~".

, -,

" ........ .

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 7 OF 14

S86-01531 CASE HUMBER

DATo;,.E ____ O_C_T_, __ 2_1..:..., _18.-!6

DESCRIPTION:

ON OCT, 20, 1986 AT 9:16 THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED FROM JERRY ROWE:

vr 82, RUGER ,22 PISTOL SERIAL_NUMBER 487878

SERVICE REQUESTED:

BA BLOOD ALCOHOL

RESULTS:

ITEM 34 THE BLOOD IS POSITIVE FOR ETHYL ALCOHOL 0,02 GRAMS X, THE RESULTS ARE UNRELIABLE DUE TO PUTREFACTION.

BT BLOOD TYPE

RESULTS:

THE BLOOD SAMPLE (ITEM 34 - CLIFFORD JONES) IS POSITIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHOR[TIC CHARACTERISTICS: INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ESTERASE D 1 (EsD 1> PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE t (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK 1),'

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON CHAIN AND PILLOW (ITEMS 1~ ~ 27) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN, SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF: A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB ESTERASE D 1 (EsD t)

PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE t (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK 1)

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON RAZOR (ITEM 28) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF

.-•...... ~' .. -........ "

.. - ...... _--_.... . . ....... _-_._-_ •......... _._ ...... _._--_ .... - .. -.. _ .... _._- _._---_ .... _---,--_.-.-

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE a OF 14

S86-01531

DATE, ____ O_C_T_, __ 2_1_, _ 18-.!6

RESULTS:

HUMAN ORIGIN. ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA t) ADENYLATE KINASE t (AK 1)

THE RED BROWN ~CRAPINGS (ITEM 29) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB OR A COMBINATION OF BLOOD GROUPS INCLUDING A, B, AND AB

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON JEANS (ITEM 67A) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF: A ANTIGEN CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP A ESTERASE D t (EsD t) PHOSPHOGLUCOMUTASE 1 (PGM 1) ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE B (EAP B) ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK 1)

SEROLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF STAINS ON PAPER (ITEM 17) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGINj HOWEVER INADEQUATE SAMPLE PRECLUDES DETERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP.

EXAMINATION OF BOOTS AND CLOTHING (ITEMS 45, 46, 47, 48, 64, 65, 41, 42A, 42B, 43, 66 & 67B) FAILS TO REVEAL THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD.

THE RED BROWN STAINS ON SHEET (ITEM 4) ARE POSITIVE FOR BLOOD OF HUMAN ORIGIN. SEROLOGICAL AND ELECTROPHORETIC EXAMINATION REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF. A AND B ANTIGENS CHARACTERISTIC OF INTERNATIONAL BLOOD GROUP AB ADENOSINE DEAMINASE 1 (ADA 1) ADENYLATE KINASE 1 (AK I),

CR CRIMINALISTICS

RESULTS:

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE BLUE BLANKET (ITEM 1) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM

I

(

"

.... ~w ... ....

.. , -

...........

ST ATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 9 OF 14

S86-01:531 CASE HUIIIIII!R

DAT!I;..E ____ O_CT_, _2_1...:,'_ 1t~6

RESULTS:

35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS.CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE 586-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

,ALSO REMOVED FROM THE BLANKET (ITEM 1) WERE SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, 586-1532) •

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE FLAT SHEET (ITEM 2) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR (ITEM 35) AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET (ITEM 3) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS, ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR

~ OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532), SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR. (ITEM 2, CASE S86-1533).

v ALSO REMOVED FROM THE AQUA BLANKET WERE ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35i ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532 AND ITEM 2, CASE S86-1533) AND ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE ~FITTED SHEET (ITEM 4) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY ~ OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE

KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), '

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE PILLOWCASES (ITEM :5) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, ONE -CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIR AND TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 6) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD' HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN

/

.....

_ •• _._ ••• ~w. __ , •• _" _ , _____ •• ______ •• ___ .:__..,... __ •• __ ••• __ • • ••• ~_. __ •• _.~. __ • ..., • .-______ .:.--_~ ___ ._ .... ~ __ ,_. _ • ___ .... ___ ._ .__ " _____ .~

...

•... ~ ..

" ........ ....

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 10 OF 14

586-01:;31 CASE HUMIIEII

DATE _____ O_C_T_. __ ·_2_1_~ __ 1e~6

RESULTS I

HAIR (ITEM 35), TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532), ONE CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIR

~ CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532) AND TWO CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSIS TENT WITH THE KNOWN HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 1) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF TWO CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS.

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 8) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD

v' HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532),

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE RUG (ITEM 11) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB

~ J ~AIRS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD V HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN

PUBIC HAIR INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532).

ALSO REMOVED FROM THE RUG WERE TWO CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT v' WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35, ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532 AND ITEM 2,

CASE 586- 1533).

_ / MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 16) REVEALS THE ~ PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN

HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35) .

. MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR (ITEM 20) REVEALS THE ...; PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN

HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTINED HAIR (ITEM 36) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HAIR FRAGMENTS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN BODY

I OR LIMB HAIRS, SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN ~ HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35) AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE

KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532),

_/MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE WHITE t7 SHEET (ITEM 40) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS

/

(

'lJ"'~'" ., . -~ .

" ...... .

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 11 OF 14

S86-01531 CASE NUMBER

DAT",-E ___ O_C_T_, __ 2_1,;..,1 _ 19~6

RESULTS I

CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND ONE CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIR CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 4, CASE S86-1532).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE T-SHIRT (ITEM 40A) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONED HAIR REMOVED FROM THE SHORTS (ITEM 40B) REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL CAUCASIAN HEAD HAIRS CONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN HEAD HAIR (ITEM 35), NUMEROUS CAUCASIAN BODY OR LIMB HAIRS AND SEVERAL CAUCASIAN PUBIC HAIRS INCONSISTENT WITH THE KNOWN PUBIC HAIR OF NINA JONES (ITEM 5, CASE S86-1532) .


'-" RESULTS,

. .../

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 25 1 26~37-39) REVEALS THAT THEY , vi HAVE 6 LANDS AND GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH

BULLETS FIRED FROM CDM, IMP, OMEGA AND PIC .22 REVOLVERS.

EXAMINATION OF THE BULLETS (ITEMS 9~10) REVEALED THEM TO BE ,22 LONG I RIFLE LEAD BULLETS SHOWING SIX GROOVES WITH A RIGHT TWIST. THESE

/ BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED FROM A NUMBER OF .22 WEAPONS, EXAMINATION OF THE CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEMS 18, 19~24) REVEALS EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THEY WERE FIRED IN A REPEATING TYPE WEAPON.

\/

THE PIECES OF METAL (ITEMS 12~13) AND THE SPRING (ITEM 14) ARE PROBABLY FROM AN INEXPENSIVE PAINTED ,22 REVOLVER,

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON OF TEST BULLETS AND CARTRIDGE CASES FIRED FROM AND IN THE REVOLVER (ITEM 82) WITH THE BULLET (ITEM 9) AND CARTRIDGE CASES (ITEMS 18~19) REVEALED EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THE BULLET AND CARTRIDGE CASES WERE NOT FIRED FROM AND IN THE REVOLVER.

FP FINGERPRINTS

STUE OF G£ORGIA PAGE 12 OF 14

'11 GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .. - DIVISION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES 886-01531 . '. ~.", OFFICIAL REPORT CAli NUIIHJI

DATE OCT. 21, 1,,-.!6

RESULTS.

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS,

NAME DATE RESULT -

ALFONZO STUDSTILL JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

V' BRUCE HOORE JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

BRUCE WILLIAM LEE JUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

CARL CARTER HAY 13. 1986 NEGATIVE

V CHRIS BROWNFIELD JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

DANIEL ALEXANDER MAY 05. 1986 NEGATIVE

V DANIEL R. PUGH MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE -...... DANNY C. TODD MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DARRYLL A. JONES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

DAVID LEE ALEXANDER HAY 05, 1986 NEGATIVE

DENNIS E. WILLIAMS MAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

DON R. WILLIAMS MAY 13. 1986 NEGATIVE

GARY H. HERDON HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

GEORGE HARDWICK MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

HARRY VARGAS JUN 17, 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN JOHNSON MAY 06. 1986 NEGATIVE

HERMAN T. CAULEY MAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

(

~ ... ~~ ...

.. -............

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 13 OF 14

S86-01531

'--

DATI!;..E ___ O_C_T_, __ 2_1...:..,_ 1e~6

RESULTS,

NAME DATE RESULT

HERSCHEL HIRES HAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

HOWARD TILLMAN .;JUN 1'1, 1986 NEGATIVE

JOHN G, WILLIAKSON JUN 1'1, 1986 NEGATIVE

JOHN W. DUNSON MAY 06, 1986 NEGATIVE

V LAWRENCE WILLIAK LEE JUL 02, 1986 NEGATIVE

v' RAY KULLIS JUN 1'1, 1986 NEGATIVE

RONALD WATSON MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

STEVE W. RHYMES MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

V· WAYNE LEE JUN 23, 1986 NEGATIVE

V WILLIAM L. HIRES MAY 13, 1986 NEGATIVE

SUPPLEMENTAL

THE LATENT PRINTS HAVE BEEN COMPARED TO THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF EDDIE HOLIDAY AND ERIC BROWN WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS,

I

~THE INKED FINGERPRINTS AND PALM PRINTS OF WAYNE LEE, LAWRENCE ~ WILLIAM LEE AND CHERYL LEE HAVE BEEN COMPARED WITH NEGATIVE

RESULTS, V

THE INKED FINGERPRINTS OF RICHARD DAVIS AND BOBBY HARRIS HAVE BEEN y/ COKPARED TO LATENT PRINTS WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS,

. -. . . . . .

"'"II,·*k ... .. -,

", " ..

( , .. \

STATE OF GEORGIA



PAGE 14 OF 1-4

SBb-01531 CAll MJM8EJI

DATE ____ O_C_T_, _2_1....;1~_ UL.!b

RESULTS,

THE LATENT PRINTS WILL BE FILED UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE NUMBER AND ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD MAKE REFERENCE TO THIS NUMBER,

Terri R. SantaMaria, B. S .

. Asenior HiC~B1YSst

y~e, •• Chi f FirearMs ExaMiner

'-~ {()v,L/ 1--1thdwt<J12IL __ Larry Hankerson, A.A. Latent Print ExaMiner ,. I . " r (/ -.j I ~. , ,. . ,.' " 7'r'"w'; .. ~~ v·' I :"a .. ~ ... "·. w"

JaMes W. Panter, B.S. Forensic CheMist

PX 127

GEORGIA RESOURCE CE1\TTER

(877) 222·9202-· Toll Free (404) 222-9202 9212 .

July 12, 1999

Mr. Stephen D. Kelly District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Bruns\>'~ck Judicial Circuit P.O. Box 1661 Brunsmck, Georgia 31521-1661

Mr. Kelly:

303 Elizabetb Sm.t, NE Atlanta, Georgi. 30307

georgjaresource@>m.indspnng.COlD FAX (404) 222-

Pursuant to the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. Sections 50-18-70 et~, and to the holding of the Georgia Supreme Court in Napper v. Geonna Tele\~sion Co .• 257 Ga. 156.356 S.E. 2d 640 (I 987). 1 am requesting an opportunity to review and copy all files. records and other documents in the possession of the District Attorney's Office pertaining to the investigation, arrests and incarceration of suspects, pre-trial preparation, trial and any post-trial matters or proceedings in c01U1ection \>,~th the homicide of Clifford Jones Sr., Nina Jones, and Clifford Jones, Jr. April 26, 1986, in Wayne County (86-CR-0119). Lawrence Lee and Cheryl Lee were arrested as suspects in the murder. This is also a request for records pertaining to any other cases in which these suspects were involved, including the burglary and murder of Charles Moore that occurred on June 17, 1986, in Glynn County, Georgia (86CR-0859).

For the purposes of this request, the terms "records" and "documents" are intended to include, without limitation, any and all written, typed, printed, recorded, graphic, computergenerated, or other matter of any kind from which information can be derived, whether produced, reproduced, or stored on paper, cards, tapes, flies, electronic facsimiles, computer storage devices or any oth~r medium. They include, without limitation, letters, memoranda (including internal memoranda), calendars, sr.hedules, books, notices, minutes, any physical" evidence, fingerprints, photos, summaries 0, abstracts, reports, files, recordings (including both Videotapes and ... audiotapes), tdegrams, and telex messages, as well as any reproductions thereof that differ in any way from any other reproductions, such as copies containing marginal notations.

A representative of this office mil contact you shortly to determine a mutually convenient date for revie\>'~ng and copying the records.

TIiank you for your assistance in this mailer.

Sincerely,

Patty Daniel

PETIT!ONER'S EXHIBIT

---,-1_1..1_._

Tk" G<1Orgia App"lIalfl P,.,rliu and EJucaiicmaJ RdOUrotl Cvn[Qr, Inc. ;1 a non'f'n:>/il c>rg:miwlion £IO'>:ITI"J by a Board 0/ D;~,.. Th" CgniN' Jt>aF "FLt:,/,~'JhgJ },IJ lhl Stal" Bar-of G«.rgiQ and iF a/ftkalgJ u-ith ii,,, Gl10rsja Stat" UniN'nUy Co!J..S" 0/ InUt.

PX 129

Stephen D. Kelley DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BRUNSWICK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

WAYNE COUNTY OFFICE. Post .Offlce Box 1157. Jesup, Georgia 31598 • (912) 427-6379. FAX: (912) 427-2777

Ms. Patty Daniel Georgia Resource Center 303 Elizabeth Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30307

RE: State vs. Larry Lee

Dear Ms. Daniel:

July 19, 1999

On July 14, 1999, I received your letter of July 12, 1999 wanting to obtain copies of certain files relating to the above case. I called your office on July 15, 1999 and talked with Jolm Hannis who told me you weren't there, so, I left a message for you to call me. Since I haven't, heard from you and I needed to write you anyway, I thought I would combine my notifications to you.

First, 1 have amassed our evidentiary files on the cases that you requested. 1 have not physically received the Glynn County file, but it is on its way. We do not have any evidence nor do we retain such, with the exception of pictures. Those would be in my evidentiary files. Please let me know when you want to come review this stuff. There are a number of exact duplicate pages and you ·may not need to have those copied. Once you go through the file and let me know what you want, I will copy it, you can pay for it and I will give it to you. Saves us all a lot of time and expense. Anyway; let me know when you can come to inspect my files.

Second, and the most important reason for sending this lener and sending it certified mail. I have received information from several people you have interviewed that you have stated that you have enough information to obtain indictments against Joe and Robert Yarbrough for killing the Jones family, the crime for which Larry Lee was convicted. Since we have had absolutely no evidence that they did so, and since it is our responsibility to prosecute the persons who committed the murders, this letter is to demand that you immediately amass any such evidence that you have and provide it to this office for review. ;.

In the event that you do not have such evidence, this is to advise you that you should not be telling people something that is not true and you should not be giving them the impression or saying that you represent any hiw enforcement agency or that you or anyone with you is a GBI agent.

Serving Appling, Camden, Glynn, Jeff Davis and Wayne Cauntie


It)J> 111

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

B. Johnson, ill Chief Assistant District Attorney

PX 130

.\ ~ St h D K II l:>:~Z?;~.. ep en . e ey tl~ 1~ '~;j DISTRICT ATTORNEY

~ BRUNSWICK JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

WAYNE COUNTY OFFICE. Post Office Box 1157. Jesup, Georgia 31598 • (912) 427-6379' FAX: (912) 427-2777

Thomas H Dunn Executive Director Georgia Resour~e Center 303 Elizabeth Street, N.H. Atlanta, Georgia J0307

Dear Mr. Dunn:

August 9. 1999

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 2, 1999 to Stephen Kelley, my District Attorney. I was not aware that I had written you a letter. I did write Ms. Daniel because that is the way I do things. I discuss them first with the person who is responsible. However, since you think it important that Mr. Kelley know about this matter, I am sending him a copy of this letter so he will have advance knowledge that you are going to respond.

I was not aware that you represented the Yarbroughs. Jfyou do, I can understand just what kind of ethical problem you have. That presents a conflict of interest situation which will require you to remove Ms. Daniel from assisting a firm that represents Larry Lee, since, I assume, they will be trying to present that supposed evidence in some sort of hearing regarding LafI)' Lee. And, it will require you to recuse your firm from representing the Yarbroughs.

If you don't represent the Yarbroughs, however, I have problems understanding why you would not want anyone and everyone, especially the District Attorney to know that you had evidence pointing to another person committing II crinie that Larry Lee faces the electric chair for committing. Especially, since the District Attorney is the one that can immediately make the decision to change the direction the prosecution of your client has taken.

Nor do I understan9 why it is not legal for you to do so. I know of no law that prevents a party with information regarding the innocence of their client from giving that to law enforcement. In fact, if that information is evidence that another person committed the crime, it might be considered obstruction of justice and ineffective assistance of counsel to hide such evidence. That fast statement is not a threat of any kind because I don't believe that you bave any.such information or evidence. I know there has never been such evidence found in this community.

Nor can I understand why a defendant facing the electric chair would not want any and alI evidence that showed someone else committed the crime to be given to the Distric#t A""",tt",orn""""ey(.i'''''''' __ '''''''~


(3D Serving Appling, Comden. Glynn. Jeff Davis and Woyne Counties

\ But, stranger things have happened in my 22-year career as a mature, professional and seasoned prosecutor.

Since I did receive infonnation from two witnesses that Ms. Daniel has interviewed that she made the statements I referred to in my letter to IlM. it is my responsibility to do what I can to obtain that evidence. And, again, I demand that you provide such infonnation, if you have any, to this office so that we may consider it and take whatever appropriate action is necessary.

And again, if you have no such evidence, you should not be telling people that you interview that you do. I make that statement based on what people Ms. Daniel has interviewed have said to their attorney and others, which infonnation has been relayed to me.

Please be advised that I wrote Ms. Daniel because she was the one that had written me about the Open Records request. While she did not out-right mis-represent the fact that she was working as volunteer for the law finn that did represent him, she failed to mention that in her letter.

In the future, jfI have any complaints about the manner in which Ms. Daniel has conducted herself in her job, I will, as is my policy, communicate that to her first. Then, if! deem it necessary and prudent, I will let you know.

Sincerely yours,

PX 133

WAYNE COUNTY OFFICE. Post Office Box 1157. Jesup, Georgia 31598. (912) 427-6379. FAX: (912) 427-2777

DATE:

FROM:

TO:

RE:

COMMENTS:

August 13, 1999

JOHN B. JOHNSON, III ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Michael Edwards

S86-\53\ (Jones Murder Case) State vs. Larry Lee Wayne County

This is to authorize you to destroy the large piece of rug you all still ha"e in storage in this case.

As you may know, this case was tried some time ago and the defendant was convicted. We are now in StatelFederal Habeas Corpus proceedings. Even ifthe case were to have to be retried, I would not expect this item to be introduced into evidence or needed.

Sincerely yours, .

De~nen\ ___ _

Serving Appling, Camden, Glynn, Jeff Davis and Wayne Counties

Data_Rptr.~ WWWX>U'O~][,COM

PX 186

In the Matter of:

Lawrence William Lee

vs

William Terry, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison

Deposition of Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Date Taken: October 31, 2006

THOMPSON REPORTING SERVICES, INC. Certified Court Reporters

6151 Powers Ferry Road, N.W. Suite 120

Atlanta, Georgia 30339-2927 (678) 483-0600

FAX (678) 483-0601 1-866-483-DEPO (3376)

www.thompsonreportingatlanta.com

(Word Index Included With This Condensed Transcript)

Lawrence William Lee y. William Terry, Warden, Georgia Dianostic Prison Georgia Bureau of Investigation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

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

October 31,2006

49 51

whenever custody of property or evidence is 1 with me other than, basically, with the knowledge

transferred to non-GBI personnel. Could you read 2 that evidence or documentation of that type have been

Section A ofthat, please? 3 provided to you prior to this deposition.

A In all instances, the agent who effects the 4 Q Okay. And are you - but are you aware of

transfer of property is responsible for obtaining the 5 evidence being transferred from the GBI crime lab to

signature of the new custodian in the appropriate 6 the Region 4 office in this case?

block within the chain of custody section of the 7 A Yes, sir.

white evidence copy of the OBI receipt for property. 8 Q And what specific items of evidence are you

The name of the receiving individual and 9 aware have been documented to have been transferred

agency, if appropriate, will be legibly printed below 10 to the Region 4 office?

their signature by that individual or the agent, to 11 A Ofihand, the top of my memory is the

ensure proper documentation ofthe transfer. The 12 question about -- I think it was some slides that

white copy is then to be filed in the case file as 13 were transferred from the crime lab by mail or by

the official record copy. A photocopy of that form 14 some type of delivery service, like UPS or FedEx,

may be provided to the receiving individual. 15 that was transferred back to the Region 4 office

Q And what is your understanding of the 16 several years ago.

purpose of reporting the -- the person to whom the 17 Q And what is your understanding of the

property is transferred, what's the purpose of the 18 disposition of that evidence?

chain of custody in that regard? 19 A That the evidence was signed for. I think,

A Well, basically, to clearly show that the 20 there was evidence in this case and apparently other

flow of the evidence, ifit -- when it went from the 21 cases, but it was signed for by the assistant special

OBI's possession as an agent or as a group, to 22 agent in charge of that office at the time, and they

whoever would have received it next, and just try to 23 have not been able to locate those slides upon

make it as clear as possible. 24 request or to let us know what happened to them after

Q And, to your knowledge, this is the 25 a certain point, after they were received.

50 52

procedure that was in effect in 1986 or '87? 1 Q And do you know what was done to locate A To the best of my memory, it should have 2 those slides?

been. 3 A The -- at our request, the field office,

Q Have you ever, yourself, taken a piece of 4 Region 4, worked -- well, actually, it was the evidence to court and transferred it to someone, 5 supervisor, the ASAC, that was involved, Greg Harvey, non-GBI personnel, in the situation that's 6 at the time ofthis request, was the SAC in the contemplated by Section 4, or transferred property to 7 Kingsland office, which is relatively close by, in a non-GBI personnel? 8 South Georgia. We asked him to try to track down

A Yes. Yes, sir, I have. 9 what happened to those slides.

Q And it was your practice as an agent, then, 10 We suggested that he contact the, I think, to comply with this, to have the person that was 11 Wayne County Sheriffs Office to see if those slides getting it, sign for it -- 12 had been returned in to the sheriffs office, which

A Yes, sir. l3 is a fairly common way of dealing with evidence on

Q -- getting the evidence, to sign for it? 14 old cases like this. And my understanding is that he And then you would take the white copy and 15 did as we requested.

return it to the case file, so that there was a 16 Q I'm sorry, he did transfer it, or he did --record in the case file? 17 A That he inquired as to whether or not the

A Yes, sir. 18 Wayne County Sheriffs Office had possession ofthose

Q Okay. Have you provided any documents or 19 slides. brought any documents with you today regarding the 20 Q So Mr. Harvey didn't have any personal transfer of any of the evidence in this case to the 21 recollection of what he had done with the slides? Region 4 office? 22 A My understanding is he did not.

A To the Region 4 office from -- 23 Q Okay. And is there any documentation that

Q -- from the GBI crime lab or -- 24 reflects what happened to those slides? A I did not bring -- I didn't bring anything 25 A Not that I'm aware of.

THOMPSON REPORTING SERVICES, INC. (678) 483-0600

Lawrence William Lee v. William Terry, Warden, Georgia Dianostic Prison Georgia Bureau of Investigation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31, 2006

53 55

Q Did Mr. Harvey look for such documentation? 1 Q And what are those documents? A My understanding is he did. He and the 2 A One -- No.6 is a photocopy of a logbook

staffat the Douglas office tried to attempt to 3 entry that I believe -- that I received from our locate the slides and any evidence or documentation 4 evidence management staff, and I believe I provided concerning that evidence. 5 to you, showing the -- those are supposed to show

Q And would that evidence have been 6 when they transferred items out of the crime lab, I documented or accompanied by a receipt of property 7 believe. form? 8 Q So Item 6 is specifically what?

A It apparently was not. 9 A A photocopy of a GBI evidence -- crime lab Q And what leads you to that conclusion? 10 evidence logbook. A Well, one, they advised me that they found 11 Q And Item 7?

no documentation of -- well, first of all, are you 12 A Item 7 is a delivery notification photocopy asking me was there an evidence receipt with the 13 from the United Parcel Services, dated May 28th, slides, as 1 was talking about, coming from the crime 14 1999. lab to the Region -- back to the Region 4 office? 15 Q And that relates to the entry on Item 6

Q My question is, when the GBI crime lab sent 16 regarding this case? the slides to the Region 4 office in 1999, was there 17 A Yes, sir, I believe so. And it is signed a receipt of property form with those slides? 18 that on April 12th, 1999, at 11 :27 a.m., that a

A Not to my knowledge. 19 package was delivered and signed for by A.G. Harvey. Q Okay. What have you done to determine 20 Q And that is -- to your knowledge, who is

whether there was one or not? 21 that? A Other than -- I discussed the matter with 22 A That is special agent in charge, Greg

SAC Harvey. 23 Harvey, ofthe Region 4 office. Q And have you talked with the people at the 24 Q Which is the agent you were referring to --

crime lab who sent it out as to whether -- 25 A Yes.

54 56

A Yes, I've spoken with our evidence 1 Q -- as having received that evidence? management folks here at the GBI crime lab. 2 A And just for clarification, Agent Harvey

Q And have you asked them whether a receipt 3 was the SAC in our Kingsland office, and he is now of property form went with those slides? 4 today the SAC in our Douglas office.

A I don't recall if we spoke specifically 5 Q Okay. This documentation confirms that about a receipt for property form. I -- my 6 Agent Harvey received the package containing the impression was that was not their practice, to send 7 slides in this case, but doesn't indicate any an evidence receipt form from the crime lab to a 8 subsequent transfer of that evidence? field office in that fashion. 9 A Yes, sir.

Q What was the -- how did they document the 10 Q And, to your knowledge, Agent Harvey has transfer of the chain of custody of that type? 11 not been able to locate any evidence that indicates a Excuse me. Let me strike that. 12 subsequent transfer?

What did they do to document the transfer 13 A Yes, sir, that's my understanding. of those slides to the Region 4 office? 14 Q Okay. In the event that the GBI discovers

A They provided to me, and I provided a copy 15 that evidence has been lost, is there a procedure for to you, a type of signature receipt document from the 16 documenting that? delivery company. 17 A I'm drawing a blank on a specific policy on

(Petitioner'S Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 were marked.) 18 that. There again, going based on my experience, I BY MR. BAYLISS: 19 would document the memoranda to a supervisor, laying

Q I'll show you two items that are marked as 20 out the situation and circumstance. Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 to this deposition, that I 21 Q Would you put that in a case file, or would believe relate to the slides that we were 22 it appear in some administrative file? discussing. 23 A It would -- I guess it would go -- there

Do you recognize those? 24 again, talking about what Terry would do as opposed A Yes, sir. 25 to maybe what other folks may have done, and not



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31, 2006

57 59

knowing what mayor may not have happened in this 1 with the evidence. situation, personally I would document it through 2 Q And was that the procedure in 1986 and '87 memoranda, and it would go into outgoing 3 and since then, as far as you know?

correspondence. And I would document it to my 4 A As far as I know, that would be. immediate supervisor, who would be an inspector. 5 Q And have you determined whether there were

Q Okay. I'm sorry. Outgoing correspondence 6 any documentation indicating that the slides means what? 7 referenced in 6 and 7 have been destroyed?

A Admin-type file for the work unit. And it 8 A I'm not aware of any.

would be something that I would, as a SAC, I would 9 Q And have you asked Agent Harvey or anyone send it out to my supervisor, going up the chain of 10 else whether such documentation exists? command, basically, to notify the supervisor that, in 11 A I have not specifically asked him about a broad sense here, evidence is missing, you know, if 12 that. you're talking about when it happened, where it 13 Q But you believe that it would be documented happened, that kind of thing. 14 or should be documented, perhaps?

Q That's what you would document in a 15 A I think it's a --memorandum? 16 Q And that the policy would dictate that that

A That's what I would do, yes. 17 be documented? Q And would you place a copy, then, in the 18 A I think the destruction of evidence is

case file that relates to that evidence? 19 something that is documented -- should be documented A Probably so. But definitely it would be 20 in the case file.

documented. I would document it in the outgoing 21 Q And why is that? The destruction of correspondence, but it would be reasonable to put a 22 evidence is a serious issue in these cases? photocopy or a copy of that type of memoranda into 23 A Sure. the case file. 24 Q Particularly in a death penalty case, I

Q And, to your knowledge, are there any 25 would presume?

58 60

documents, any memoranda relating to the slides that 1 A Yes, sir. are referenced in Items 6 and 7 that can be accounted 2 Q Okay. Are you aware -- have you provided for, indicating that those have been lost? 3 any documents here today, or are you prepared to

A I'm not aware, because there again, I have 4 provide any documents here today regarding the not seen the case file. 5 transfer of any evidence in this case, that is, the

Q And have you done anything to determine 6 investigation of the Jones homicides to the Savannah whether such documents exist, whether there was 7 crime lab? documentation that explains the loss ofthose slides? 8 A Any stich documentation should be in the

A No, sir. 9 case file, as far as I know. Q I'm sorry. I may be presuming too much. 10 Q If the evidence has been transferred to the

Have those slides been lost, as far as the GBI is 11 Savannah crime lab? concerned? 12 A Yes, sir.

A To my limited knowledge of the situation of 13 Q And have you done anything to determine the case, I have not been told that they have been 14 whether such evidence is contained in the case file found. 15 in this case?

Q If those slides have been destroyed, would 16 A There again, I have not reviewed the case there be documentation to show when and where they 17 file personally. were destroyed? 18 Q And you would expect that Agent Rowe will

A That would be a logical thing to do. 19 be familiar with those matters? Q Well, I'd agree. But do you know whether 20 A Yes, sir, I do.

there would be documentation, whether GBI policy 21 Q Because he was the lead case agent in this would require that, or -- 22 case?

A There again, speaking in general terms, it 23 A Yes, sir. should be documented when evidence is destroyed, and 24 Q Item 16 relates to the Savannah crime lab, it would be documented in the case file associated 25 the transfer of evidence. I believe we've covered


Lawrence William Lee v. William Terry, Warden, Georgia Dianostic Prison Georgia Bureau ofInvestigation

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31,2006

69 71

for S8601531, No. l2 is for Case No. S8601532, and 1 4/9/99, and it says, returned by AH. No. 13 is for Case No. S8601533. 2 Q And is that information consistent with the

Q I'll represent to you that the case numbers 3 information in Exhibits 6 and 7, the logbook entry that you just read off are associated with the 4 and the UPS receipt for the transfer of slides to the victims in the Jones homicide case. 5 Region 4 office?

A Yes, sir. 6 A Yes, sir, I believe it is. Yeah. If they

Q You said this is the chain of custody 7 sent it out on the 9th, then it's reasonable that it report. How is this report generated, or produced, 8 might have arrived on the l2th.

or printed? 9 Q And, to your knowledge, I believe you said A It's, I mean, now generated through our -- 10 Ms. Lang or Mr. Kirk would be in a position to

through this -- the Laboratory Information Management 11 confirm or indicate what that entry means? System, or LIMS, case management system for the crime 12 A If it was me, and I was trying to lab. And I have to assume data entry was done to -- 13 understand this better, I would ask Ms. Lang. at some point, to generate into a database, so that 14 Q Okay. this information could be generated. 15 A But, in general, about the HP3000 system,

Q And it looks like there are three 16 director -- Kirk might have some information about categories: Chain of Custody from LIMS, Chain of 17 it. But I don't know that he was here when that Custody from Bar Code system, Chain of Custody from 18 system was in place. HP3000 system? 19 Q The next entry down on page 2 of

A Yes, sir. 20 Exhibit 11, it looks like a date of 12/16/99. Can

Q What is the HP3000 system? 21 you examine that line and tell me what you think that A To my knowledge, the HP3000 system was a 22 indicates?

case management system that preceded the current LIMS 23 A To me, that indicates that a rug of some system. I don't have a lot of intimate knowledge of 24 type was returned to the Wayne County D.A.'s office. what that system involved, but it was a method that 25 I'm not sure what DEST stands for, but it says, 8/99.

70 72

the crime lab was using to try to track and maintain 1 Q Do you believe D-E-S-T could mean information, reports of crime lab analysis. 2 destroyed?

Q It's a computer system; is that accurate, 3 A I don't know. to your knowledge? 4 Q You don't know?

A It was computer-based, as far as I know. 5 A I don't know.

Q And who would know more about the HP3000 6 Q And who would know what that entry means? system, how it functioned and how it was used? 7 A Ms. Lang may be able to shed more light on

A There again, Ms. Lang, that I mentioned, 8 it. may have knowledge, especially about a chain of 9 Q And would there be documentation of that custody, since this is an evidence issue. You might 10 transfer or that event to inform Ms. Lang of what speak with the director ofthe Forensic Sciences 11 that entry means? Division for his knowledge of the system. 12 A I believe she would probably have to refer

Q I'm sorry? Who is that? 13 back to a logbook entry or something along that line. A I'm sorry. That is Dan Kirk. 14 Q Item No. 11 at the bottom of the page, the

Q If you would look at page 2 of Exhibit 11. 15 last entry, dated 11/19/1987.

A Okay. 16 A On page 17

Q The second entry there, starts 6/28/1999? 17 Q Yes, page 1 of Exhibit 11. A Yes, sir. 18 A Okay.

Q And in the fourth column it says, GBI 19 Q What is that last entry on that page? Region 4. What does that indicate to you? 20 A It says, all evidence except RU. And I'm

A That suggests to me that on 6/28/99 -- I 21 not sure. And it says returned to LH for court, and think that date indicates when it was entered into 22 returned by, it says, AK. this system, that an item or items described as No.2 23 Q And do you know what that entry means? through 5 slides, 35 through 36 slides, were 24 A I'm not sure what RU indicates. In the transferred or returned to GBI Region 4 via UPS on 25 past, LH has been -- I've been told LH typically

-



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

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

73

refers to Larry Hankerson, and AK was a person named Allison Kelly.

So, to me, unless otherwise corrected, I would think that all evidence, except the RU, which whatever that means, may have been turned over to Larry Hankerson for court.

Q Okay. If you could go to the top of those columns. I understand that this is really not your area of expertise. But do you know what those column headings mean, Date, DI, Evidence, Returned To, Returned By? Do you know what those indicate?

A The date-- what I understand, the date is usually the date that the information was entered into the management system, not necessarily the date that it occurred.

The DI I'm not sure what the exact definition ofDI is, but I understand it was a--possibly a storage area within the evidence room, whatever. Like shelf 3 might be its name. But there again --

Then the Evidence was just a description of the type of evidence, very brief, as you can see, the description of evidence. Returned To is the person who took the evidence from the crime lab, and Returned By was the person that basically handled the

74

transaction for the crime lab, getting it to this other person.

Q Okay. When you say "the crime lab," do you mean the crime lab evidence room?

A Yes, yes.

Q Okay. So the Returned By is an evidence room technician?

A Not -- my understanding is that the Returned To -- you said Returned By? I'm sorry.

Q Yeah, Returned By, is that someone who worked in the evidence room?

A Yeah, that would have been an evidence room technician, custodian, who was the person who handed this to that person.

Q Okay. A So in this situation, AK gave it to LH.

Q Okay. And Returned To is the person who got it from the evidence room?

A Yes.

Q And the initials refer to, is it fair to say, the crime lab scientists, or in some entries there are more extensive notations of who it was returned to; is that right?

A Yes, that's my understanding.

Q Under the Evidence category, there are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31, 2006

numbers like 27. The first entry says 27 BIN 121. What does that indicate, the 27? Is that

an item number? A That, I'm not 100 percent sure on. That's

reasonable, but I don't know for sure, myself, personally.

Q And you believe Ms. Lang would know the answer to that?

A I think so. Q And BIN 121, do you know what that is? A I think that may have been a designation of

where it came from, also, within the evidence room.

Q A BIN within the evidence room? A Yes, sir.

Q BIN No. Ill? A (Witness nods head.) Q Okay. A I would ask them also about the Dr. That's

one thing that is the least familiar thing to me.

75

Q If you'd look back at the notice of deposition, Item 17, receipt or transfer items from the crime scene to the crime lab. 18 deals with receipt or transfer of items between the evidence room at the crime lab and any section or scientist in the crime lab. 19 and 20, also relate to matters

76

transferred within the crime lab. Those items, I believe you've indicated

that Ms. Lang or Mr. O'Laughlin would be better able to address than you are today; is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. And you're not prepared to address the specifics ofthe procedure within the crime lab in that regard?

A No, sir. That's not an area that I'm that familiar with.

Q Okay. And 21 and 22 deal with the receipt or transfer of items from any section or scientist in the crime lab to any agency outside the GBI. 22 deals with transfer of items from the crime lab evidence room to other agencies outside the GBI.

Those Items 21 and 22 you believe would be better answered by Mr. O'Laughlin and Ms. Lang?

A I think so, yes, sir.

Q And you're not prepared today to respond to those questions?

A No, sir. I have very limited knowledge of those.

Q Okay. The next section deals with investigative and crime lab files in the Strickland case, that is the homicide of Glenda Ann Strickland.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

121

A Right. Q And have you spoken with anyone else to try

and ascertain what happened to the S86 case files? A Yes, I have spoken with the latent print

work section, the section here at the Atlanta lab, in the past.

Q And what have they told you about what happened to those files?

A One, that they don't have possession of those files, and other than that, they had no knowledge of what happened to them.

Q And it appears that the S85 files, that are referenced in Exhibit 22, don't appear to be in the archives boxes for the S85 files.

Did you confirm that? A I have those boxes here with me today. Q The S85 files? A Yes. Q Which are boxes 160 through 169? A Excuse me. Q I think you may have --A No, those boxes, they are in the crime

lab. They have been returned to the crime lab for scanning purposes.

Q For scanning purposes?

122

A And I believe they are slated to be destroyed, once they are scanned into the system.

Q Okay. So they will be scanned in, so there will be some permanent record --

A That's my understanding. Q -- before they are destroyed? A Yes, sir. Q And how long has that been the policy? A I think it's been fairly recently. I'm not

sure exactly how long. Q A year, two years, or --A Say two or three years. Q So any documents that have been -- any

latent fingerprint work files that have been destroyed in the last two years would have been scanned before they were destroyed?

A That's my understanding. Q And that's based upon your discussions with

who? A With Lou Cuendet and the current latent

print manager. Q And Cuendet is C-u-e-n-d-e-t? A I believe so, yes, sir. Q And Mr. Cuendet's position was what? A One, he's been in the Latent Print Section

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31, 2006

123

for a number of years. I believe he's retired now and has been doing some work part time, on a contract basis, with the GBI Latent Print Section. And then there's a Mr. Louis Kriel.

Q K-r-i-e-I? A Yeah, K-r-i-e-l, who is, I think, the

current manager of the Latent Print Section. Q Okay. And Mr.Cuendet, I believe you said,

has been at the lab since at least 1986, '87? A I think he was there during that time, yes,

sir. Q Okay. And you asked Mr. Cuendet, and he

did not know what happened to the S86 case files? A Yes, sir. Q Or the S85 case files? Did you ask him

about those? A They have those S85s. Q I'm sorry, they have the -- I'm sorry. I'm

confused. And that's my fault. It's not yours, Mr. Sosebee.

The latent fingerprint files that you brought to the deposition today are from which time period?

A I have -- I don't have the '85s with me right now. I have the other years that you asked

about. Q S87?

124

A Yeah. I think you asked about several, and I think we just ordered the whole box of some of them, when you asked about specific ones.

Q Okay. So the crime lab's latent fingerprint section has the S85 case files?

A That's my understanding, yes, sir. Q And the S87 case files you have here with

us today? A I believe that's right, yes, sir. Q Okay. But the S86 case files, what has

happened to those? A So far, we have not located the S86 case

files. Q So far? What -- are you continuing to

search for those? Do you have active --A I mean, if! had a method or, you know, am

I looking for them every day? No, sir. If they come to my attention or -- we've made so many searches, we're well aware that we want those, but we have not run into them. We have not encountered them during trying to look for other documents and things through the State Records Center.

Q Do you have any indication that those


Lawrence William Lee v. William Teny, Warden, Georgia Dianostic Prison Georgia Bureau ofinvestigation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31,2006

125 127

records have been destroyed? 1 GBI since 1986? A' No, sir. 2 A I attempted to contact Mr. Larry Hankerson,

Q Do you have any indication that those 3 and he has yet to return my phone call. records have been transferred to any other facility . 4 Q And when did you attempt to' contact him? other than the Georgia Bureau ofInvestigation? 5 A On several different occasions during the

A I'm not aware of anything. 6 course of our discussions about this prior. I have

Q Do you consider those records to be lost? 7 not tried to call him lately. A The only thing I can tell you is we don't 8 Q But he's never called you back?

have clear knowledge of where they are at. 9 A No, sir.

Q And what have you done, aside from talking 10 Q And where does Mr. Hankerson work now? about Mr. Cuendet and aside from looking in the 11 A I believe he works for the Army crime lab archive boxes, if anything, to locate those boxes? 12 somewhere here in metro Atlanta. Have you -- you've spoken with Mr. Cuendet, I believe 13 Q And what about other fingerprint examiners, you indicated? 14 Mr. Charles Moss?

A Yes. 15 A I have not discussed anything with him.

Q And the current head of the Latent Print 16 Q Mr. Pryor? Section? 17 A No, sir.

A Yes. 18 Q Alfreddie Pryor?

Q Have you spoken to either of the people who 19 A No, sir. prepared these archives transmittal forms? 20 Q Is Mr. Pryor still employed with the GBI?

If you'll look at 22, 23, 24, they have a 21 A I'm not sure. I think he's retired, but I couple of names at the top: Transferring agency RMO, 22 may be wrong. and then transferring records custodian. 23 Q Is it possible he's still doing contract

Do you know who those people are? 24 work, like Mr. Cuendet is? A I do not know who Theresa Seal is. I do 25 A I don't know.

126 128

recognize the name of Jean Beggs. She's retired. 1 Q You don't know?

Q Have you spoken with her about what might 2 A No, sir.

have happened to the S86 case files? 3 Q Okay. Who was the director ofthe crime A No, sir, I have not. 4 lab in 1992 in Savannah, that Savannah regional crime

Q It indicates that she was transferring 5 lab; do you know? agency RMO. Is that records management officer? 6 A I have no idea

A Something along that line, yes, sir. 7 Q It may have been Roger Perry. I believe he

Q So in 1992, she had some responsibility, I 8 was involved in that office at some point. presume, for -- for records management in the GBI; is 9 Do you have any recollection whether he that accurate? 10 might have been the crime lab director?

A Yes, sir. 11 A No. I didn't know him personally, and I

Q Okay. And Ms. Seal is indicated to be 12 don't recall ever meeting him.

transferring records custodian. Does that mean that 13 Q And you have not spoken to him about this? she worked in the Latent Print Section? 14 A NO,sir.

A I believe both of these people would have 15 Q Okay. But you have spoken to the worked in staff services. 16 current --

Q Okay. And they both had some 17 A Yes, sir.

responsibility for the transmittal of latent 18 Q - director of the Savannah regional crime fingerprint work files to the archives? 19 lab?

A Yes, sir. 20 A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. But you haven't spoken to those 21 Q He indicates they don't have any ofthe '86 people? 22 case files; is that right?

A No, sir. 23 A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. Have you spoken with any of the 24 Q Mr. Sosebee, if you'd like to take a break other fingerprint examiners that were working for the 25 at any time, just let me know. I understand.


Lawrence William Lee v. William Terry, Warden, Georgia Dianostic Prison

257

1 control agent, and then it will be the decision of 2 the control agent, whether or not I was ever notified 3 personally. 4 Q I'm sorry. So you might not necessarily be 5 able to find out, if the control agent doesn't want 6 you to know? 7 A Depending on the circumstances of the 8 investigation, ifthat person -- especially -- using 9 as a hypothetical, if the person, the subject we're

10 checking on, if they are involved in a confidential 11 investigation, especially something like an 12 undercover investigation, maybe some type of 13 corruption investigation of that nature, and 14 depending on how involved they are with the officers, 15 especially if officers are working undercover, and 16 anything that might endanger an officer working 1 7 undercover, then the err would be on caution. And 18 they might not tell me, and they might not tell me 19 until later on, until maybe the case becomes less 20 confidential or less critical at that point. 21 Q So there's no way of knowing how many 22 confidential informants there are for the GBI? 23 There's no central database that's accessible to you 24 to tell --25 A Not me.

258

1 Q -- to tell you whether or not a designated 2 individual is a confidential informant for the·GBI? 3 A No, there's not, not that I would get an 4 immediate response. It would depend. Ifthe 5 person -- ifthe other officers controlling that 6 informant wanted me to know, then they would release 7 that information to me. They could call me, or they 8 could authorize the intelligence unit to release the 9 information to me. But it's not an immediate, put a

10 name in, hit an enter button, and it pops up on the 11 screen kind of thing. Not for me. 12 Q Okay. Are there other matters that you've 13 gone to research and come back with some --14 A Yes, you asked me -- oh, I'm sorry. 15 Q -- and come back with some more complete 1 6 information or answers? 17 A Yes, I'm sorry. You asked me who was the 18 director -- or the manager/director of staff services 19 in 1986 or 1992. I heard both dates, anyway. 20 I checked with staff services, and I was 21 advised that Inspector Jim Stanley was the supervisor 22 over staff services up until 1988. I'm not sure when 23 he started. They didn't know that. But he retired 24 in 1988, and then Scott Cowart, who I mentioned, 25 began in 1988.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

October 31, 2006

259

1 Q Is Cowart C-o-w-a-r-t? 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q Okay. And Mr. Cowart was in staff services 4 until what date; do you know? 5 A They didn't give me an exact date. He left 6 service with the GBI I believe during the Barnes 7 administration. He went to another state agency. 8 Q And you have not contacted Mr. Stanley or 9 Mr. Cowart with respect to the matters that are set

10 forth in the notice of taking of deposition --11 A No, sir. 12 Q --.specifically related to the exchange or 13 the transfer of latent fingerprint work files to 14 archives in 1992? 15 A No, sir, I have not. 1 6 There was one last thing. 1 7 Q Go right ahead, please. 18 A Okay. I was asked about GBl's policy on 19 how to deal with lost evidence type property. And I 20 spoke with Inspector Lee Sweat of the GBI. 21 Basically, the procedure would be --22 there's not a written policy on how to deal with 23 this, but the standard practice is that once a 2 4 question like, has something been lost or misplaced 25 or whatever comes up, there's a diligent search made

1 for the missing items, and then eventually, whether 2 the items are found or they are not found, that the 3 results of the research or search for the items is 4 documented and should be placed into the case file, 5 and, of course, the chain of command should be 6 notified. 7 As it indicates, the special agent in 8 charge of a field office would notify the inspector, 9 who would, in tum, notify the deputy director and

10 any other person that's appropriate above them.

260

11 Q And do you know if that has been done in 12 this case, with respect to the slides that were sent 13 in the GBI Douglas Region 4 office in April of 1999 14 and which cannot be located? 15 A No, sir, I have not seen any 16 documentation. But there again, I have not seen the 17 case file. It could be in there, but I'm not aware 18 directly myself. 19 Q And that case file would be produced, I 20 believe, at Mr. Rowe's deposition; is that right? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. What about with respect to the 23 latent fingerprint work files, the loss of latent 24 fingerprint work files? Do you believe that would be 25 documented in the same manner that the loss of other



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

261

physical evidence would be documented in? A I guess, the problem, I guess, in trying to

answer your question is that I don't know if I can --if! would categorize them as lost at this point. They are definitely missing in action or not where we can immediately get our hands on them. I keep hoping and believing that they should be someplace where we can get our hands on them.

The logbook that was mentioned earlier in previous testimony, that was the first I have heard of the logbook, and that would, I think, be a nice, additional piece of lead to try to locate these. And I am hopeful that they've seen something like that. If it can be located, it will give us another clue on how we may possibly find these things.

Q What would it take for you to characterize a latent fingerprint work file as being lost? At what point do you make the admission or the determination that, okay, we're giving up? We can't find it.

A The problem that I have with the situation is that it seems like to me, from everything I've heard and been told about these latent print files, especially the ones involving the Lee case, is that they were in -- they were known to be in the Latent

262

Print Section's possession. But I don't see on the transmittal reports where any S86s are listed. And so it's almost like they were -- I can't say where they left.

Q Or if they left. A Exactly. I mean--Q So the last known location of those would

be the Latent Print Section of the GBI. Isn't that fair to say?

A Yes, sir. Q Okay. And when would you say the last

known date for the -- for those existing -- strike that. Let me see if I can come up with a way to ask this.

When is the last time anybody saw the S86 case files concerning the Lee case, to your knowledge?

A The last that I have been able to gather out of all of this, over the last year or so, is when Mr. Hankerson went to some type of hearing, and supposedly had the latent print work files with him. That's -- that's the only S86 latent print files that I've actually ever had anyone say definitely there were X number, we know there were three of them, and that they existed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 S

6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 l7

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

October 31, 2006

Q But, in fact, you can't find any S86 files? Is that fair to say?

A Yes, but I don't know that there were any more S86 latent print files.

263

Q And we hope to find that out, if you can locate a logbook. But is it safe to assume there's more than three, that there was at least one other S86 fingerprint file, latent fingerprint work file in existence at some point?

A I -- you know, this area is -- dealing with the crime lab, this is actually a new area for me. I would hate to try to guess at what's normal for their activity.

It's -- I could see -- like, for the latent print work section, is that they get business when they are asked to do business. So if these three cases are the only ones they were asked to do for the Savannah area, for fiscal year 1986, then it would be

what it is. Because I think we even said when we went

through the box, there was one of those regional lab areas that had like 16, or a relatively small number. So if there was less than ten, that might be normal for Savannah. I don't know. Or it may just be what happened that year.

264

Q But you indicated that you don't know. But we've established that there is some documentation in existence in 1986 and 1987, in the Latent Print Section, that would disclose precisely how many S86 cases they took in that year. And you have not produced that logbook; is that correct?

A Well, today was the first I've heard of that logbook.

Q But you will make a diligent effort, I'm sure.

A Definitely. Q I appreciate your efforts in that regard.

I know it has been quite a struggle with me and with trying to locate these files. I appreciate everything that you've done, Mr. Sosebee. But the fact remains that the S86 case files for this case and any other S86 case file have not been produced?

A Yes, sir. MR. BAYLISS: Just one second. Let me

make one quick flip through my document list, and I think we may be able to conclude this deposition.

(Recess from 4:28 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.) BY MR. BAYLISS:

Q Mr. Sosebee, let me ask you another _. --


160 .J 0 '0 I ;J./ JB cJ - .- J ,.j~~,. o.IV

siJ~. , i

. ; r

i

\

.. , .......... ' J~ - -I .. ,"-'. ....... ,.p 1:0~

. .' f- . I .

;. ..,,' ',:r,-." .

.=> 1

~ EXHIBIT .~~~~~~----~~ {;

;-- ! -=::;.:;;:::;::~-p::~~%~~~:s""~----=====:::~ C3 --=----

"__ if {b-3\,.ctp ~

·1

5

;r--,

.:,~

?f<1

United Parcel Semce

DELIVERY NOTIFICATION

May 28, 1999

Dear Customer,

This is in response to your request for delivery information concerning the shipment listed below.

--_._ ... _------

To : DOUGLAS, GA US

Tracking Number Service Level Origination Date -_ .......... _ .......•.. _ ... ------

1Z3803130310242901 GROUND Not Available

According to our records, this parcel was: Delivered on 4/12/99 at 11:27AM Left at RECEIVER Received by A HARVEY

Receiver's Signature

Thank you for giving us th~opportunity to Serve you.

Sincerely,

United Parcel Servic

~ EXHIBIT

~ 7 ~

~ lD-"3t ~o" ~

~-

Official Case Chain of Custody Report Division of Forensic Sciences State of Georgia

Evidence list for case:

Chain of custudy from LlMS: 0 entries

[X] indicates barcode scan and PIN # were used by the receiving and'or relinquishing individual

End of chain of custody frol!l LlMS

Chain of Custody from Barcode System for case : 0 entries

Status Date Receiver

End of Chain of Custody from Barcode System

Chain of custody from HP3000 system for case# : 38 entries

Date

05/06/1986 05/06/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/21/1986 OS/28/1986 07/02/1986 07/02/1986 08/14/1986 08/18/1986 08/22/1986 10107/1986 10/07/1986 10/07/1986 10/07/1986 10107/1986 10/07/1986 10/07/1986 10/07/1986 10/07/1986 10/10/1986 10/17/1986 10/20/1986 10/21/1986 11/07/1986 11/14/1986 04/28/1987 07102/1987 11/12/1987 11/19/1987

DI

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 10 10 10 3 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 10 3 9 3 9 3 10 3 3

Evidence

27 BIN 121 15,17,28,29 BIN 121 A 41,42,43 BIN 121 45 BIN 121 65 BIN 121 47,48 BIN 121 64 BIN 121 67 BIN 121 66 BIN 121 46 BIN 121 66 B (ONLY) ONE BAG 1532&1513BIN 12 44ABC BIN 121 A 30,22,21,68 BIN 121 SM.BG(1532,1513) SM.BAG(1532,1513) 6-8 BIN 121 AA 16,20,23 BIN 121 AA 4 BIN 122 2 BIN 122 5 BIN 122 3 BIN 122 40 BIN 122 1 BIN 122 11 OUTSIDE STORAGE 45-48,64,65 35-36,SL.BIN 121 AA BULLETS,CC'S BULLETS,ETC BULLETS (1531/1532/1513) BULLETS(S8601532,1513) SLIDES 87,88(SLIDES) BIN 121 A BULLETS (S86-01532/-1513) ALL EVIDENCE EXCEPT RU

ReturnedTo

JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW JGW KMF KMF LH KMF KMF TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS TS JGW/J.ROWE,GBIIUPS/SHF.OFF TS KMF KMF KMF KMF TRS TRS KMF LH FOR COURT

Case:S8601531

Print Date: 05/01/2006

ReturnedBy

BC BC AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC AK BC BC AK AK AK

....

m EXHIBIT

i 1/ ~ ~-~ \Or3I,ol(> ,..~

Page 1 of 2

® Official Case Chain of Custody Report: Continued

01/22/1988 06/28/1999 12/16/1999

9 3 6

SLlDES(1532/1533 ALSO) #2-5 SLlDES,35-36,SLlDES RUG

End of HP3000 Chain of custody

TRS· GBI REG.4 VIA UPS 4/9/99 WAYNE CO.D.A DEST.8/99

AK AH ME

Case: 58601531

Page 2 of 2

•~.;:o

~. :0.::'"

. . \~ '''I''~'~;

Official Case Chain of Custody Report Division of Forensic Sciences State of Georgia



[X] indicates barcode scan and PIN # were used by the receiving and/or relinquishing individual.

End of chain of custody from LlMS





Date 01 Evidence ReturnedTo

07102/1986 10 SEE S861531 KMF 10107/1986 10 6 BIN 122 TS 10/17/1986 10 4-5 BIN 121 AA TS 04/28/1987 3 4-5 TRS 11/19/1987 3 6 LH FOR COURT


Case: S8601532


ReturnedBy

BC BC BC BC AK

~ EXHIBIT

i /L ~ ~ to "'~I-0" P(=r

Page 1 of 1

umClal case Chain of Custody Report Division of Forensic Sciences State of Georgia



[Xl indicates barcode scan and PIN # were used by the receiving and/or relinquishing individual.

End of chain of custody from LlMS





Date DI Evidence ReturnedTo

08/22/1986 10 5,6 BIN 121 A KMF 10107/1986 10 4 BIN 122 TS 10/17/1986 10 2-3 BIN 121 AA TS 05/04/1987 3 2-3,SLlDES TRS 06/16/1987 10 9-14 BIN 121 AA TRS 06/22/1987 10 15 BIN 121 A -'JGW 11/12/1987 3 5,6 KMF 11/19/1987 3 ALL EVIDENCE LH FOR COURT


Case: 58601533


ReturnedBy

BC BC Be AK AK AK AK AK

EXHIBIT

Ii

Page 1 of 1

PX 187

Deponent' ____ ~

Dala ___ Rptr. __ ·_ WWWJ)EFOe.ooIC.COM

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BUTTS COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, )

) petitioner, )

) CASE NO.: B9-V-2325 vs. )

) HABEAS CORPUS WILLIAM TERRY, WARDEN, )

Georgia Diagnostic prison, ) )

Respondent. ) VOLUME II

Continuation of the Deposition of GAIL

LANG, taken on behalf of the Petitioner, pursuant

to the stipulations agreed to herein, before Diane

Thompson, Certified Court Reporter and Notary

Public, at the offices of Georgia Bureau of

Investigation, 3121 Panthersville Road, Decatur,

Georgia, on the 7th day of November 2006,

commencing at the hour of 9:22 a.m.

~ thompson ~ Reporting Services, Inc.

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS

6151 Powers Ferry Road, N.W. 0 Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30339-2927

678.483.0600 0 fax: 678.483.0601 1.866.483.DEPO (3376)

www.thompsonrcportingatlanta.com

ORIGINAL

310

1 Q And you located an entry here that is

2 reproduced on an item marked as Exhibit 6 to this

3 deposition. Is that an accurate copy of the page from

4 the logbook that you're referring to?

5 A Yes, it is.

6 Q okay. And what does that, Exhibit 6, what does'

7 that entry from this logbook indicate to you?

8 A That Items 2 through 5 were slides, and Items

9 35 and 36, and slides were returned to the GBI Region 4

10 office on 4/9 of '99 by UPS.

11 Q Okay. And I'm going to show you what is marked

12 as Exhibit 7 to this deposition. Can you tell me what

13 that is?

14 A Yes. This is the delivery notification, a

15 signed delivery notification where Region 4 received

16 this.

17 Q

18 A

19 Q

20 A

21 Q

22 received?

23 A

24 Q

25 A

That is the item you referred to --

Yes.

-- on Exhibit 6?

Yes.

And what date does it indicate that it was

Says delivered on 4/12/99.

And it's signed for by --

A. Harvey, A.G. Harvey.


311

1 Q Do you have any knowledge of who that is?

2 A No, I don't.

3 (Exhibit No. 28 was marked.)

4 BY MR. BAYLISS:

5 Q I'd like to show you an item that's marked as

6 Exhibit 28 to this deposition. Do you have any idea

7 what that document is?

8 A Appears to be an e-mail, but.

9 Q I'll represent that this is an e-mail that was

10 provided to me this morning by Robert Smith, counsel for

11 the GBI, in response to our request for e-mails 'between

12 the attorney general's office, capitol division and

13 Terry Sosebee. This references the transfer of those

14 slides to Region 4 office in 1999.

15 Do you have any knowledge of the communications

16 between Mr. Sosebee and the Region 4 office in locating

17 those files?

18 A No.

19 Q Are those slides -- excuse me. The other

20 logbook that you have here, could you describe that

21 logbook, what it is, what it looks like?

22 A

23 Q

24 A

25 Q

It's a -- well, how thick would you say?

2 inches?

Yeah, 2 inches thick.

Maybe 8-by-14 again?

THOMPSON REPOR'rING SERVICES, INC. (678) 483-0600

312

1 A Yes.

2 Q It's a bound logbook. And what is this a

3 logbook for?

4 A It's evidence returns for the years 1979

5 through February of '88.

6 Q Okay. And when you say "evidence returns,"

7 what kind of returns?

8 A Return to agencies.

9 Q And the logbook contains case numbers in one

10 column, a list of items returned in another column; is

11 that right?

12 A That's correct.

13 Q And the date that those items were returned to

14 an agency; is that right?


16 Q The name of an agency?

17 A The name of the agency it was returned to.

18 Q There's a column that says by?

19 A That's the initials of the person returning the

20 evidence.

21 Q The person at --

22 A The lab.

23 Q -- at the lab? Okay. The lab evidence room or

24 the lab scientist?

25 A It could be either.


313

1 Q And then there's a signature column, who's the

2 signature from?

3 A The signature should be from the agency, the

4 person taking the evidence from the agency.

5 Q And have you examined this entire logbook to

6 see if there are any entries for the case numbers that

7 are involved in the Lee case?

8 A Based on the dates, I checked it from the

9 record.

10 Q Okay. What time period of this logbook did you

11 check?

12 A I checked in November of '87.

13 Q Okay. Did you look at any of the other

14 entries

15 A No.

16 Q -- from earlier or a later time period?

17 A No.

18 Q So you just looked at November of 1987?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Now, the offense in this case occurred in April

21 of 1986, and the trial of this case occurred in November

22 of 1987. I believe you indicated that the chain of

23 custody document that you have as Exhibit 11 in front of

24 you, they are entries from what time period?

25 A 11/19/87.


314

1 Q Have you tried to determine whether there are

2 corresponding entries in this logbook for any of those

3 entries?

4 A I did.

5 Q And did you look for any of the entries besides

6 the November '87 entries?

7 A I did not.

8 Q If I could have just a moment. Sorry, this is

9 taking just a moment. I just want to make sure I don't

10 have a conflict.

11 Ms. Lang, there are entries on Exhibit II,

12 page 2, one dated 6/28/1999, and I believe you indicated

13 that that entry indicates that slides were returned to

14 the GBI Region 4 office via UPS on 4/9/99; is that

15 right?


17 Q And you provided documentation concerning,

18 corresponding to that information?


20 Q There's an entry that says 12/16/99 as a Dr or

21 I believe you indicated that's disposition information

22

23

24

25

Code of 6. Do you know what 6 means?

A I believe it means destroyed.

Q And destroy -- and that indicates that a rug

was involved. And who does it indicate directed or


315

1 authorized the destruction of the rug?

2 A Based on this information, it looks like the

3 Wayne County DA's office.

4 Q When evidence is destroyed, is there any other

5 record of who requested its destruction, who authorized

6 it, who directed it?

7 A At that time, this would have been the only

8 record of evidence.

9 Q In 1999, that would be the only indication

10 of

11 A Well, oh, I'm sorry.

12 Q -- what happened to it?

13 A Yes, '99. Each year a grid sheet was sent out

14 to the agencies with evidence that we were -- that was

15 retained here, and they would send it back indicating if

16 it they wanted it to be returned or destroyed.

17 Q The agency would send it back to the GBl?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And are those grid sheets retained as a matter

20 of practice?

21 A No, this would be the information.

22 Q So the information that's sent to the agency is

23 not preserved in any fashion? It's destroyed by the GBI

24 after it's received back from

25 A Well, we never -- we don't do it any longer,


316

1 but in '99 that's how it was done.

2 Q So there's no written indication, that you're

3 ·aware of, surrounding circumstances of the request .to

4 the agency or the information to the agency about

5 whether they wanted the evidence returned or destroyed?

6 A Not that I'm aware of.

7 Q And how would a rug in this case -- it's a

8 family room rug of considerable size, how would that

9 have been destroyed?

10 A I'm not really sure, but I would say maybe the

11 incinerator.

12 Q But I believe you indicated the incinerator is

13 mostly for drugs, is it a large incinerator, or do you

14 know?

15 A I don't know.

16 Q Okay. I believe you indicated that the second

17 logbook that you have up there, the larger one that's 2

18 inches thick, indicates the transfer of items of

19 evidence from the crime lab, either the scientist or the

20 evidence room to an outside agency; is that accurate?


22 Q And you did not see any entries in there

23 reflecting any transfer of evidence to the outside

24 agencies involved in S86-1531, 32 or 33; is that

25 correct?


317

1 A I did not.

2 Q Does that strike you as unusual that there's no

3 entries to reflect that, the transfer of evidence to

4 outside agencies in these cases?

5 A Well, based on how we do things now, I do, but.

6 Q And why is that?

7 A Well, because now everything's, you know, in

8 the system. At the time we just used logbooks.

9 Q And logbooks are a less precise process for

10 transferring evidence?

11 A Well, I suppose.

12 Q Well, evidently, they are in this case, at

13 least, because they don't seen to indicate

14 A I guess, yes.

15 Q Do you have any information whatsoever about

16 what the transfer of any of this evidence beyond

17 what's reflected on the chain of custody, do you have

18 any information concerning the transfer of this evidence

19 to an outside agency?

20 A Do I have any additional information, any other

21 information?

22 Q Yes.

23 A Uh-uh.

24 Q And to the best of your knowledge, the

25 information we have today, this chain of custody

THOMPSON REPORTING SERVICES, INC. (678) ~83-0600

318

1 printout, the logbooks that you've gotten, all of this

2 evidence was sent over to Larry Hankerson on 11/19/87;

3 is that accurate?

4 A Based on what I see from these logbooks, that's

5 all the information I would have, yes.

6 Q And what Mr. Hankerson did with the evidence,

7 do you have any record to show \-Ihat he did with the

8 evidence, who he might have transferred it to, if

9 anyone?

10 A I haven't found any record of that, no.

11 Q Would you have expected to find some record

12 that shows what happened to the evidence, once it was

13 given to Mr. Hankerson, what he did with it?

14 A No.

15 Q So once it's given to an agent who's signed it

16 out, although, not in a logbook, it's reflected on this

17 chain of custody, but there's no indication of what the

18 substantive disposition of that evidence is?

19 A At that time, I'm not sure. I haven't found

20 anything.

21 Q Now, there are entries, there's an entry

22 11/19/87, all evidence except RU, Larry Hankerson for

23 court. There's several regarding evidence of this case

24 after that date. Does that suggest to you the evidence

25 came back to the crime lab, or does it suggest to you


319

1 all evidence didn't mean all evidence?

2 A It could have come back for additional.

3 Q And if the evidence had come back to the crime

4 lab, how would the return of the evidence been recorded

5 at the crime lab?

6 A I'm not sure in this time frame.

7 Q You don't know what the practice was in 1986,

8 1987?

9 A I -- no, I don't.

10 Q Some of the entries are in 1998 -- or 1988,

.11 excuse me, you don't know what the practice was in 1988

12 with respect to the return of evidence to the crime lab

13 after it was taken by -- or if it was taken by a crime

14 lab scientist to court?

15 A No.

16 Q In 1999, there are entries regarding evidence

17 in the possession of the crime lab being sent to the GBI

18 Region 4 office in April 1999. Does that suggest

19 anything to you as to whether that evidence had come

20 back, or whether that evidence was not included within

21 the terminology, quote, unquote, all evidence?

22 A It would appear that that was still here in

23 '99.

24 Q That is, that it was not within what is

25 recorded as, quote, unquote, all evidence?


320

1 A Yes.

2 Q So all evidence doesn't mean all evidence, as

3 far as you can tell?

4 A In this case, yes.

5 Q Do you have any knowledge of what documentation

6 would have been -- or who would have -- strike that.

7 Do you have any knowledge of what sort of

8 documentation that are recorded, who received evidence

9 from a crime lab scientist who took it to court? DO you

10 know if he had the person receive the evidence from

11 court sign something?

12 A I don't remember.

13 Q Okay. But if that crime lab scientist did not

14 transfer it to anybody at court but instead brought it

15 back--

16 A They should have, yes.

17 Q I'm sorry, they should have what?

18 A Brought it back to the lab.

19 Q And when it came back to the lab, it would have

20 been reported in what fashion?

21 A Well, if they took it to the evidence room, it

22 should have been logged in.

23 Q And you have not seen any indications that

24 evidence was logged back in to the evidence room?

25 A I have not.


321

1 Q But you have not -- you've searched the

2 November 1987 time period and seen no record of th-at; is

3 that fa-ir?

4 A I have not.

5 Q Now, if the crime lab scientist had taken it to

6 court with him and brought it back, but not put it in

7 the evidence room vault, where would that information be

8 recorded that he brought evidence back from court, in

9 the scientist's individual logbooks or files?

10 A I would probably think so, yes.

11 Q If you could just give me one moment, I may be

12 finished with you, Ms. Lang.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(Brief recess.)

MR. BAYLISS: I don't have any further

questions for Ms. Lang.

MS. BURTON: I don't have any.

MR. BAYLISS: Ms. Lang, thank you for

your time. You may carry your logbooks back

with you.

(Off-the-record discussion.)

(Deposition concluded at 10:27 a.m.)


.,

\

.,1

lerry Sosebee

From; Sabrina Graham [[email protected]]

Sent; Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:21 AM

To: 'Terry Sosebee'

Subject: RE: ATLANTA CRIME LAB REVIEW -- ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE LARRY LEE CASE

TeIlY,

Thanks for always keeping me up to date.

Sa)flna

-----Original Message----From: Terry Sosebee [mailto:[email protected],us) Sent: Friday, May 19, 20064:50 PM To: 'Sabrina Groham' Subject: FW; AnANTA CRIME lAB REVIEW - ADDmONAL QUES110NS ON THE LARRY LEE CASE

Sabrina:

FYI - typically one question leads to another.

We asked our South Georgia office to send an agent to Wayne County SO to look for the slides that the Atlanta Lab sent to GBI Region 4 (Douglas) in April 1999. I spoke to SAC Greg Harvey about this on Wednesday night at dinner. SAC Harvey is currently assigned to our Kingsland office (Region 14). In 1999, he was the ASAC in the Region 4 office (Douglas). He Is not optimistic that the slides will be found.

As SAC Harvey explained - in 1999, while he was the ASAC at the R-4 office. He often signed for boxes that were shipped to the R-4 office by the various crime labs, When the boxes were opened, the usually contained returned evidence from a Variety of cases. The accompanying paperwork often was crime lab paperwork that had no clear connection to the regional office paperwork, The regional office case numbers and the crime lab case numbers are not connected or easily researched (especially at that point in time).

He stated that his normal procedure would have been to turn the evidence and papers over to the agent assigned to the related case to dispose of the evidence. Disposal of the evidence would depend on what it was. I could have been

placed in the office evidence room, turned over to another involved agency (like the local Sheriffs office), or destroyed If it could not be determined to have an evidentiary value.

Since the slides in question are not in the Region 4 office evidence room - SAC

... EXHIBIT .. I 2~ ~ .-

I I

I

Harvey feels that the evidence was probably destroyed if it can not be located at the local Sheriffs Office. He has not given me his final thoughts on this. I hope to have that by next week.

I will ask the Region 4 office to let us know which agent was assigned to maintain the Larry Lee case file at the time the slides were sent to the office. The case file is at the Region 4 office. I have been informed that the case file does not contain any references to the evidence that was shipped by the Atlanta Crime Lab to the R-4 office.

The items below are the most recent questions that Steve Bayliss has asked about the case and related evidence since he made his recent visits to the Atlanta Lab, the Savannah Lab, and the Region 4 office several weeks ago.

I will try to keep you Informed.

Terry

From: Steve Bayliss [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:09 AM To: Terry Sosebee

~-~----------.----.-

Subject: RE: ATLANTA. CRIME LAB REVIEW .- ADDmONAL QUESTIONS ON TIiE LARRY LEE CASE

Thanks for the update. A few clarifying questions: 1. The Chain of custody shows the bloodstain cards being sent back to WCSO on 4/21/2004. According to the chain of custody, those cards appear to have been created on 02/16/2004 by Dawn Pierce, presumably using the vials of blood that were originally collected in 1986 & 1987. Does the Crime Lab still have the original vials of blood, from which new bloodstain cards could be created?

2. Should I call Gail in a few days, or will you let me know when the logs are ready for us to come out to examine?

3. I'll wait to hear from you about the other slides that Greg Harvey is looking for. If he determines that the slides were turned over to WCSO, please let me know what chain of custody documentation there is to continue the search at WCSO.

Thanks, Steve Bayliss

From: Terry Sosebee [mallto:[email protected]) Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:34 AM

"

To: Steve Bayliss Subject: fW: ATlANTA CRIME LAB REVIEW -- ADDmONAL QUESTIONS ON THE LARRY LEE CASE

Steve:

UPDATE: This is what I have found out at this time.

Connie Piokens of the Atlanta Lab's DNA seotion advised the info below and provided the attached iile

Gail Lang advised me on Friday (051206) that she has some of the information that you asked her about. She Is out of the office until tomorrow (051806). She indioated that she needed a little more time to get her info together.

We have asked the Region 4 office and SAC Greg Harvey (on Monday of this week) to get with Wayne County SO to see if they were turned over to that offioe by Region 4. As you know. Greg was the ASAC in R-4 at that time. He is now the SAC in the R-14 in Kingsland, Georgia.

I hope to have more info for you by the end of this week.

Terry

PX 192

Dole_Rplr.WWW:DD<lSOOK-COM

I

i I i

J v.

1 {.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

.:,:- 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE,

Petitioner,

vs.

} } } } CIVIL ACTION }

1

WILLIAM TERRY, Warden, Georgia Department of Prisons,

} FILE NO. 89-V-2325 } } } }

Respondent. }

30(b}6 DEPOSITION OF

WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE By

SHERIFF JOHN G. CARTER

October 12, 2006

4:00 p.m.

Wayne County Courthouse 174 North Brunswick Street

Jesup, Georgia

Debbie Gilbert, Certified Court Reporter, B-515

B Y:-JO W N , ~edfiI/t INC.

717 Gloucester Street Suite 306~n

Drunswick, GA 31520 912-262-5444

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

17

Q. Yes, that have been attached to your -- as

exhibits as to your deposition. You are certainly

welcome to refer to your own notes that you have.

A. I don't have a whole lot of them.

Q. Exhibit 2 to your deposition is the

subpoena.

A. Okay.

Q. And then it has behind it attached Exhibit

A, and what I want to call your attention to is

Paragraph 1 that asks you to bring all files, records

and any other document. pertaining to the

investigation, arrest and prosecution of Lawrence

William Lee, and is it fair to say that what you

brought today in response to that Paragraph 1 was the

arrest warrant book from 1986 and Mr. Callaway's

personnel file, though that may necessarily go to

Number 1, but those are the only two things you

brought here today?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. Well, I've got some other things here,

such as property receipts and --

23 Q. You do have some other documents?

24 A. Well, that's from stuff you asked for last

25 time. That's all I have here in regards to something

PX 193

~~

I:) .,

. : ,

Deponenl~ ____ ~

Dale __ Rplr. __ VoWWDO'OBOOk.CO.'1

1 [.

2

3

4

5

6

7

B

9

10

11

12

, 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

c 25

1


LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, ) ) ) Petitioner,

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION )

WILLIAM TERRY, Warden, Georgia Department of Prisons,

) FILE NO. 89-V-2325 ) ) ) )

Respondent. )

RULE 30(b)6 DEPOSITION OF

OFFICE OF CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY By

STETSON FLEMING BENNETT, JR.

October 12, 2006

11:32 a.m.

Wayne County Courthouse 174 North Brunswick Street

Jesup, Georgia

Debbie Gilbert, Certified Court Reporter, B-515

B IfJO WN ( "odfi1g INC.

777 Gloucester Street Sui •• 306-B

Brunswick, GA 31520 912-262-5444

33

1 maybe that the original evidence exhibits are

2 attached to the transcript, and so that's the -- what

3 happened to that.

4 Q. During the course of Mr. Lee's criminal

5 trial, at the end of each day, what would happen to

6 the items of evidence that were tendered into

7 evidence and tendered to the court as admitted?

8 A. I would take them and bring them to the

9 office.

10

11

12

Q.

A.

Q.

And bring them back the next morning?

Bring them back the next morning.

At the end of the trial, the court

13 reporter got --

14 A. Yes, sir.

15 Q. Got possession of the photographs?

16 A. Yes, sir. It's been a mystery. I don't

17 know how she got them but --

18 Q. I' am also going to show you two manila

19 folders that have Case Number 86 CR 0119 on,them and

20 one is marked "Title" -- excuse me, one is File

21 Number 1 and the other is File Number 2; is that

22 correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What would be filed in those particular

25 folders, File 1 and File 27

42

1 office's file copy, sitting on her desk for a period

2 of time before it actually got entered into your

3 official file on this particular criminal case?

4 A. Ves, sir, it could have been. Could have

5 been.

6 Q. Mr. Bennett, I want to call your at tent i on

7 to the next paragraph in the subpoena.

8

9

10

11

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

Okay.

And I apologize, let me help -

No problem, sir.

And go ahead and move those out of your

12 way. Are you looking at Page 2 -- I mean, Page 2 of

13 the subpoena that's Exhibit A?

14

15

A.

Q.

I am, sir.

Paragraph B also requests you to produce,

16 you know, any other items of evidence associated with

17 the investigation of the murders of Clifford, Nina

18 and J~rold Jones and that refers you to Exhi~it B to

19 the subpoena. Can you locate Exhibit B to the

20 subpoena?

21

22

23

24

25 is a

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

list

Yes, sir.

It's about four or five pages down.

Ves, sir.

Okay. Now, I will represent to you this

from the Georgia Bureau of I'nvest;gation's

43

1 crime lab Case Number SA61531. Do you -- to your

2 knowledge, do you have any of these things on Exhibit

3 B?

4 A. Sir, I can't say because it -- as far as I

5 know, 1 do not have anything about a blanket, a flat

6 sheet, another blanket.

7

8

9

10

11

Q. You are going down the list now, 1, 2, 3,

4?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Q. You can callout, give me the item. Tell

me "I don't have 1; I don't have 2"?

12 A. I don't have 1. I don't have 2. I don't

13 have 3. I don't have 4. I don't have 5. I don't

14 have 6. I don't have 7. I don't have 8 as such. 9,

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I don't have 9 unless it's in this evidence over here

on the table. I can't say about that.

Q. All right, what you are saying, if I may

interpose, is that if it was introduced into evidence

as a State's exhibit then it would be on over on the

other table?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's fair enough, and I understand, and

I am not -- I am just trying to ask you if you have

these, and if it was entered into evidence and it's

over there, that's fine. 1 understand that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A.

evidence.

believe we

lab.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

have. 17,

10 evidence.

44

11 , I don't have 11. 12 may be in the

I don't have 13. I don't have 14. 15, I

did have and then we sent it to the crime

Recently; is that correct?

Recently.

Ves, sir.

I assume that's the same one. 16, I don't

I don't have knowingly. 18 may be in the

11 Q. Ves, it refers to State's Exhibit 92 or

12 93, yes, sir.

13

14

15

A.

Q.

A.

I believe that maybe is there.

Yes, sir.

And 19, it would be in there. 20, I don't

16 have that. 21, I don't have that. 22, I don't know

17 anythi ng about that. 23, I don't know anythi ng about

18 that orie. 24 should be in the exhibit file,

19 evidence. 25 and 26 would be in the exhibit file. I

20 don't know anything about 27. Don't know anything

21 about 28, 29.

22 Q. When you say you don't know anything about

23 it, you are saying you don't have it?

24

25

A.

Q.

I don't have it.

Yes, sir.

1

2

3

A.

before.

Q.

45

I have never seen or heard about it

Yes, sir.

4 A. 30, I don't have that. 31, I don't have

5 that. 32, 33, 34, 35.

6 Q. You don't have those numbers?

7

8

9

10

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

11 knowledge?

I don't have those numbers.

Those items.

36, 37 should be in the evidence.

Okay, you don't have 35 or 36, to your

12 A. No, to my knowledge. 37 should be in the

13 evidence. 38 should be in the evidence. 39 should

14 be in the evidence. 40A, I don't know anything about

15 that. 40B, I don't know anything about that one.

16 41, I don't have anything about that. 42A, I don't

17 know anything about that one. 42B, I don't know

18 anything about that. 43, I don't know anything about

19 that. 44A I don't think is in the evidence. 44B may

20 be in the evidence but I am not aware of it. 44C

21 could be in the evidence. 45, I don't have that.

22 46, I don't have that. 47, I don't have that. 48, I

23 don't have that. 49, I don't have that. 50, I don't

24 have that. 51, I don't have that. 52, I don't have

25 that. 53, I don't have that. 54, I don't have that.

46

1 55, I don't have that. 56, don't have that. 57,

2 don't have that. 58, don't have that. 59, don't

3 have that. 60, don't have that. 61, I don't have


5 64, I don't have that. 65, don't have that. 66A, I

6

7

8

9

don't have that. 66B, I don't have that. 66C, don't

have that. 660, I don't have that. 66E, don't have

that. 67A, don't have that. 67B, I don't have that.

68, I don't have that. 69, I don't have that. 70, I

10

11

12

don't have that. 71, I don't have that. 72, I don't

have that.

Q. 72A?

13 A. 72A, don't have that. 72B, I don't have


15 75, I don't have that. 76, I don't have that. 77, I

16 don't have that. 78, I don't have that. 79, I don't

17 have that. 80, I don't have that. 81, I don't have

18 that. 82, I don't have that. 83, I don' t have that.

19 84, I don't have that. 85, I don't have that. 86A,

20 I don't have that. But maybe that's an exhibit.

21

22

Q.

A.

Yes, sir.

109. 86B, it should be in the file, in

23 the evi dence. 87, I don't have that. 88, I don't

24 have that.

25 Q. All right, Mr. Bennett, thank you very

47

1 much. Do you want to take a sip of water or Coke or

2 coffee?

3

4

A.

Q.

Yes, I will take care of that.

I wanted to give you a little break

5 because I am going to ask you to go on to the next

6 two pages or three pages.

7

8

A.

Q.

Exhibit C.

This pertains to Case Number SA61522

9 pertaining to Nina M. Jones. Would you look at it?

10 A. Yes, sir, I don't have Number 1. I don't

11 have Number 2. I shoul d have Number 3. Number 4, I

12 don't have that. 5, I don't have that. 6A, I don't

13 have that. 68, I don't have that.

14 Q. If you would turn to Exhibit D. This is

15 State Crime Lab's Case Number SA61523 regarding

16 Clifford Jones, Jr.?

17 A. I don't have Number 1. I don't have

18 Number 2. I don't have Number 3. I don't have

19 Number 4A. I don't have Number 4B. Number 5, I

20 don't have that. Number 6, I don't have that.

Number 7, I don't have that. Number 8, I don't have 21

22

23

24

25

that. Number 9, don't have that. 10, don't have

that. 11 , don't have that. 12, I don't have that.

13, I don't have that. 14A, I don't have that. 148,

I don't have that.

48

1 Q. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Bennett.

2 I have a couple of questions on that -- on those.

3 All right, you got this -- you received this subpoena

4 about three weeks ago; is that correct?

5 A. That's correct, somewhere in that

6 neighborhood.

7 Q. And you knew at that time that the

8 subpoena called for you to produce the items

9 identified in the subpoena; is that correct?

10

11

A.

Q.

That's correct, sir.

And did you search your office to make

12 sure that you brought everything that you have on

13 this particular --

A.

Q.

The best I could, sir.

-- criminal case?

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

A. There has been enough evidence and enough

activity in this case that it sort of got priority as

you keep it all together as much as you can.

Q. When did this case sort of become a

priority or become -- to you and your office?

A. Whenever I started getti ng inquiries about

22 the evidence here and evidence there and et cetera.

23 Q. Would that have been back in certainly the

24 early nineties?

25 A. I don't know, sir. It could have been.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

You probably know more about that than I do.

Q. To your knowledge, have you ever had

your office ever had -- the items that you have

just -- that we've just gone through that you said "I

don't have" except for the ones you said they are

State's Exhibit 109 or 110 and should be in that box?

A. No, sir, I know nothing about it.

Q. So I am -- so· if the record could be

clear, what you are saying, is it correct to

understand that you're saying, to your knowledge, you

didn't have any of these other items at any time?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Mr. Bennett, did you ever meet with the

district attorney or any representative of his office

back in 1986, 1987 to go over items that were going

to be introduced into evidence at the trial of Mr.

Larry Lee?

A.

Q.

, No, sir.

Did you ever meet with any representative

of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation regarding

items that were or might be introduced into evidence

at the trial of Mr. Larry Lee?

A. No, sir, not that I recall, sir.

Q. Did you ever meet with any representative

of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department regarding

PX 194

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BUTTS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

LAWRENCE WILLIAM LEE, ) )

Petitioner, ) )

v. ) )

FREDRICK 'HEAD, Warde~, ) Georgia Diagnostic Prison,)

) Respondent. )

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 89-V-2325

HABEAS CORPUS

The deposition of TERRI SANTAMARIA,

taken' for--the purposes of cross-examination,

discovery and all other purposes allowed under

the Georgia Civi~ Practice Act; all formalities

waived, excluding the reading and signing of

the deposition; before Stacey B. Abbott,

Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in

and for the State of Georgia; commencing at

1:15 p.m., Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 3121

Panthersville, Decatur, Georgia.

r:' ",=w,,,,,,",,,,,",~

!.li I PE .1~~~~ll~R'S S I'

! tlU1--· t'. ~._. ,....,.. "!''''''-'-'''':::':': ••• _~;.

************************************* CALIBER COURT REPORTING, INC.

,Post Office Box 82029 Conyers, 'Georgia 30013

(770) 483-8686 FAX: (770) 483-3986

1

22

1 misunderstood. I thought with at least reference to one

2 of these items there had been SOme head hairs that were

3 unidentified.

4 A. Yes, the inconsistent hairs. They must have

5 been compared at another time, a later date.

6 Q. Okay. Is there any documentation within the

7 composite Exhibit that you've given me today that would

8 indicate the date on which those comparisons were made?

9 A. Yes, I believe so. I'll have to find it.

10 On this page here, that would have been -- 7/1/8·7 would

11 have been the date that I wrote the report. The next

12 page would have been the dates here that I actually did

13 the comparisons, so it would have been in June of 1987.

14 Q. And what were the results of those

15 comparisons?

16 A. That microscopic examination comparison of

17 the question hair from items -- and the question hair at

18 this point would have been hairs that had not been

19 associated with the father, mother and son. So question

20 ha!.rll from items 1, 3, 6, 7 and 11 that were inconsistent

21 with the known hair of. Larry Lee.

22 Q. with respect to those items which were hair

23 which were analyzed and found to be inconsistent with

24 either the Jones family or Larry Lee, were those ever

25 matched to anyone?

1

2

A.

Q.

Not by me, no, sir.

Would you have prepared and m~intained any

3 kind of worksheet reflecting your analysis of the hair

4 samples and the conclusions that you drew or are your

5 notes that are set forth in the record of evidence what

6 would basically be your worksheet?

Yes, sir.

23

7

8

A.

Q. How much or how large a hair do you need in

9 .order to make a comparison with another hair?

10 A. It's all dependent on the known hair. If

11 somebody has an eighth-of-an-inch long hair, that's the

12 length of their hair, then that's what you would use for

13 a comparison. If somebody has a hair that's 12 inches

14 long, then that's what you use for a comparison. That in

15 and of itself would be significant.

16 Q. Do you have to have the root of the hair to

17 make a definitive determination?

18

19

20

A.

Q.

A.

It is best to have the roots.

Why is that?

gecause it's a matter of trying to compare

21 hairs that are in similar growth phase.

22 . Q. When you recover a number of hairs from the

23 crime scene, say 50 or 60 hairs, would you put those all

24 on slides ipdividually or

25 A. If it's question hair, yes, sir, unless it's

24

1 something where it's obviously a large mass of hair where

2 with the naked eye or staring microscopically they look

3 very similar. And then, as I explained earlier, I would

4 mount a representative sample.

5 Q. Okay. In order to perform the analysis, do

6 you have to treat the hairs with any sort of chemicals?

7 A. No, sir.

8 Q. After the hairs have been mounted on the

9 slides and analyzed, are they ever subsequently removed

10 from the slides?

11 A. Not unless they're taken out to have DNA

12 analysis performed on them. But if r recall correctly,

13 and, again, this has been many years ago, I don't believe

14 this laboratory was doing DNA analysis at that· time.

15 Q. That's my understanding, as well. How would

16 the slides themselves be stored in -- r know you've

17 explained where they gOt butt physically, would they all

18 be stored in one box with a number of slides or each

19 slide have a separate box of its own or an envelope or

20 A. No. What I would try to do is I would take ,.

21 the slides and I would wrap them in paper towels to

22 protect them. And then they could either be, depending

23 on how many there are/ in a box or in a bag.

24 Q. Do you recall specifically from your

25 recollection how these slides in this case were stored?

1

2

A.

Q.

I have written down here a small bag.

And are they kept in that condition until

3 the time of trial?

4 A. Yeah. Once they go to the evidence room,

25

5 obviously, theY're going to stay in that condition. But

6 once they leave the laboratory, then, you know, whoever

7 has them in their possession might be able to open them

8 up.

9 Q. If you were going to testify in a case,

10 would you actually bring the slides containing the hair

11 comparison evidence with you or someone else would take

12 that to trial?

13

14

15

16

A.

Q.

A.

every

It depends.

On what circumstances would it depend?

It's'-- you know, we've done just about

every. range of the gamut here. It's -- you

17 know, they can have somebody come and pick up the

18 evidence before trial, we've had that happen. Or we have

19 taken evidence to trial with us. Or, you know, we have

20 taken just slides "ith us.

21 Q. Assuming that you take evidence, the slides,

22 with you to testify, what do you do when you arrive at

23 trial? DO.You turn those over to any particular

24 individual typically?

25 A. Again, it depends on the situation.

26

1 sometimes we just leave them on the stand.

2 Q. Is there any -- so, for example, you might

3 corne to court, not even turn over the evidence to the

4 prosecuting attorney, but just take it to the stand with

5 you and then have it identified and leave it up there

6 when you step down?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Okay. Would you ever turn over, for

9 example, all of your slides and then let the district

10 attorney or the prosecuting attorney decide which ones

11 he's going to use and then leave the remainder with that

12 person?

13 A. Again, it's up to them. It's their evidence

14 at that point.

15 Q. Would you normally bring the evidence back

16 with you to the crime lab after trial if --

17 A. We would do everything in our power not to

18 bring evidence back.

19 Q. Why is that?

20 A. aecause we just simply don't have enough

21 room to store it.

22 Q. So is it fair to say that your general

23 practice and policy is if you can, leave the evidence

24 with the prosecuting attorney· or the court in which the

25 case is tried?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

A.

Q.

That is correct.

Was that the policy back in 1986?

27

A. Yes.

Q. Would you ever have occasion to leave slides

containing hair evidence with either the case agent or

the GBI investigating agent?

A. You know, I cannot say that that wouldn't

happen. Generally, we try to leave it with somebody

responsible at the court. So, again, I don't know what,

you know, happened to the slides in this case. Or I do

not recall at this time.

Q.

A.

Do you recall testifying in this case?

No, I don't.

14 Q. Back in 1986, were there specific written

15 policies promulgated by the GBI's crime lab regarding the

16 chain of custody of evidence?

17 A. I don't recall that there was actually

18 written policies at that time.

19

20

21

Q.

A.

Q.

Is there now?

Yes, there are now.

Did you back then have to fill out any kind

22 of reports or forms to document your chain of custody of

23 any kind of physical evidence?

24 A. No. We basically had this --

25 Q. The log sheet --

1

2

3

4

5

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

this book.

that's been

Yeah.

-- identified in P-IO?

28

Right. And we also -- we did have sheets --

6 we may have had them at this time, again, I don't recall,

7 where we would try to get somebody's signature if we left

8 evidence at court. But sometimes we couldn't get a

9 signature and so we would just write returned to court on

10 it.

11 Q. Was there any kind of specific form that the

12 GBI had that you would use to have someone sign off on

13 indicating that they had obtained physical evidence from

14 YOU?

15 A. There was and they were retained with the

16 evidence room custodian.

17

18

19

20

21

22

have

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

been

Q.

Was there a title to that form --

No.

-- that you can recall? I understand

I'm sorry. Not that I recall. fi'here may

a title on ii:., but I don't recall.

In reviewing the log book portion of the

23 composite Exhibit P-10, you indicated, of course, that

24 would be the log that would be used to document your

25 having turned in physical evidence to the evidence room.

4

5

6

7

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

No

other means?

there was not. Not by us.

Would you consider the chain of custody to

8 be very important in dealing with physical and forensic

9 evidence?

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

last

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

and

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

Why is that?

So you know where it's at.

It's also important to know who's had it

who's had their hands on it, as well?

That's correct.

For ensurfng the integrity of the

17 investigation?

IS

19

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

Since you've been at the office, what type

29

20 of systenls have' there been for recording' chain of custody

21 in place in the GBI?

22 A. There basically was this log book. You had

23 asked about computer records before. The evidence room

24 may have entered things into the computer system. They

25 may have computer records, but we did not up in the

30

1 sections. Since that time, we've had two different bar

2 coding systems.

3 Q. Are there any particular name for each of

4 the individual bar coding systems?

5 A. Not that I can remember. One was ass6ciated

6 with a computer system that was a victim of the Y2K

7 system and then our current one is Justice Tracks which

8 this case would not

9 Q.

10 A.

11 Q.

Let me show you an Exhibit -

be in it.

which has been marked as P-1 at the

12 deposition of Larry Hankerson and ask do you recognize

13 that document, what it is?

14 A. No, I don't. Oh. I believe this is -- this

15 appears to be a chain -- let me' see. It says a chain of

16 custody from HP3000 System. That'"as the computer system

17 that died over the Y2K.

18 Q. In reviewing

19 A. However, we here at the laboratory know that

20 these -- this' is not correct. The conversion from the

21 HP3 -- I'm sorri,. it has not been correct from time to

22 time. So the conversion from the HP3000 to the Justice .. '

23 Tracks that they now use now, and that's what this would

24 have been printed off of, is not reliable.

25 Q. Okay. Your name appears in a few different

31

1 areas of P-l.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A.

Q.

Well, I'm not sure if that's my name.

Well, let me take that back. Initials TS

appear ~d I'm -- I thought that might be something that

might be your -- you --

A. No.

Q. But you don't know that for a fact?

A. No; that is not me. I'm sorry. I don't

9 mean to interrupt, but --

10 Q. That's all right.

11 A. -- TS could be Ted Staples. You'll.also see

12 TRS and that would be me.

13

14

15

H

17

18

19

20

21

Q. That would be you, okay. With respect to

the notations referenced here, would th.ese entries, I

guess, correspond to actual written entries in the log

book reflecting evidence that was either turned in by you

or given to you?

A. Again, I cannot rely on conversations from

the HP3nOO to this. However, this cne right here would

make sense, here on 7/2/87. If you !:ecall, I made what I

belIeve to. be the final comparison on 7/1/87 and wrote a

22 report. ·So it makes sense that on 7/2/87 that items 87

23 and 88, that would be Larry Lee, the known head hair on

24 Larry Lee, and the slides would have been turned over to

25 -- from me to the evidence room. Did that makes sense?

32

1 Q. Yes, it does. So, in other words, the

2 indication returned to TRS regarding slides -- or items

3 87 and 88, would that be a reference of you returning --

4 A. See, that doesn't make sense.

5 Q. Okay. That's what I'm kind of trying to

6 understand.

7 A. Yeah. It would make sense that returned by

8 me to AK who would have been Allison Kelly at the time

9 who was the evidence technician.

10 Q. All right.

11

12

13

A.

Q.

A.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I do. I do.

And then here you see 11/19/87, all evidence

14 . except for R -- I don't know what that means -- will be

15 Larry Hankerson for court. And then here she has another

16 one, 1/22/88, slides to me. 1/22/88? I don't -- I'm not

17

18

19

20

sure what that· means.

Q. I see. And there's nothing --

A. So wait -- now, wait a minute, now. Here's

another one, 6/28/99; 1", 2 slides, 36 -- ~5, 36 slides

21 returned to GBI. So that appears as though where the

22 slides ended up at.

23 Q. Okay.

24

25

A. Do you -- what day did I testify? Maybe

that would help.

33

1 Q. Quite honestly, I'm not sure. The notation

2 you just referenced regarding the GBI, it says GBl and

3 then REG 4. Is that Region 4 of the GBI?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. That would be their office?

6 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

7 Q. Okay. What does the remainder of that

8 notation mean, that the via UPS? Is that --

9 A. Via UPS, that appears as though the evidence

10 room shipped it via UPS on 4/9/99.

11 Q. All right.

12 A. But, again, that doesn't make any sense

13 because there's a date over here that says 6/28 and

14 therein lies the problem with the HP conversion.

15 Q. So it's your feeling that this conversion

16 from the written entries is probably inaccurate?

17 A. Well, you know, I haven't -- I'm not an

18 evidence room person, so maybe that would be the best

19 person to ask. I'm just just looking at it from a

20 common-sense point of view, the date's aren't making

21 sense.

22 Q. I understand.

23 A. NOW, it could be that they did return this

24 on 4/9/99, but they didn't enter it until 6/28. But,

25 see, I didn't create the record and I don't know exactly

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

34

what it means.

Q. I understand. Just as you look, I guess,

the third page of that Exhibit, there should be an

additional set of entries and your name appears on one of

them. I just wanted to ask you if you could explain -- I

think it's 4/28/87 there's an entry, evidence 4 and 5,

which we discussed, returned to TRS.

what

A.

Q.

Again, that doesn't --.when was the trial?

The trial was in November of '87.

A. November of '87 and this would be 4 and 5 in

okay, so this is 1532.

figure it out from my notes.

Let's see if we can

1532 would have been the

case with the mother, yes, and 4 and 5 \~ould have been

her known hair samples, okay. So here I have 4 and 5 and

the slides that were, according to our written records,

returned to the evidence room on 10/5 (sic)/86. So I

could have gotten these back in '87 to make the

18 comparison with Larry Lee. That would make sense.

19 Q. All right.

20

21

A.

Q.

On 7/1/87, so that would make sense.

All right, Typically, when you do ~air

22 analysis, do you actually list how many hairs are

23 recovered and assign them separate item numbers or, if

24 it's a big clump of hair, I guess, you just take a

25 representative sample?

1 A. Generally, the hairs are mounted on slides

2 per item. TheY're not mounted single hair.

3 Q. Okay. And in the oases in which you just

4

5

6

7

8

9

take a representative sample, what is done, if anything,

with, I guess, the remainder of the hair?

A. They would have been left in the package

that they oame in. If they were taken off a large item,

they would have been put in a Ziploo plastio bag and

packaged either baok with the item, most likely.

35

10 Q. Can you recall where the slides were stored

11 while you were-working on this oase, either within your

12 offioe or in the evidenoe room?

13

14

15

16

17

A.

Q.

and key?

A.

Q.

In my personal evidenoe looker.

Is that looker something that's under look

Yes.

with respeot to the record of evidenoe

18 document whioh we've gone through in part, ultimately are

19 these records of evidence supposed to show the ultimate

.20 disposition of all the hair evidence?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Okay. What document is supposed to show the

23 ultimate deposition -- disposition, exouse me, if any?

24 A. It should be records out of the evidence

25 room.

1 Q.

36

Is there a particular form, one with a given

2 title, that they have?

3 A. Again, I'm not part of the evidence room, so

4 I don't know.

5 Q. Is there ever any circumstance in which, I

6 guess, hair evidence is ever destroyed?

7

8

A.

Q.

Not by me.

With respect to the GBI Crime Lab's

9 policies, is there any individual who would, I guess, be

10 in charge of destroying hair evidence or is that

11 something that would ever be done?

12 A. That type of information would -- you'd have

13 to talk to the head of the evidence room.

14

15

Q.

A.

Okay.

And, again, that's something that has

16 changed over the years.

17 Q. To your knowledge, has there ever been any

18 kind of log book or other method of documentation in the

19 event that hair evidence is destroyed?

20 A. Again, I don't destroy evidence, so I don't

21 -- I couldn't answer that.

22 Q. How about if hair evidence is transferred to

23 a GBI Regional Office, would that be indicated on the

24 record of evidence?

25 A. I don't recall what they used to do back in

1

2

back in the 'SOs.

Q. As you look through the -- your copies of

37

3 the records of evidence for this case, do you note any

4 indication where there's a reference to evidence being

5 either transferred or provided to the GBI Regional

6

7

Office?

A. I do not at this point see it. But, again,

8 that's not something that I would do. I'm not -- I

9 wasn't in charge of that. That's something that the

10 evidence room handles.

11 Q. Do you know if the transfer of evidence

12 well, I guess we've already indicated here that this

13 apparently appears on the HP3000 computer chain of

14 custody document?

15 A. Yeah. And this really is not from the

16 HP3000. This would have been printed off the current

17 Justice Tracks System and this was a conversion --

18

19

Q.

A.

I see.

and everything did not convert very well

20 from the-HP3000 to the Justice Tracks System.

21 Q. Do you know if the GBI still maintains hard

22 copies of that information that was on the HP3000?

23 A. I do not, but you would have to ask the

24 custodian of the evidence room.

25 Q. And you mayor may not know this, but do you

38

1 know if, in the event hair evidence is transferred to the

2 GBI Regional Office if the GBl keeps any kind of

3 documentation reflecting that transfer?

4 A. I have no idea.

5

6

7

Q.

A.

Q.

Maybe I should say the Regional Office.

Right. I have no idea what they do.

How about if hair evidence is transferred to

B the district attorney's office or the sheriff's

9 department or another law enforcement agency, would that

10 evidence be recorded on either the HP3000 or in the

11 record of evidence?

12 A. Again, I'm not in charge of that. You need

13 to ask the evidence technician, the person who's in

14 charge of the evidence room.

15 Q. I assume the same answer would hold true

16 about whether or not it would be recorded in any kind of

17 chain of custody reports?

18 A., That is correct.

19 Q. In the event that you're call'ed to trial, do

20 you typically, tq.keeverything that the crime lab has

21 processed in a case or, do you just take the hair

22 evidence?

23

24

25

A. It's dependent on the case. Sometimes--

currently today, everything is generally returned before

we go to trial. Back in the '80s, it was dependent on

39

1 sometimes the district attorney -- yeah, I believe there

2 is some sort of note here. The district at:torney will

3 request that some items not come back. Here I have a

4 note that I had made. Evidence returned 11/19/87 by LH,

5 which would have been Larry Hankerson. Now, where I got

6 this information, I don't know, but I've written it down.

7 So I have 1531, all except rug --

8 Q. I don't mean to stop you, but -- or cut you

9 off. And when you indicate evidence returned, you mean

10 returned to the GBI from court or --

11 A. You know, I just have evidence returned. I

12 didn't say to whom.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. And this might have been trying to get

15 prepared somewhat for court. So -- and I could have been

16

17

18

again, I'm trying to remember back 17 years, so --

Q. I understand.

--'what this note could have been was I was

19 looking for evidence to make sure that I didn't have

20 anything to return. So:, have this note here that 1531,

21 all except rug, 1532, number 6, and 1533, all. So that

22 ~lOuld indicate that all of the evidence was returned,

23 everything but 6 on 1532 and all except the rug on 1531.

24 Q.. Okay. Do you have any other notes in that

25 composite Exhibit that might reflect the evidence that

40

1 was returned on 11/19/87 having been given Dr taken

2 anywhere else?

3 A. No, I don't. See right here, this does say

4 11/19/87, all evidence except R, which is probably

5 truncated for rug, LH for court.

6 Q. Okay. SO you think that corresponds to this

7 handwritten note where you've indicated that this

8 evidence was given -- returned on 11/19 after court or --

9 A. You know, I really -- again, I'm just trying

10 to piece this·together.

11 Q. Sure.

12 A. I don't have a recollection of this. I'm

13 just trying to piece it together from the records.

14 Q. I understand. Do you know -- did you do any

15 analysis of any boot print or shoe print impressions in

16 connection with this case?

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Do you have any other reports?

The crime lab reports themselves?

Yes.

I think I do.

The notes. that I have here, I see only

analysis of hair.

Q. Let me show you three Exhibits that were

A. No, wait a minute. It says right here

something about shoes.

1 Q.

41

You're referring to the record of evidence;

2 is that right?

3

4

A.

through

Yes, with my notes on it from 586-1530

oh, I'm sorry, 1533. Examination of the

5 tennis shoes, item 15A -- oh, fails to reveal the

6 presence of trace evidence.

7 Q. Okay; So that was an examination of the

B shoes just to see if there was any hairs or anyth~ng of

9 that nature on it?

10

11

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

okay. I want to show you three crime lab

12 reports that were previously marked as Petitioner's 7, 8

13 and 9 at Mr. -Hankerson's deposition and I think you

14 indicated that might help you in determining whether or

15 not you performed-any-kind of boot or shoe print

16 impression analysis.

17 A. Yes. All I see are hair results. That's

18 just hair results.

19 Q. So I guess I understand your testimony is

20 from your review of the documentation, it docs not 'appear

21 that you would have performed any boot or shoe print

22 analysis?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. From reviewing these reports, were you able

25 to determine who would have performed any boot or shoe

42

1 print analysis in connection with this case?

2 A. I do not know that any question cast or

3 question impressions were submitted.

4 Q. How were shoe and boot prints recovered by

5 the crime lab from crime scenes back in -86?

A. It all depends on how the question 6

7 impression what it was deposited on, whether it was in

8 -- Or in soil or on a hard surface. Was it a surface

9 that could have been cut out and brought to the crime

10 laboratory? Is it in soil that needed to be casted?

·11 Q. So would one of the ways be to make a

12 plaster cast or some sort?

13 A. If it was in a soft surface where it had

14 left an impression.

15 Q.' If it was not left on such a surface with

16 such an impression, then how would the boot print

17 impressions be· made, be recovered?

18 A. Then they would either be -- the entire

19 object that the impression -- the question impression was

20 on would be brought to the laboratory or they have in the

21 past dusted a question impression with latent powder and

22 lifted it with a tape, a tape lift.

23

24

25

Q.

A.

Q.

Are photographs ever used?

I'm sorry. Yes, photographs also.

How about gel lifters?

43

1 A. I don't know that in the '80s that they were

2 using those.

3 Q. Going back to Exhibit 10, the chain of

4 custody or, excuse me, Exhibit P-l, the chain of

5 custody report, I just wanted to ask you if you could

6 perhaps help me out with some notations that appear in

7 here. There's a number of categories, date 01 evidence

8 returned to and returned by. Nhat does D1 mean?

9 A. I have no idea.

10 Q. with respect to the slides, you indicated

11 that the report, at "least, -references as having been sent

12 to the GBI by UPS back on April 9th of 1999. Would the

13 GBI have kept any kind of tracking information for that?

14 I do not know. A.

Q. 15 Any record of a shipment of any sort?

16 Again, I don't know. A.

17 Who might be the best person to ask about Q.

18 that?

19 A. You could ask Diane Ennis now.

20 Q. I'm sorry?

21 A. Diane Ennis, E-n-n-i-s.

22 Q. What is Ms. Ennis's title?

23 A. I don't know her official title, I'm sorry.

24 she is --

25 Q. Who is she?

44

1 A. in charge of the front office and

2 evidence room.

3 Q. W~th respect to DNA test~ng, do you know how

4 much hair is necessary to perform a DNA test?

5 A. I'm sorry, I don't perform DNA analysis.

6 Q. Do you· have any training or any knowledge or

7 expertise· in the field?

9 A. In DNA?

9

10

11

Q.

A.

Q.

Yes, ma l am.

No, sir.

Okay. In connection with Mr. Lee's trial,

12 do you have any recollection of meeting with his trial

13 attorney prior to the trial?

14 A. NO, I do not.

15 Q. Do you know if, in any event you would have

16 met with him, you would have taken any notes that you

17 might have maintained?

19 A. I don't have any notes and I have no

19 recollection.

20 MR. LINDSAY, Let's take a few minutes.

21 (Whereupon, a break was taken.)

22 BY I~R. LINDSAY: (Resuming)

23 Q. Ms. Santamaria, do you ever recall having

24 met with ·the GBI case agent on this case, Jerry Rowe,

25 with respect to your hair analysis?

45

1 A. I don't know if we met or whether we had a

2 phone conversation, but I do have some no~es.

3 Q. Okay. What -- can you tell me what your

4 notes reflect in terms of any discussion you had with

5 Mr. Rowe and where those appear?

6 A. I have some notes and they're dated 5/1/87.

7 It has Jerry Rowe up at the top with the sheriff's office

8 number, I believe.

9 Q. Thank you. And what do those notes

10 indicate?

11 A. These notes are where I was talking about

12 comparisons that had been performed with question hair of

13 L. Lee. And what I can ascertain from my notes is it

14 appears as though all right, let me go back through

15 this. It appears as though the -- there were known hair

16 samples SUbmitted from a Sherry Lee and a Larry Lee in

17 March, March 19th, 1987. And I have here where the known

18 head hair sample of Sherry Lee was cut and the known head

19 hair sample of· Larry Lee was cut and that, of course,

20 would not be would not be appropriate for a hair

21 comparison. So they must have submitted some more known

22 hair samples. And although it appears as though I tried

23 to use the hair samples that they did submit --

24

25

Q.

A.

The cut hair samples?

The cut. And so I -- either he called me or

1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2S

46

I called him to request more known hair samples.

Q. Okay. Did you request the additional known

hair samples because the cut samples were not suitable

for comparison or because you felt you had some sort of

tentative match and wanted additional hair?

A. Not tentative match, but both, kind of. I

can see here from my notes that I have two Caucasian body

and limb hairs that were inconsistent with his known

hair. Then I've got several to numerous Caucasian pubic

hairs probably·inconsistent with Larry Lee. So, again, I

did attempt to perform comparison, but without the known

complete hair sample, I wasn't willing to issue a report.

Q. with respect to the dates that appear, I

guess, along the right-hand side of the page, what do

those dates reference, the dates you actually performed

the comparisons?

A. That would have been the date I -- excuse

me, performed the comparisons with the next set of knowns

that were brought in, that which would be items 97 and

88, and that would be 6/27/87, 6/29/87.

Q. And. these. were the samples that were

ultimately found to be inconsistent with the samples that

you were comparing them against?

A.

Q.

That is correct.

I do not have the report in hand, but it's

47

1 my understanding that the autopsy report reflects that

2 Mr. Jones's hands were bagged. Do you have any

3 understanding as to why that would have been?

4 A. No, sir. You'll have to ask the person that

5 performed the autopsy.

6 Q. Is that a procedure that is common for the

7 purpose of trying to preserve trace evidence either from

8 the hands or the fingernails of a victim?

9 A. I believe they do do that. sometimes they

10 might do it for gunshot residue. So why it was done in

11 this particular case, I don't know.

12 Q. Did you ever have any involvement in

13 processing any material that may have been removed from

14 Mr. Jones's fingernaiis or that Was found on his hands?

15 A. Is there· an entry in my report that says

16 that?

Q.

A.

. Q.

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Okay. Then I wouldn't have looked at it.

In connection with Exhibit Number P-1, which

is the chain of custody report, I had asked you if the TS

here referred to you and you pointed out to me that

that's not you, but it was probably Ted Staples.

A. Right.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Q. Can you recall what Ted Staples' involvement

25 was in conn·ection with the analysis of any of this

48

1 evidence?

2 A. No, I don't. And I say it was Ted. It

3 could have been me, but because we both have the same

4 initials and I. was here first, so I Was TRS and he Was

5 TS.

6 Q. I got it. Okay.

7 A. But that's not to say that the evidence room

8 person didn't get sloppy or just use TS. I don't know.

9 But traditionally back then, that's -- TS was Ted Staples

10 and TRS was me.

11 Q. Okay. In connection with this deposition

12 after receiving the subpoena, did you actually search for

13 any of the slides or the evidence that was requested?

14 A. No, I didn't. I do not have it in my

15 possession, I know that.

16 Q. All right. On your notes on composite

17 Exhibit P-iO, there's a number of notes and there seem to

18 be a number of initials next to various numbers. I was

19 just wondering if you could tell me whose initials some

20 of these are, if, in fact, they are initials, or theY're

21 Borne kind of abbreviation of a different Bort.

22 A. Are you referring to these right here?

23 Q. No. Actually, I'm referring to the

24 hand~lritten notes.

25 A. That's just my shorthand notes.

49

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. Those are not people's initials.

3 Q. Okay. So, for example, in your shorthand,

4 number three

A. 5 I'm sorry, which case are you referring to?

6 Q. Just on the front page. I'm just trying

7 to

A. 8 But which case number, I'm sorry?

9 Oh, I'm sorry. Q.

A.

Q. 11 1531, yeah.

A.

13 You know, there's a reference, for example, Q.

14 of, you know, DE 40 PH 1-n-c-o-n.

15 A. Okay. That's OE and that's one Caucasian

16 pubic hair inconsistent. That's just my shorthand.·

17 Q. I got it. And then just going further -- a

18 little further down at that same line, I see a reference

19 Sl, 40 HH 70. What would that refer to?

20 A. That's several Caucasian head hairs

21 consistent with the known head hair, item 35.

22 Q. So, actually, it's an SC.as opposed to SL?

23 A. It's an SL', several.

24. Q. Several, okay. And then HE means head

25 hairs?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

Q. How about OE?

A. I'm sorry, yes.

Q. OE, what does that mean?

A. One.

Q. One, okay.

MR. LINDSAY: All right,

Ms. Santamaria, that's all I have. Thank you.

MR. ROHRBACH: Let me have just a

minute. I may have a few follow-up questions:·

MR. LINDSAY: And, actually, I do have

one other question.

MR. ROHRBACH: You can go ahead. I can

wait.

MR. LINDSAY: I'll go ahead, if that's

all right.

50

17 BY MR. LINDSAY, (Resuming)

18 Q. There's a set of written, handwritten Post

19 they appear to be photocopies of Post-It Notes of some

20 sort.

21 A. They're actually just --

22 Q. Attached slips of paper?

23 A. -- some pieces of paper.

24 Q. What are those in reference to, do you know?

25 A. These were notes that I had made about the

>. ~

;- ; ; .'

, . I ;< , , ! : ;

'. .. , '

1-<' , u

Agency: l? '1 U fJ I~AYNI:.

1 U b N L: b

I-'.'!I:IJ~:

Uat~: A .... .., ;1) , 'j 't:::,

I":A~~: ot:t:o...:rjl?Jl DATA I:.T'Ite.:~A.ri: "';}-JI-< (1:1, ",It:'i"; Jlme: 1:'7:',''/ i't'P.-st;:;t: 1111

V1Ct 1m: '~:e rv 1 ceo Lon F\!':t ~ U~t.e M~\ led:

dUNl:.o; , 0;"': J L:L II- ~ Urll1 : ' 1 '

HA I:i I U-I I- A 1-.... ,,1= , \\0 \( bjl err P" u .... t.. 1.:'''('P I ~ t 8M' --None--

--None--

... ; ~ntry Ul Oate Received: A .... W ~6: lYH6 rlme:

(q id ) It,Xl -'i9.\1 HP.CAlt,IP.t1 H~J: lH,.i-o:·H~. (.II.;I.tI/II-tS)

t:.nt.ereo t:i~): bAI;::J Ilfflr.er-;:;: .. It: ",~y k'UhJt. H. H. HI:--tt:.:;:)

k'M(;:. l- rom: -1;1 f..0rA 1- ....

I r'~"ered to

1~ tIll 11111111 !I

the At I"n(" Lab Ck' ~arVlce IransfBred fa th~ At IAnte LAn"

l-R Serv\c:~ lransfered to the At tanta .. L;3b ~p ~p.rvl~~ ir~~5fer~d to the ~t la~r~ ~~~

. UFltP.

,!;HI:.I~K ~ UJ.! fk'AI;~/I=XAM i Nc, 8IJLL~ r /I:.XAM I NI= hII:.H .... UN I-'Arl I 0;

l ... ~:=:.cl"";:" t 10n (l t I::..v 1 (jE\nc:e:

1>.1 ::.10; , ..

''1'>'1UU 1 ':> 1'1':>

UISI..:IJI)I 1.1'1 k'Hil U 'j

IJ H_ tllJ I) J 1.I1U ... .f11j i Irl 1.11- ,IIII',.. WI.! Ii- illJ;

Ul;"~, fJU'r

--Nan.=!:--

Ul~I-'I)U'!

UN 4-'<6-1;6, AI ,AI-' .... f.!UXIMAII:.LY l~:·l':>'. LAJ.!I<Y HANKI:."!SUN ANI) RANUY , OlUI:.UU'! rllIllA:LL ;>II:.NI IU 1-i1lUII:. '1 UllUM, 1';1=,11<1;" .. AI 'Ht/ WI:~II)t:NL:~ U~ I;LI~I-Uf.!U li'lUI=Uil:L .JlJNf:.:O;', S"" ANI.> 'I Hr."'1:. .... "'UI;l:.o;o;l:l1 I Hr, SCI:.N'=.ANtJ 8WI.IUGH I 'ClALK I U ,fHI:. U1UI=lJlJj LAeIIHAI.I.I~Y IH~ t-ULLIJliIING ~Vlbl-:.Nt..:f::.: . UltJi:.iiU'::'

, " UIUI:.UU'> (]. . ,iJU c:1j Iljt:NI.:1:: IjAI~S· :?t:.AI.i:.U III I IH 1 A .... 1:.- i";UNJAlNINI,:j LINt:. Lll.;.t-n .. ;c:iLiJt. /. )W1U1::..1I1J6

81_ANKt:,1 f.!r,I;IJ\)IoI-<I:.U ~J.!UI'J MASfl:.k' !:lIoUI<UUMllv 'lObll l[!lE <10 ~ ;'J ,t"VifOM 7°lo6 U1UI:.IHi/ I<-I-iHW lAJL/o hh 70(IS;;:I),VLf/oph 70(/~;;:S ),SL-"'I! 1opJ-.I/I.Wn~m~,s) , llllJl:JJUo o LA"!!;I:. EVIUt::NL:1:. 8A!; SIoALI:.U WI rH SIAPLt:.~ cUNIArNIN"\dJI'n/"sflH~U) UIUE.UU'I

~LAI ':5Hl:I:.I' Wl:I;UYI:.Wt:u ")f.!UM'MASII=f.!8l:Llt-lUUM~l.-l\O\'111 '\0 hh,Ol,35' U1Ur..IJIU At"HI-< ~ LID h h 70 ,-,5?;)" 'I ' " ," , ' ' U UJI:. U 11 ~ LAWG"- I:. V ,IIJIo,.NL:1:. , etA!; ~'IoAL,I:.U , l,j i I H 'S I Ai-oLI:.S I~UN I A I N I NG Ut'!t; ~ I AQ&t4 U.1 UI:. U 1:L

~,J3LANKP ~ECOVEREU FR0t;1...BEU IN MAt;rE~81:.0RtJOM /-lU~bll) " OWEU!} &I-<Hf<-rJ;:~4,!A~4)11)it9~d,~ !\~ ~15.r~ )!Q;'lo pI-. '0, (151;': ) ~'bh~ 10(26) tt:."Phh7;J\5~\Hl)I=U 14 @ LARGt:. Eul.I1ENL:C BAt; SEALED WI TH STAPLES CONr~[NING ONE Sh~IPF.O ~, J01 !?!::U1"

~ I I i 1=0 o;Hl:I= I J.!I:.L:UUI=f.!I:.U I-f.!UM MAS I I=t-I 81=Ui<UUM.6L '\0 'oIl , tLt.\o hi--. 'lltJS') U'IUI:.IJ 16 &I-<HR ' ",'""" ' " : ' 010E01? t) I:.V IUI=NCI:: etAt; o;l:.ALI:.U W I I H S I A,I-'LI:.!:i I;UI~lI A I N I Nj,; IIdU I-' I LLUldL:ASI:.Sr. '\ U lUI:. UUl

, 1;,",I_'fJI)~:PI;''' "'Pf]!" BED' I,.. i'1""TE'" 8~lipr,",IM,jLAe- h~ CE bIll "TV Un hh '7f)1l'l'?>';).,4 ) OiDI£Ill'l &"'HI-<' " ,', , ' ' ,i .. ,II" "\..., 1\' UIUI:.U:LU

8 SMALL:ZI .... -LUCK PLA~rrc '8AG CUNl'AIN'ING,' SE:.\)ERAL [JUI:.STI9NI:.U HAl S 01l)EU,:£1 Wl:I~UVl: J-!l:U I- WIIM ~ lllUf.! ,,7i:Ak' 8f] I Ht-II,II..(M IN .. J1A?I,I:., .f.!,.' fll=UJ.!I)lur®110 hh 70 3S-) U WI= U:L:l

~I-iHt-' l?/ '-10 hI, '10 (ISV! 0.1-), DC' 10 ph '10 (153~,'5 ) ;;IP,c%l,i>I:\~~()S,NIS; I ~ 'i UlIJI:.U:Lj .Idbl Ii:: }-Il,L~.!iIIX J.:IU'-l/It4),NIf'JI;_ I,ll IS"=> I', I.U-4J::'!J i-tHli-o!:O ·~t:I.:UUI::r<t:..O t"'HtI£:1 11i4~lc.t( Ij lul:.tlL:4

.... I:II:.UWIJIJM uuuw'TO L\O b I (c£ I:><n/<£ "(1) , ' " UIUI:.U<'., "HHW ' , ' U1UI:.U:L6 ® WI-< I I I:. I-' I LUjlJ~ L:UN I A 1 N I Nt;, WU';S I I UN"-IJ HA I J.! f.!1:.1;UVI:.~r:.1) ~ I-iIJM t;iJlJY , U 1 UI= U~ /'

, :)}- f.L I}- r ':'><fJ' .1'lfNI: 0; ,:~'" DE <-\'0 "-h L'?l"'t IIG (IS'??-:U. ) ' III UI= IJ'Lf.! i

;! EXHIBIT f ' I ~~JD ~1c{i/1f3 ~JJ

.<.

'. , .

• . ' . L U R u J. 10 l::- N L I::-

p~IJA ;

I)"" t ~ : ,-'f-'f; ". II ' "..J' : ~r.1J"-II.)I-IJ HY IHt:. f';l-i:~'~'H I::""";~ t.AHI!~AI!IHY

t.:a~e: Sl:!6U1?n tCon' t J

U11J1-.U·, hIHIIt.. }-JILLi-:iUX CllNIAlNINI.:i UN!:::. .',.'L! MI::. ;':';L ,JAI':I<I::.Il:.U tiULLl:.1 ~l=.L:UUc.k'clJ ·1J1LJt!J:'

~I<UM UNIJ!:.I<N!:.AIH CLlI-~Uh'U JUN!:.S, JI<, U11)<'U: (' .. 1< I-

Ill. MI:'. I AL '1-' I LLClUX CUN I A I N I NI,; UN<. ,'L'l Mto I AL JAI.:K!:.I <'lJ <liJLL!:.1 I<I:.t:lJV~.I<I:.U l- Xi 1i'1 r L i iI.lk' Nr Ah' U 1f1MIlI )I::. IN MA::, 1 t:: k' l::!.:4 i Hk'lII l.r1

&I<b

rf:i'i ,It"!:. L >,,,·I;!:. I H>lI.II,j >I,~}.JI'; >-II:. t:UU} I<I:.lJ. b l<1}.M. "', >4111 L Y. >-I.".U}1 ~ '10 bll 10J <1u h f I ~HR .1"0 '\C hI, ,OL"'» 02.It) fh ~\W\ \.1S?~iS) ,P}IO;hh U\4Y:\ la..U.~> l:l. :-.11i-i1 L .-: 11-- L III.K PC A: ... I Ie HHb I . .i IN i H I H I :·I\.... i.1i It-::-. I r l.;.--lt: I J nf- I HL r K?-ti.;r11- N I

17. SMALL Zll-'-LUU< f'LASIIC I:lAI; CUNrAIN'lNb LARI';!:.I< WiJl:.SIIUN<.lJ MI:.IAL I- !-t'Al;!"'.~ N I

14. SMALL L II-'-LUCK' f'LAS I It; ClAt; CUN I A I N I Nt,; IJUI:'. S I I UNIo.lJ SP>I I Ni; A!::>SI;:MI;;ILY

",,:-'(O;;';;':tz I t:.:.. LIJI'; 1<." r-:C·AS.i Ie BAb"I~ijN I IlI'N I Nt,; UN!:. GUU) CHAtI':! W.II H f.ll;:l)uI'~f.r H~UWN :7;ii A" i~S._ t

&~~ .... .' .

l16.} L. I t-I-L UI.:K r-'l A!-i I J C ~AI:i CUN I A I N 1 Nt;, I.,.il u:-:.., I IUNt: U HA I k'~ ",c,1 :I.II..}I-: k'l::.U Nt:. A~ .• - / I~HA IN P-0 rY\ Uti ,,\0 n'rt IU (?5 ') ,;RHf<

-1). SMALL LIP-LUCI( PLASIIC I:lAt; L:UN·IAI·NINt,; WU!:.SIIUNl:.lJ PI!:.C!:. l!~' PAf-'I;:h' SLh'AP

&"'H~ -Ilj. !'jM.:1LL G.J~-LUL:K j-ILA~IIt.: HAl.:: t.:UNIAII'IINI..:;t 1iNI:. I-t:Ul:k'AL .'2.L L;Ah.'Ij-.!LUI";1::.

CAS!:.

~.K" 1\1, SMALL LIf':"LUU< PLASllC I:lAt; CUNfAININt,; UN!:. F!:.UI:.RAL ,'.1'.1 CAflIRllJl;1;: .

CAS!:. &Kb tfiJ.'I Llf-'-LUCK PL«SIIC loiAt; CUNIA!NINt; WUI:.SI lUNr.lJ HAII<S I-LUINll Nb.A}.(

c:.; CARTRIOG!:. CASES l\~(Y\ !-lv 40 hh 7o(}t5) &RHR .

I i!:.MS 12 - 20 RI:.Cou!:.RED· FRUM ITEM 11 '.11. I;:VIUI:.NCE l:JAi,; SI;:ALI:.U WI·IH SIAI-'LI::!::i CUNIAINING UN!:. HUI<f.llCANI:. SlYLI:.

GLASS SHAUE R!:.CDVERED Ff.lOM FAMILY Rl)UM &LH 2:L. EU IOENCE BAG SI:.ALED WITH STAPLES CONTA I N I Nt; ONI:: CLI:':AR PLASTI C

CUNfAINI;R IoI!:.CUUI:.h'EU "h'L1M HUICH IN I-AMILY RUUM

~ SMALL ~lP-LUt.:K PLASIIC l:JAG.t.:~NIAINING ~ WUI:.SIIUNI:.U WlIUU FI<AGM!:.N rb R!:.cOl/!;'Rt::D Ff.lUM FLlIUIoi IN FAM I L Y RUUM

"I<HI< '.14. SMALL c.II-'-LUCK PLASIIC HAl'; CUNIAININt,; .UNI;: I-I:.UI:.I-1AL ,:.!:L t.:Al<ll<llJ(;!:.

t:A~';!:' 1<!:.t:lJUI;: "I!:.U ">lI,IM NI- AI< L11: SK liN "LI.:UI< IN b AM I L Y h'l/UM '-..,.. .< I-

,'';;>, HL UI;: P ILL I:lII)< CI.IN I A I N I NI; liN!:. ,,!'L MI:. I AL • .IAl.Kt; I!:.U I;;IIlL L I;: I >I!:.L:L!UI:. I<l;:lJ "I<I1M "JAI.L p:~ I- AM t L Y >lUUM N"-AR <'N I I<ANI~!:. HALL

'LA'. hiH i II:. I-' I LLClUX UJN I A I N I NI; UN!:. • .~.~ MI:. I AL JAI~KI:. I b.lJ I:IIJLL!:. I h:'1:.',.I)\")1-1-(1=1) 1-",'II{'l wAtL It.J I-P.MII Y ~IIIJM rlr.f4~ k'l-rk'lhi-k'A,lllk'

IJI ut.. II,; IJ U)I:. U.' WillI- !; !

U IUI;:II , WitH: lJ';

1111)1:.11.'

I.IlUI:.U, IIIIJt;'dL.l

IJ lUI::. !J 04

IIlDt:d4

IJ llJ!:.1J .:. U1LJt:-;14

U1Ul::..U4 IJILl!:: ,Ia

U'lI)!:.IJ4 ,11-1 Ur 114

UllJ!:.U4

II II H:. IJ " U1U!:.U? lJIUt-U'? U IlJlo.l)? IIlU<. IJ.,.· U'lU!:.I)'> IIII)I:.LI? Ull)l;:U-; In'UI;: LI?:

UlUI;.U'>' UIUI;:U61

OlUcU6: UIU!:.U6: 01Oc06. IIIUI;:U6. II lUEU6! U1UI;:II6t UH)!:.U6; UIUI;:U6t U1lJIo.U6~

1J11kU?l UIlJ!:.U/-) U lUi::. U/~

U IlJ!:'IJ/~ tJ1Ut:.IJ/'" U IDt. Ii /'> IJ lU~ lJ/6 UIU!:.IJ// In-1JeU/i;I

,

I . 1 . ..1 t-:! I. ) -/-" ... '. I:::. I.) b ".j t.: l-

I-' etl~ e :

J.I~ U" I Ul:.ll tlY I HI:. I;\:: l.IJ.1b.A L,,; ,11:. I AI;l I"A II.I"Y Uat-e: A .... I-< HI : 1 y~;.

~a5e: S86Ul~jl (Con't)

&Kf- UIUI:.U/",U -'/./. r'ILLi..1W I ... !IIH k't--l)l)ISH Hk'IIWN !-i1~:NS k't:1 ;;Vf:.r<t:t) t-k'11(1 LUllL.:H IN l-AMILY

"IJUM !Ct.'Hk'

-:.!H. I:.UIUl:.NCl:. tlAI~CUNIAININt; A LJI-'-LUCK 1-'LA!:iIIC tlA!; CUNIAININI~ UN!:. u: ..... tJ! i:";"iAI::{LI::.. h'A/tJk' lu I I H k'1:- UU I SH H}'{I UuN :-:\ I A t /'is K'I::I.:U\JI; k'I::..U I- ~IIM I;;llt:~ I

tli-< I Hk'I.1IJM

'L'I. 1:.\)IU\::NCl:. tlAI; !:iI:.ALI:.U I~IIH !:iIAl-''-I:.~ '~U"'AININI~ UNO, YI:LLUul 1-'ILLtlUX CUN I A I N J Nl'; SI.:R'A .... I Nl~S IJI- 1-\'1: utJ I SH Hk't IblN SI A It-is UN K I Il:Ht::- N 1- UJU}c!

&J.lHk> ')1). r.\)IUI::NI":c. HAl';; St:.ALl::.U lilllH SlAI--'I_t:.~ I:UN.A1NINI; IIN~ II-I.I:I-'HIINI: 81JI.IK

k'}-I~UVl:.l<cU ~ k'UM K I fCH!:.N I- LUUk' ;<1. H

Ul'l 4-'L /-06, A I A1-'1-'flUXJ MA II:.LY I):.!: j U A. M.: LAflr!Y HANKl:.fI!:iUN ANI! h'At:IIJY t.! I t ;UI- LL hit-: N I I U l';I.Ik'I)1 IN-HAl-<1-< 1:'-;1 IN I- UN!: rf~L . HI IMe. HNIJ I 1l:1 I R I I-II;.U I H~

"'1 JLLUI.d I NI.=!':

\. I HI:. jNKt:..U I-'I.I!-:i I MUk' I J:M "k'INI~ i.lt- I :L I}- ... · :t.!J) .. II.INI-!:i : ~k',

u-I.H

' .. -! • I HI:. iNJ<l::.U I-'I.!:;:i I t11.1t<' , t: M. "k'INI;; Uf- I,L I t- f- "><U ,.I UN" ;; : ,.1101. I .. H

r't~S I MI I~ I f-& '.' . I HI::.. I NkcU l-'k'lNIS I Jt- NINA ,JUNeS ~I .. H

tnt~~ U~ Oate ~ecelv8d: AI-'k' ~6; lYH6 I 1 me: ~ 1I:? U l-<er::alued 1:::JV: J81J (JI.:;W)

tlllH:iltlll,1

UIIJI:.Ul:nU U11)1: ilB'..:' •

·U·IUf-.UIol, IJ .11UI: IIB41i UIU\::UIol.,U IIlUt: :1::161;

!J liJl:.U::: /1) l)ll)i-" lIt$K,;

IH Ut. I]::! 't IJ 1I1U~II':III.\

1J1Ul:.IJYlli 1111 n .. 1I'1'l il

IJ 11)\::11'7;' II IilLJl:-tly,·;

UlDI::1J'7;.·.,: IllUl-ilY:- .

IllUr.ll'1:J

U IUI:.U"';':> 111lH: ;)'i .;.0;-,

UlUJ:-.U", ;/ 111 UI:" il'-l.~.·: 1.11UI:.U'" )'i

IIL'SLIlUlli IJ'LR8UUIIJ

r...n1:ered I::i~):

~ec. 1- rom·: L;ACl 1J:.!I=l:iUU 1 ,I Ur!. J. BYflUN DAWSON AI TH!:. AILANIA LAClURAIURY VIA AUIUP~Y O:.!Rt-UUIU

~erVlce~: ~A M~ Uate Cqmpleted: --None--I::IA Service Tr'ansfered to the At lanta Lab· ME !:iervlce Iransfered to the Atlanta Lab

CHECK FOR GUN POWUER

Uescrlptlon of ~vlden6e: j4. ONt: GLASS V I AL WI fH BLACK PLAS ric SCREW CAP CON rA IN 1 Nt; BLUOD.

H'P V . PLAST I C ZIP-LUCK BAt; CUN rA I N i Nt:; KNUWN Hl:.ALl HA 1 R O~ CLI FFUfllJ . J LiNI:.';, 0". ~IY\

Il,rR!:i & i-'LA;;IIC LIP-LUCK !:lAG L:lINIAININt; I.IUl=!:illl,\~1J I;<A I fl· r!I:MU\)I;:U f-911.11\ !:l1)1)Y UI- CLIFf-ORU JUN!:.S. Sk'.~ "\Oht JL-\V VI\ 16LL\O\-,hiOl?»

I,."S 02 '-\0 h'n '70 (15''''' '1 ) I . . I . _ ,I. I~"f-.!:.N PI LLI::IUX CUN I A! N I Nt.!'dNI= ,:.!'L ~HUr! I Lt·.AU 8UI.LI:. I fif-.MU\)cU Fr!UM

L 11..)1:.(0< Ur· t;L If- H.lk'U ,JUNeS:- :-:il-\' • ...

.. ~. bi""it:I::.N l-'ILLHIJX t:.1.INJRJN·fNG tlNl:. .'./'2. SHI ik' I

" I bH i I U"UM UI- CL I r f- Uk'U ,JUNI:.;;: ;;r! . r AU l:U.It.I .. C I ~t MIjUI: U r l-<IIM

U:.!l:iPUU1U

U'LUf:.UU1U ·U:lUI:.U U:l tI

U:lU.I:.U OJ IJ lJ'LIJ\::UU411 U:lUI:.IJIJ':> IJ u:.!Lil= 1I1J611 IJ%IJI:.UIJ/U lJ'LUt=UI)l;;(:: U'LU!:'IJ UYU U:/.UI:: !Jll.l.;

IJ'LUclJ 1'11) WI \ H:· H 'l"L ; 1 IJ'LD1-.IJl> IJ

.... ~IO.. II'..:'UI-: 1114.1

>,

.;

.~ , "

. _______ .... _______ ~ __ ._ •. __ . ______ . __ .r ___ ·'_·'

" .' I

k' LJ oJ, 1 U b

~I::: tt:l UI:::.U !:IY I Hi:. br. Ul-{b I ~ Lk: i r-1\: L A81 ik'A tlll--(Y

Ci'l"e: sH6ln'> J '1 ll~on' tJ

J'J, i-'INK ~ILUjl.,lX CUNIAININl,; UN!:. ,~'L =;HIJl-<1 LI:.AlJ I:lULL!:.1 k'I:.MUUI:.U t-I<IJM

!-";"i'-. :

lJ'l.tJl-:.lJll; 11").'1 Jt ill n U'2I)I:.U1/ Wi Ill:: ! n:; lJ'lLJl:::.lJl'-l [I"LUI: Ij'llJ

IJ'LUc II"L 1 II"L I H-; i 1 ',( ~.

Rt-_L: 1 V!:.U I:lY I Ht-_ bl:.UI<I~ I A CI< 1M!:. LAI:HJk'A I Uk'Y Uate~ A~H JI), lYH6 /

I .. =O~e : Aaeno~}: 1~lLll1 WAYN~ ~I: ~ I}-}- • S : It- r I: .r:. /'

u~te I::..ntered: Al-'H" : 1Yl:!6 r,me: .u"':~:i k'"-,,tnt :/1)1)

I.)lctim:

SerVIce Codes:" LJnt:e ;'1~ 1 I Pori:

,llINco, ~H,: I~Ll t- t-llHU': I:lA'81 C FA t-~ M~ uats"7Ied : --None--

--None -

\ ~ntry U1 Ua\e ~ecelved:

: ere d t:1~,: 1;A8 Llft-.lear;:.: . .ll:-C"{I"o!Y h1tll.rJc. :LUllil4

k'.~:cel\;ed t1y-~ i....H/HHI"< l'lbhJ/l~\)

I<",c, reom: INVl:.ollGAllUN "

S~rVlce~: tJI LK t-A t-l-'

tJl Service frans fe red to the

CI< 't:JerVlce Il"'nnsrererJ to the f-A ·ServIce rransfered to the

H' SerVlce I ra'nat'ered to the

CH~CK H)H, TRRCI'./!':XAM I NI:. BULL"

1':> 11 U UUllUJ

/ A~>< ~ 6: lY)66

./ H'7'~'f<I:':;' /

_ l)f.I t €'I

Lab Lat> Lab

b RPUN t-'Rk'I!:>

l"lllU 1'>11':>

Completed:

Ueser lpt lon, of l::.vldence: UN 4-26-86, AI At-'l-'ROXIMAELY 18:2S, LARRY H NKERSON ANU RANDY HlUUI:.LL WI:;N.I IU HUUfE uULiM, G~UHt;jR AT ':HE Hl:.!:>lUI:.NCI:. Uf CLlrt-uRu JUNI::S, SR. ANU THERElJCESSEO THt=. SCENE ANU RUUGHr BRCK TO THI:-LAtJURA I·URY I HE I-ULLU [Nt; ~V lUENCE:

1, IWU ~VIUI:;NCl:. AGS o~RLI:.U I.JIIH IA~l:. CUNfAININ UNE LIGHI I:lLUE

BLANK"- r R~CO ERED F.RDM MRS fER Bl:.UROOM· &HHl-< .,. LAI<!;!:: EVI NC~ BAG ScALED WI TH STAPLES CONfAINiN" ONI:. Slk'lPEU

t- LA I '!jHI:. I JoII:.CUVcl<I:.U ~ J.lUM MAS I I:.H I:ll:.UHUUM

&J.lHH

bl<l:.E tJLANKI:. I I<b_CUUI:.k'I:.U t- HUM 8l:.i) 1 N MA!::i I ~f.I 8~ UHUlJM' ,. .,

i<."'HH

I_Al<b~ OlllbNt:1:. HAG ScAU,U WI IH =;IAl-'Lt:=; Ll.INIA1NING U~IbHI

4. LA;"- l:.'" Ul:.NLc I:lAI; =;cAU,.U W I I H S I Al-'Lloo CUN I A I N I NG UN"- 'I N 1 PI:.IJ r I .r.:.1) :~Hr-.I=.I t-.!1:.t:IJUl':-i"o!t:-,u r~UM '1A~II::.~ dcUH'llltM

i" ... j.(H~/ \ ~ . (e') 11;1;: i :I.t:. ;-1..:1b :,}- At l:- U hi 1 I H :;-. I AI-'L i::.ti I ::.,N i A I N I NI'; IlUI.! }oJ ILL UbJl;A~t-,!:::)

lJ'I~LUiJl 01k'HIIl.1j .

Ul!:.l:llJU II 111Ul-iIU!.

IJ1lJ~ lJ lJ'L I Inl.n- I1IJ~"

lJIHt- UlI'li

--None--

Ulol-'UUll

o lIJ!:.!!UII UIIJl:.U021 OlUl:.UUJ\ UIIJl:.UU41 O'll)~: U II? U1Ul:.UU6' OllJ'l:.U,U! UIUI:.UU~

OllJl::UUY 1I1Uc !Jlll UIUI:.IJll U 1 Llc U 1.:< ullj!{ II i,} 111I.H: JJ t4 UlUcUl,? lllUi-UlA U'lUl:.U'l/' IIlUl::iJ)H

t . r f

.'

.-

/Ix c4 &w.. tiku;,/:e+ 6) /vlt.) <Ie b/I / J() r.; -!c. /},~ If.}· (35) /AJU </:..--; hi) 70 (/Soif') tj) /~ L. I/o ph 70 (153;;: ,S) ) 0L 10 ;h ~

CIS:>.:). 0') , 'u:)~ /J7X Cl-/J.;;;; ~t (Y) 0L. L/o bl; ) YO -</0 hh . s 70 CJs) }DL 40 hl-t ;0 (IS?;?) 1- ). 'l' '''/lZX 04 a{;~cc tjj!tVLk~t. (~) lVu 1-6 bl/ j

0G 42, rA 70 (153;;;./ j) / 0L Lj() hh 70 ()s ) Ct: 40 hh.· 70 (;5 '35 d-) I ct: 76 IJ~ t/Lcu?

~.35) 15.39)-<1//.) 33/ 2-) / a:; ;/0 pA ~ 153d-. 5 . . ,

~I .'. . .

'/ /7)(. eLf IJilfed 1."j/1&/ i 4) 5L 40 hll I~L 1-0 h;S . -;b ~(3S') . '.

j7l x eLf lf1d1au~'o c$:) 0C 40 hf I 0C- ~b bl ( ~ 7D 10/)0. 70 l!52:2 IcJ ), . .. ... . ..

. .~~./17K . cH (1.# J ... 5c ... <fo_. h)':L20 _'(36'.) ;hU .tJO . .I:i.l _7.0, (j.~ . __ ... __ . ...... os 1o.pb.. ... 2Q_ ... CL53~)5)r-TQ._ ... _j2b.~.(jsAdJ~ ....... _, .... .. Jl1.y. .. DY .lZJ.J.D_lo .. klL}i=J) __ · _____ .. __ . _._ .. _ .... __ : __

r-.'-'-"-' __ ~f!1_'L . .o.'i._ .6J-· .CE.' 4o!Jh 70 (;~ ~/I 2 . 1 ~ III X Oi-ft::] (II) 0'L .40 vii I iJ(; 19 IL{ I tJu <hM ! . ~\'v 20 (a5) I as =k> A {/leon I (j53ffi/02J 70 50 ! JJ)L-<~ (;£, 153:;:/)/1'53,,3,;;).. ) .' 1 ..... ___ .. __ ... ---t!!DL .. _Cli~.Uw-)-. Uf.L..YD hh 'X) ~Gs) '. t . illY. oc( (do) .;uu. ,10 .. 06 __ . 79_ ... ~ }._ ... __ ._ _ ., ......... " .. _ I f f , I

r I r

r,; AX u-/ (3&» 0L '4c 'h,'f )~L' 4CJ b/I ~~c 4D h0, . . J) ~Y:;) / CE L./0 hh 70 (IS~)!.f ) ,N .

;J7y Cf-/. tvofct ~I (Lf-.:;,) ;&'(." 10 hI, 7D (35) Jl.Ju Ie 1JI f I CE 10 hA /'0 (/5~d I 4 ) . !

,:\!llX C!-I ;-0iwd (t-lc>ft) j)()' ~ hi; J 0G 10 )Ji) 7c

jJ7 'l oc{ 0/totJe; (<-10 6) ~ L/o hI; 70 035J tJ u 40 ,bit 4 0L- 4D ph ~ (\')3~l5) . /

n t}i -_. ___ ... ". . ._- ..... "'.'--if ~1 . '/t -.----.. ~ ...... -- .- ... _"" .• -.. . .• ' ..... ".. "" '" -... - .... _ .. _. ~;~

~ '~ ! 1 '--.-.- '---"'-"------' - ••. -. ••••••••••• • •• - ••••.• -._ .••• _ •. -. ••• --.----.-------.-,---., .•• ,-'.---•••• -.-.

? ;

,. r --c--------~- -------P,. T, n ______________________ , ____ _ fi i: ___ ~ ___ _ (i d----:----f ~ _. - .. -.. -.,. . ..... --.-.----._. --~t ~. ; ; i --. !., H '~ .. ~ r" t~ . f"

t ~l:

/ .

f

I

r •

r.-,: I . ...) [ o c::: NeE

Da t e: ,JUN '24. i

1~'a5e: S!:~6-0! t;;}'l AqF:nc\J: 1 1;100 l~AYNE DF.!te t::nt:~,~er1; Al-'R '.l8. 1986 lIme: U't:.!'L

SHERIFF'S OFFICE !-ie-stat : 1.12

V, c I , "': .JONES. .SR.. CL I F~ ORO: Su.pe~t: MULLIS. HAY JAMeS: i1IJUf-iE: 81-1UO::: HAROLD:

BROWN. ERIC: HOLl OAY. EOO IE: Lt::E. LAI~RE~ICE I,ll LL I AM : LEE. 1,IAYNIi: LEI::. CHERYL L. : BRObJ~IF I EL D. CH~ I '3 ALLEN:

':-:ar\/' ':;'>7. ':ryde-3: !iA 8T ®~~A J=P ME !"::L. Date Completed: UEC l~. 19~6

Date ,1",,1,,0: DEC 18.1986

.•••. c.nt;('\,1 1.11 .... Data Rec81 .. /ed: AJ-l~ '26. 1Y86 TIme! 18:2? l-?ece 1 ;ed 8\): LH/r.'HR (JGld/ I RS) EntB:",ed a",: 1;A8 Of f l .~8 r':? ; ,.It=_I-1RY RUbiE

R"9:c. ::-rom: I "UEST I GAT ION

2IJHU4 ,.,. H. HI~E::>

lSiliJ lJlJlJ~j

lO;lUU 1>;11'7

DISC U 11-<'[;

OlEo 1J1UF OlOF I) 1l1l:

'HRf-'

Se:("V!CBS: 81 C~ t-=A FP Date Comnleted: UCT '.lIJ. 19-Sf Service Transfered to the Rtlant~ Lab CR Ser~Jlce Tr~n5fered to the Atlanta Lab FA Servlce Transfered to the Atlanta Lab FP Service Tr.qnsf8red to the At lant3 ~ao

CHEI~K FOR n;'ACE/EXAM I NE BULLET /E)';RI11 Ne ;l£APIJN PAR T S 0 looP

Dascrlpt Ion of EVJd~nce: ON "'-26-86. AT APPROXIMATELY 18: 2'7·. LARRY HANKERSON AND RANQY R!DOELL WENT TO ROUTE 1 ODUM. GEORGIA AT IHE RESIDENCE OF CLlFFORO JONES. SR. AND THERE PROCESSEO THE SCENE AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE LA8(JRATIJRY I HE FOLLO~I [NG EV [O£NCE;

1. TWO EVIDENCE BAbS SEALED WI rH TAPE CONTAINING ONE LIGHT BLUE BLANKET ~ECOVERED FROM MASTER BEDROOM

&RHR 2. LARGE EVIDENCE··BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE STRIPED

FLAT SHEET RECOVERED FROM MASTER. BEDROOM &RHR ). LARGE EVIDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES CONTAINING ONE AQUA

BLANKET RECOVERED FROM BED IN MASTER BEDROOM &RHR 4.

R.RHP

'-HRG!:: Ev i OEHeE BAG SrAL2D i.J '; ',-H Si AFi-ES CGi'~~A 11 ... ii~G FITTED SHEET RECOVERED FROM MASTER ·BEDROOM

...... ..,,..... ............ ,...,,.. ol('<:.Jrr:.u

7. EVIDENCE SAl; ~EALEO WITH STAPLES CmHAINING lWO PILLlJWCASES PECOUERED FROM 8EO IN MASTER BEDROOM

~.,.r(I-It-

.. ~':'. SMALL ZIP-,_OCI< PI.ASTIC BAb CONTAINlolG ~£VERAL OU£STlONED HAIRS PEI.".::JVt;:H'1.;'t) J=n!UM FLUlJR HI:.AR 8A! I-!M'UUM ! N f~AS I t:R 8~!J~lJLJM

&RHP J. !l;H; 1 E: t-'! LI ,b'UX' I":UI'J I A I H l HI:; IJUI::. 'j r I UNEo HA I RS ~~CUUc.RC:l) FHIJ11 MASTt.R

OlDE UWE OlOE OIDE 01DE OlOE OlOE 01DE OlOE OlOE OlOE OlOE OlOE OlOE "' ....... .-v .... vc.. OlOE OlOE

~·'J10E 01DE

U10E UWE 01,DE OIUE

r

.'

c. ~. "";:. c· CJ R D I [) \ .--.~.'

Oate: ,JUH '24. 1'-;"-."

,,::DROOM DOUR' KRHF :3 • ,.> .. , I TE PI LLBrJX 'CON fA I N I NG QI.IES fi OW-:D HA I R RECIJUERED F R1Jt1· BODY

. .: Ci_ t }-'t=urtU JIJNl:..S. sR. &RHR ':/ • . .... ~ t r£ i-" I LLi:.{U>~ I.JJi'/ i A t N I Nl; UN£:: . '~:'..! Li:.';O c::HJLL~ T REtJJ1Jt:RI:.O

F -<OM UNDERNEATH CLI FI-"ORO JONES. .JR.

1 n. '··"TAl. P: U.BUX [TJN! A I N I ell'; ONE .'22 :..EI~U BULLET HECO'·)ERED ,: -'OM >'"LUOR N~.AR CUMMIJUE. I N MAS, ER. Clf'.: HRuUM

11. :. 'le:: L8Rl;c rHRUW RUG RECOVERED [-,RUM f" "It11 L Y RUUM e.HHR 1'2. .~ ~f4LL ~ I P-l.IJl;K PLAS rIc BAI; CON fA I N I NG iJUE:5'" I ONEO METAL FRAGMENl 13.=~ALL ;CIP-LOCk PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING LARGER QI)ESTIONED MI:.TAL

"14: ;-=~AGMEI"'I r S:1ALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTiC BAG cumAI"ltNG OUEsrlONED SPRING

;c. ;SEMBL Y :: : P-LOCl< Pl..AST Ie BAG CONTA I N I ~IG ONE GIJLO CHA J N "II TH REDO ISH .:··'· .... l? . SRUhlN :,3I"A INS

I'vRHR ·l6. Z: P-lOCi< PLA'~T II': BAG CON rA 1 ~1l.Nt:; . QuEST IONED Hi-> IRS REI:mJEf/ED NEAR

CYAIN &RHR 1~. :3MALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONfAINING QUEST IONED PIECE OF

PAPER SCRAP &RHR 18. 3:1ALL ZIP-LOCK PLASrIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FF.:DERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE' &KF 19. SMALL ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE FEDERAL .22 CARTRIDGE

CASE &KF " 20. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIRS FOUND NEAR

CARTRIDGE CASES '&RHR

. ITEMS 12 - 20 RECOVERED FROM ITEM 11 ?, ~\JI nFNl-:F. R"'r, SbALF.£) IJ I TH STAPLF:S CIJNTA I N t NG ONE HURR ICANE STYLE

&LH 22. EV IDENCE BAG SEALED WITH STAPLES .CONTA I NING ONE CLEAR PLASTl C

c:)rHA I NER RECIJUERED "ROM HUTCH IN FAM I LY ROOM

&LH

24.

''''1ALL Z f P-uJCi< PI..AS r \ c BAG L.:\)I·ITA IN t "IG' HJO QUE'3T JUNED WUOD F'i'AI,;MEHTS PECOlJERiOD FROM FLUOR I ~I -A111 L.Y RUDM

=:"ALL Zi·P-l..IJCK I~LASTIC 8AI; CONJAlr"ING ONE "'Ef.1ERAL .'2"2 CARTRIOt;E ':': ~=:;t k'EI;O\)E.HI-:O t·:k'llM N~AR Dc SK UN FL:jUR l N r: AM t L Y HIJUM-

tJ1DEIJ _ ~ I. U.lUt-:O:":6i

lHOEO''::''l! I) .~ l)l-~ e .~!~ t UlUE.U~·91! IJl:.;EiJ 1:.11"

OlOC:O:IIJ tJ1Ut::.!.::1t: 010t: t' _: :·1:

It lDt..1J ,':;~I.I

U1D£U;!jU Uli)~!J ;,;./i

o 10EO.w;.:'1I i)"f t::t::u.::-:: i! 1)10£O?~1I

U"tUtr.: ~u!j I) lOO) _11.1 01L1EIJ ~2l1

UlIJEIJ-}1I !Jl:Jt.IJ,....':::" I) IIlE (! -".;j I)lOEIJ-6~

rJJ.OE>J~7l!

IJIOELI-B l OlDEO':'9( !llDE0'70l

010EO;;H 010EiJ?:Ll OlDEO':'}t: 010EU;;4l o lOE05?( OlDEOr;6( OIDE057l o lDE05el 01OE0591 01DE060( 01DE0611 OlDE0621

010E0641 OlDE0651 010E066! 0101::067 01010068 U1UEIJ67' tJllliOil /~ IJ H.'EO ·'1 iJ lUt::U ; .. ''2. l)"lO£O .. ";. 1J1Ul::U74

, r: " " ~ "

-:

, , j

i

1 .;

r

~

i

./ ,

~'EC:URU F", 1

uBte: JUN ,-4. ;:-:.:;

1;.1< F '.i.6. 1,n-J ! r~ PfLL80>< CO~.JTAIH[NJ; Ot-IE .22-L::At1 BULLET

;:"I:.<::U\)F.RI::O Ff<'IJf'\ WALL IN FAM j LY RUUI1 "cAR RU Ii' I I;I::RA'I Of<:

',f?", "..J I "_LUl;.l hJ: IH HI::.DOI'';H 8h'IJl.tiN SrAtt'IS 1-<'1:-.'_:OUERf:,D FRIH1 I.:UIJt.:H 11'1 r:AMILY "'--R1Jaff~ ------ --~-.... -- .... -.--.. --.. ~-.. ---

'28, Et;:DE~ICE BAG CUNTAI~II'Nb A ZIP-I.IJLI< PLAsrlC BAG CmnAIH1NI., Of'll:: Ut·=.:-'(I:-3Ar.::L~ ~ALU"" hlliH ~1:::.l)I)::':',.H i:::!--lULli::·j :-::iAJHS HI::.L1JVl::h'C:O t-r.!UM ;;IJC:.:~I

E'A -; HROOt'1

',!"', ':-',:;OENCE SAl; SEALI:.U lvlTH SIAI-'LES CUN,AINING IJN~ 'fI:.LLUW PIL.L8fJX UJ~HA: N' NG SCf<AP I NGS OF RIODO j'"H 8RI WN :.; rA I NS ON 1(\ rCHEN FLUUR

&RHR !.I). c';; UENJ...:E BAG 'SEALfO 1J.lI TH ::-;'1 APL;::S .CUt.!) A li'V HG !.INc rEL!:..PHUi'l~ 8UUI<

RE,:OVEREO FROM I( I I'CHEN FLOOR ;':.LH )N .>-'2"-86, AT APPROXIMATELY 02: 30 A, :1" LARR'( HANI<I:.R::;ON RNO "'ANDY'" I OOe.LL WI:.NT rll GURIJUN-HARR I ':iON F'JtllOh'AL HI iME ANI) ute i'A I He.D I He. F OL~OhJ ! t-n; :

,. _ c. 1H£ iNKED POS rl'1Urf rt:r-l PR I N'I:" UF CL I"'" Dh'U ,J\Jt-lcS .:

f;'LH Y2. THE I N)<IOD POSTMURIIOM PRINTS OF CLlrFQ~D JDNIOS. &LH n, THE fNI<EO PQSTMORJ'EM PRINIS OF NINA JI)t·Ie:S &LH

Entr~ 02 .... Date Received: APR ~6: 19B6 Received By: JBO (JGW) Entered Bu: GRB

:-jR.

,)1'1.

'I 1.-;: :.: IJ1iJi:.li/ i

OIl.I!:::.!.' I) 1L:1:. U ." fJ lln .. _ 0 ?': IJ"tVi;:.:n-.:!

IJ!UE:.IJ::::

!)U.:t:J:7:;' Wt:):::.d:~.:

u.:.: ..... !-:." I.IH, IJ "t LA:. !.i:-:;.

l.llUt.!):-::'· 1.Ilt ::..!l't: !)lU~!J';" iJl:;t:.!I·~:

III UC: ,1'.1" !J ~uc.lJY' : IJl DE Ii'';' .Inut.I.I·~ . IJlUC:!J':' :

IJIUi:..U'-J.: OlU~U'''' ; UIDE.U"'; UI0l'-1)'; ~

UI0E.O'.J!

U2SCIJUj 02R80 0 1 02EBOOJ

Ree, From: DR. J, BYRON DAWSON AI THE AILANrA LAI:JURArUf<:Y VIA AUIUP::'Y U'LkrUUJ

Services: BA ME Date Completed: JUN 19, 1986 8A Service Transfered to the Atlanta Lab ME Se~vice Transfered to the Atlanta Lab

CHECK FOR GUN POWDER

Descriotion of Evidence: 34. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD &cll~P 't I~ O! Q,cr H: -~! ~ .• L I',ll:":' 001":- ,'f)t-JiA I N f !'-I~ ... ~ !-.,,":,II''"! HEAl') 48 fR OF f.:l. f FF I1RD

J(j;--II::.S., oR. \..-> l'R':=;

l,;, PI_'<S r.I C Z f P-LOU< 8AG I~OtHA f tll NG !''',;I:'::~ r II)Nr::O HA I R RI:.11UOH) FRIJM BODY OF CL1FFORLl JUNES, Sf<,

I''..n .... :·s ;?, Gf-'":EH PILLBOX CIJNTAINIHG C1HE ,2'2 '"HURT LEAD 8ULUoT RH10UEIJ FRUI1

L : ,}~:R UF CL I 1-'1' UJ,!ll ,JUN~.S, ':it-!,

02SPOOl

020EOIJ1 0'20EOO:; 11'2 DE U II:~ lJ'2UcU U£

IJ:lUEO U'; WtGf.IIIJt; 1J't! uE (J 1J;; lJ:LlJEH :];-: J)'LuEUO'-j U'lUEU I':

- ,": CJ R D f-' IC" l,) 1 L' F.' \',1 t::

Date: ,JUN

(Con1t).

&I<F !~P.lOEN i-' [l.L80X Cr:JlHA I N I He; ,-"IE . '2'2 S>--lJO! T LIo.AO ClULLo.r O!<:MOVr::O HIUM

R I GH r {LElm OF. CLIFFORD ,JONeS, SR.

&KF

'''' .~ , . PI NI( PI LL80X CONTA {N I NG ONE ,'22 SHORT LEAD 8ULLET RFI10VED FROM Lo.f'T HIP UF 1:L[f'fLII~D JONo.S. SR.

&1< V 411. t".!!DHII;~~ HAG CONIAINIHG r]1.JE hlHI rE '-3HH~T

P .. GN!: ~"H; T,E T - SH t'RT

CUHTA I ~11NI~:

\3. ,"Nf-: PA I R IJF I,)H J f'E BO;~ER SHOR rs J TI'.n :'1) REMIJVED FROM CL IFFORD JONES. SR" &IRS

. , .. En t r" 03 ",,,cel ','ed 8~): k'WP Entared 8~): RI.oJP ger::. Fr:t:n:

3rVIC~:s.:

Date Received: ~AY O~. lY86

R. S, STUNE

TIme' 09:0U

OescrlotlQn of EVidence: 4 'I. ONr:: BAG LABELED ".,. TODD. DANNY CHARLES .•• " CON fA I N I NI; ON!:. PA I i-I

42. I)F 8LUE JEANS ONE BAG LABELED 'R. UNE PA I R tJF 8. ONE B~LT 'JNE BAG LA8ELED SL!;EVE SHIRT.

" ••. DANNY C .. · TODD, •• " CONTA 1 H I NG: WH I rE A fHLE ric' SHOeS

"DANNY C. TODD., ... CONTAI~IlNG. OJ'jE hJHI rE LONG

* * :+ ON MAY? .. 1986 .. ITEMS 41 .. 42 AND 43 ARE FORWARDED TO THE SEROLOGY SECTION OF 'THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA UNITED PARCEL SERUICE, .

.... Entr~ 04 Received Bv: KF En t e red B~';: MJS Ree. From: MAIL

Date ~eceiv~d: MAY 07, 1986 Time: 10:37

,F

P.:19p.-:

';:4. "u , '

IJ"2UE !I I)'~: IJr:: u 02DI::' n !j'.~ DE 1.1

O'LDF.:O U"2nt::11 II· .. ~D!-=. fJ IJ?Ul:1I

1.I:'UhiJ li'll1r.iJ

U'2Df:.u 1I~~lii .... n

II } ~:.;j; U 1.I}r.:'l::li

U.~t:.SO 1J:'h'~':l

1J5Ul:.U IJ5Ut::.U I,IjUEH JJ~U~iJ

',UDE I) O}UeU 030EO 03DEU 03DEO 03DEO OJOEO

04SCO 04RBO 04EBO 04RFO

CCr.1c! ~ ted:

FRIO

__ t-J'1np __

04SPO

Deacrlotlon of Evidence: 44, J"1ANILA E~IVELOPE SEALED I~ITH TAPE CONTAININI;:

i:',. 1<1-

.-. '" ~. ,"

'- .

:->i.:-.HL..:. ..... .... (-il ,r., o "" - •••••• ,,-C-I ......... L. ...... ->=-

SEALED IdH I TE ENVELOPE '-:;£AL~C; hlHJ IE Et·I\JEU.Ji-'r::

:-=: .. tr""~) IJt5 •.•• Date 8C (.JGh))

... .... " .. ~ . .. -"_,_ ...... , ••••• ..:1

CONrAINING FOUR ,'22 CARTRIDGE EASES' 1.:l.1t·r: AII'I i "-II:; . :r.:~ I..S:AI) 8IJLL E r

MAY 1)(,. t'tHo r l me : 09:";0

04DEIJ

040£1) 114lJE II fl41)l::. I)

j I I

•

L.:' . - IJ R 0 <=> ( L) E

Ente:-ed 8'~): -GAB Rec, ;:rD"'! IJNIIF.D PARCEL SERVICE AT rt-<E AlLA~IlA LA8GRATUI<Y I"flUI1 IHE

U':>E.81J U J 1.i1'.H-.!r;J U 1 Il?Rf-'1) 1.1'1. ',AI)AHNAH LABORA T1?RY

81

Date Completed:

0escrlotlon ni E~Jlde~ce: CAh!'::SUARO 80;, ~3EALED WITH TAPE cmnAINlNG lTEOS 41, 4'2, AND 45 AS

.•.. Entr;J (16' Date R",celved! MAY 09. 1986 T,me! 11!SIJ R~cel./ed 8~: LH/JGW/KF Ent~~e.j B~I: ,jh.H<

~~G.· ~rnm: JEHRY RUWE

BT'

De5crlotion of EVIdence: 47. 8ROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING 46. 8ROI')NPAPER ElAG CmJrAININ,G 47. BROI~N PAPER BAG CONTA IN WG

ONE ONE ONE ONE

RIGHT BOOl LEFT BOOT

Date I':om~let:ed:

R II;HT LACE uP BOOT LEFT LACE UP BOOT

IJ?Rt1UlIl

--l'Ione--

IIt;C1c -! n 1 lIt:·UEi.l ij:~

n6'::iCI.IOl 1.16R81i!.li 1J6ECllJIJl U6~J=U:Jj

06RMI}IJl

--None--

48. 8RCII')N PAPER BAG CONTA I N I NG & JG~J 49,. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED FINGER IMPRESSIONS

1J60ElIOl U60EU02 060EIJ 0'\ li60Eu04 06DEO 0<; U60EOl)6 06DE007 06DEO 08 06DE009 06DE010 06DE011

OF DANNY C. TODD TI..JO INKED FINGERPRINT CARDS BEARING THE INKED FINGER 50. I MPRESS IONS OF DAN I EL RANDOLPH PUGH

51. ONE PALM PRINT CARD BEARING THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF

DAHIEL RANDOLPH PUGH -)L.. ui'lt:. 11'H'C.U r 11'~l;Jc.l"'\,r~1Iil ...... ,,, ..... uCrll .. ···...:. ,.0,- ..... ~>-.' •• ".,' ~ .... I' ••• ,' ... - ••

IMPRESSIONS OF THOMAS MATHIS 1';'" ')NE )NI<E:I) F'INI~"RP!1tNT CARD BEARING THE

IMPRESSIONS OF JOHN B. JOHNSON. III '>4. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD BEARING' THE

IMPRESSIONS OF HARRY TYRE' ·~I~. ·!}!'IE INKE~ !='!NGf:P.PR~NT c~p.n RFAI-?INr.; THE

IMPRESSIONS OF TIMOTHY TODD ?A. UNE INKED Flt1GERPRINT CARD BEARING THE

__ I rlPRESS ) ONS OF bJ I LL I AM LUTHER H I RES ,,;. . :-"IE I NI( f.OO F {NGf:RPR II·n [Arm SEAR I NG I HE

iMI-'RESSIONS IJ~ NURMAN LAWRENCE MOSLEY ~:::l. I.!N~! NK;":~U .=.'! Nhil::J-?PR I NT CA~D I::U::AH I NG THE

\ ;lPP-F.'3S ! 1]1·15 I1F CYNTH I A MI~CALL ' ~.~ . . :!!~ l r·u-: c.i) F I HI~E}t'Pl-! I N r I":ARO ti: At-? J :'11; I He:

._- .-~ ~---...-~ -.--~---~, --, " , .

EUMINATION FINGER

EUMINATION FINGER

F.:LIMINATIIJN FINGER

EL I 111 NAT II)N FINGER

ELIMINATIUN ~INGER

C:L 1 M I NA r I UN f'INGJ::R

C:L H'll NA r IIlN FINGeR

, f.~

06DEO 1}

06DE014 06DE015 06DEO 16 06DE017 06DEO 1:3 1)60E01', 06J)EIJ'21J 1J60EU21 1J6UEU:l2 1J60EO";,y 1)6t)~1J'24

1)60EU'Lt.:> U6UEU:LA

-I o E: I .... ) 1 Q E N I~. C.

Date: JUN:-!4. 't'JI

I!":PRE ·~S IONS J)~ ,JA~lES DAV l!:i All. llHE I ~W "I) \-" I ~"~f\.!PR I N T CARD 8l':AH I ~1I: THE ELIMINAI lUN j:,; [ NI;Ert

f {,,:PRE ~';~:J lOt'-IS 01- EUI;ENE .JONES

61. LINE f NI(c.U ~ I t-U..:;ic.J..!PR (N T .CARD ClEAi-'ING fHE ELlMINAI lLJN FINGER

l MPM'E SS { ONS 01" EUGHIE JONES. SR. i-.:) . : :r-l~ i t"U<:!=! ~ j-o- ! NI~~ ~Pr? I NT CARI)·J-<EAHING (HE EI" I M I NA r I UN FINI;I'R

I MPRr_!03S I UN;; UI- CHI< 1ST! ,J, JONiOS

f. S . :!i'i~ [NI<~n ,: ( NI,F.:HPR I N r CARD 8EARINI; rHE ELl M INAT ION F I ~1I;tR

t i' : • ..J~'I::. ,?; ... , I 'j;-'I~ .Ji- bkl::.GUt-;:Y !"'(lJI:7 i::..RS &. LH

. " .. EntC".J f.I? .•.. Oate Received: MAY 12. 1986 Time: US: 30

r?t3c~;\/e:d 8~J: ~).J!.J (.JI..:;ihl)

Enter~d a~l: ~I< ~eC". :=r'om: .1l::.:-:!k'Y J.tUWr:

ST - t (eM 668 Rf- 11j~:t'H:.L) I t) ~II:YRY RUwE ~y .JI.';W lj 1 AU. S, MAIL ~-28-H6. AK,

Services: Date COffioleted:

. Oeser' I~t Ion o :~ EVidence:

64. BRIJl.JH P.APER 8AG COflTA I ~(I HG ONE PAIR OF WORK BOOTS At;. 8RO~Ii'! PAPl:::R 8AG CUNrAINING ONE PAIR OF 1I01NGlJ" 80015

66. 8RDWi'! PAPER BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR 111" BLUE JEANS 8, Ot-IE WAI.LET I':: • ONE t:MPTY CARDBOARD BOX Q, PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE E, PLASTIC BAG CQNTAINING HAIR

67, BROWN PAPER. BAG CONTAINING: A. ONE PAIR OF BLUE JEANS SIZE 36 B, ONE PAIR OF BLUE. JEANS SIZE 34

&JGW

Entrv OB ;". Oate Received: MAY 13,. 1986. Time: 11:24 Entered B~: JWK Ree, From: U. S. MAIL

1J61Jt=.U', U61JC::=J', 1)6 iJl: .. :. I)"I)EU.

060£U: 1J6·:n:-H :;61)c : IIA llr: !I

1J6Ui:: i

Il/~:;:I:'i!

U./~o:!~

O:":E3')1 U/!--t'!='! '

O?Rr:U Ij?H~;"

--None--

O?DE!J U11Jt:1J 1J7DEU 1j70E.!.I

070EO' 070100 O?DED" 07DEU· 07DEO 07DEO 07DEO; 07DEO

OSSCO OSEBO OSRFO

SerVices; CL Date Completed: DEC l?; 198.

CL Service Tran5fered to the Atlanta Lab

'~'~SCr" iot 10n of E~"ldence:

\ •• ' rHPEE COP T ES OF Cl. THREE

.... E("Jtpy !J9 Pee;:: : ··.18,j 8~J: LH ~~ntB .... ~:i -J,,:,: I.,,>A~

RAI~. ::-,.. -')m: .J..J. f'1I":GLA~1ERY

1J8UEt..: .

IJ'7SC:: 09R81J 1}9t:::8;.1

Ij';IHFU

1

Oate: JUN ~4. 'Y~

r.:ap,e: ·:"H,;n"IC;'1. !Cl'Jn1t)

Ser!..Jl ces: Date Completed:

Oescrlotlon of Evtdence: 61;. ONe \:lRDhl~1 E~/t)ELOPE CONrAINING.THREo. ::;LALK t-ILM CANISll:.WS

C!;t~ I A I N ~ NG ~l, I;i. ('1M FILM

.... Entr~) 10

Enter-ar: 8~): i'1JS HRC. ~rom: U. S. MAll

Set"~.Jlces : Oate Comoleted:

l}BAC~lO~ Ion of EVldence: 69. 'Jilt: MAN I LA EN\)ELOPE cu~n A II, I NL~ UHE . >U,ED ~! ~-lb".f<Pk IN r CAW!)

8F.AP. f Nf; r:-iE .1 .. -, r·-u;a'::I-;(.l r1}JK'F.S~-; j UN~~ !J~:: ;':'':'';Y JAMt'~ J"lULL"1 S __ r,.. L~

Ent-r,; .. 11 .... Ui!lf;e k'ecel\,Jerj:' .. :.In 16.1',186 Ilme: lIJ:4L;> ReC81VAd 8~): LAC (I_H) 'nter""d 8~..:: MJS

Rec. From: U. S. MAIL

SerVIces! D~te Comoleted:

Oescrlot Ion of EVIdence: 70. .oNE INKED F I NGERPR I NT CARD ANt) FOUR SHEETS OF WH ITt: PAPER

BEARING THE INKED FINbER AND PALM I~PRESSIONS UF CHRIS ALLEN BROWNF I EJ. D

71. ONE INKED FINGERPRINT CARD AND FOUR SHEETS OF WHI rE PAPER BEAR I NG THE INKED FINGER AND PALM I MPRESS IONS OF BRUCE HAROLD MOORE

& LAC

.... Ent~~ ).2 Oa t e Rece (ved: .JUL 01, 19\16 P~O:"" i',,;;>d 8~)~

Entered By: Rec. From:

SeY-Vlces:

L4 GAB U. S. MAIL

~~5crlotion of EVIdence: \,.-n. f1AN I LA E~j\)ELOPE SEALED

Date Completed:

hlITH TAPE C":;~HAtHINr;: A. UHf:: I Ni<I:::O r" 1 NI.:a:.J-.!p~ I N r I':A~L) l:!1:.Ak': :'JG I He. ! NK}:L) r I N1.;cR

IMPRESSlfJNS OF LAlvRENCE WILLIAM L:::E

--None--

IJ':J U I:. !J iJ ~. ; 1I'..JL11-_:!:.!'.;.':

l'Jbl"':'JO I'·

i '!tS·.lU.t t L 1J~r: U WL:

t !'Llt:. 'J ...

l'.!!":~:jn',:·1

1 .I~)t:::'iU:'

'1 : SI...: ilJ 1 !

1 l::il8uOl' "1 "Li:.c;UiJll llRr-';J1) II

110EO"Olf 11DEull'2l llDEOO}1 I1DEU041 110E00'7l llUE0061 llDE007( 110EOU81

12SC0011 12RBOOli 12l:.8UUlI 12RF0011

--None-;~

8. TWI) !';HEEfs OF hlHI rE PAl-'foP BleAR I 1-"; IHE INKEO PALM IrlPRESSIUNS UF LAi..:RI:CtlCf. I" 1 LLI AM LEE

l'~DEfJ I) 11 l:!UC:UU'lI 120E.:)O}1 1:2DEU!J41 12Dl:£OUtjj

r-:n~r:; l3 .... nAte J-ler.el'Jl'=lrj: ·::;L "14. 1'''''''::6 f ; me: 11) : .}~)

,

! I ,

.. .

,F.!C. rrl'Jm:' 1.1. S. MAIL

·:)ervi.C~S ; Date Lom~leted: UI~I I): .. 1'7::"::

FP S~rvlce 'rran5fe~ed to the At (ante Lab

De58rlt)t'lon Of EVIdence:

73. ')Ni' I ~II(ED e' I Nf;ERPR I NT CARD ScARl NI; n'lt: F I NI;EP. I MPRE~:S 101'18 OF WAY Nt:: LeE:

:'" .Ot i~: 11'11<1:0 PALM PR I~.rr CARD f:'l:.Ai<' I t·IG P.;E PAUl ! MPPE:SS IONS OF ;llP.'''''NE Ltc:.

ONE: I NI<EO F I NGERPR I NT CARD SEAR I fiG r He F I Nbt::R I ~IPRESS IONS !);: I~HEh'YL L, L,t::E

76. OJ"!:: INKt':D PALM PRINT CARD Bl:.ARlflG THE PALM IMPP.!:.SSIUNS 01" C;-<!::RYL L, Lt::E

r" L;";C

):.ntr';} 14 Rer;F,!:l\'ed 8~): LH ::'nt~:·p..:: H~: !'i,J''':; Rel7:. From: U .• ::;. MAIL

i I me: 1. iJ: I U

1.~ Ut:.' tjUt::!~ J::

15Dt::::' 1 j 1Ji::.. t; j,;

l~OI.:..(· ,:: lJUt::i; Jt L;,Ot!~' .I; ljUC:::.: .n 1.$ LH:, lJ .:'~

Services: Ua~~ Completed: --None--

Oe~C~lot 10n of EVld~nce: 77 S 1'-< 11ACH I NE COP! ES OF THe. : NK t::D F} HbERPR! ~I r S O~ R I CHARD

SHANE DA\i! S

.... Ent.rv 1'5 ~ece : ved 8:;: LH Entered B~J: .]IJI<

Oate Rece::.ved:

Reo::. From: .Jt::RRY RObie;, L;81

OCT 02, 1<):;6 T I me: 13: '50

141)\::'. ,". 141.~c..1. J~

l\iSCG ;: I'? RClI; r. l?cJ:lU') : 1'>"1'-:) J:

Services: Date Comoleted: --None--

Oescrlot lon of Evidence~ 78, ONE' MACH I NE COPY OF THE INKED FINGER I MPRESS IONS OF

EOO I E HOLl DAY 79.

90, Sl.

& LH

TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAPER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF' EDDIE HOLlDAY ONE MACHIHE COpy OF THE' INKED F'INGER IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC BROWN TWO SHEETS OF WHITE PAP'ER BEARING THE MACHINE COPIES OF THE INKED PALM IMPRESSIONS OF ERIC 'BRDWN

,." Entrv 16 Date Received: OCT 20, 1986. Time: 09:16 Rece i ved B~: KF' Entered By: MJS Ree, From: JERRY ROWE

Remarks: ITEM 82 RETURNED TO JERRY ROhlE ON 10-'20-86' BY .:F.

.\....

1'50EO[J: 1 \iDEU:l: 1'>OEOO: 1 "DE(l1), l'>DEOO\ 1"OEOOf 1'>OEOO; 1 "DEUDI

16SCO{J : 16RBOn: 16EBOO: 16RFO{):

16RMO D:

Se r ....... ices : l--A Uata Completed: ucr ~1, lY~~

16SPL :r

lip.:=...:.!"' i. 0 t ton Ij F E~) I dence: ::t~: .. RL(;ER . .f.':. P {s rUL ·SER I AL t'lur-:8 .... ~ ·4B.· .. 3:··:~

,

" . .... ~ntt';J I."

,~c",~;ed 8,,: I{:-' £nte;'ed 8~,: GH8 -E.::'p,-:. ;;-rnm: .)!-:f<'k'Y P-Ultli: At'IO };-:A~L I;ALLAhIA'!

h'~marks:

lrE,'i :3 3 ~'ETURNED TO OFF I CER Pf~R Ki-' 11- :"-86, GAB

-I ,'::::l..:qU~

17R8'Ju·.-1 A"_P.f.! II:

1 /~r: !.!IJ-.

Uate CompletBd: NUV l~. lY~~

FA '3A-"'\I~ce Tr.~nsf'·~rBd to the At t.=Jcnt<9 :....~b :-Alt.:.

'QQ'Sf;-l"'iDtlon of EVidence: :33, (iNt::· REl1INGrON .22 SEMl-AUrOt1AlIC ~.:.-·U::_ Sl-.RIAL. ~~A:l'l461)8U

i;:.ntr·/11:: P~r;~ ~'./F::.lj' 8~): KF ~n~~red 8~J: MJS Ree, From: JERRY ROWE

!--fern;;, r~{:5:

U.~ta h'ecel\,J8d: >IIJV lU. l'7':~6 Ilme: 14: IIU

I rEM ''14 RETURNED TO JERRY ROI~E U~I' 11-1 J-i:l6 8Y I<F.

:)e.scrlotlon ot' EVidence: '-'34, ,J. C. HIGG INS ,22 SEMI-AUfI)MA'1 I,; R: ;:U::

... ~ Entr~J ~9 Date ReCel\,'ed: ~iOV ~".. 1'786 11me: lU!?2 Rece':·....;ed 8';-): KF EnterBd Sy: GAS Ree. From: JERRY ROWE

l:::~~L!.IU

lHR8UO'

l:i\-o{r :)1.1

--t..\one--

lY'::)CUW 19RC:UO' l''';t..81J1J

l'tRF 'Hi'

!3"rVlces: FA Date Completed: NOV 26, 19~6

FA Ser'J1Ce TransFered to the Atlanta Lab

DescrIption of EVldence: 85. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE ,}2 REVOLVER IN VERY OXIDIZED

CONOI TION RI), FJUE-GALLON PLASTIC BUCKET CONTAINING:

A. ONE SMITH AND WESSON ,38 REVOLVER SERIAL 1~1l2226 8, ONE SMITH AND WESSON ,38 REVOLVER SERIAL ~~?432

.,., Entry 20 D~te Received: JUN 24,1987 Time: 13:43 Recelved By: LKP(TRS) Entered By' OHF Ree, From: JERRY ROWE

Ser'Jlce.s: CR Date Camp leted:·

O~.S rlotion of EVldence: , ){:... A .,~,~ALED I~H 1 TE ~NV~LOPE' LABELED "LARRY LEE'S PUB1 C HA f R" '....- .... J A .~,EALED I"HI rE EN\JI:.U.lPE LR8EL£D "LARRY LtE'S HI::AO HAIR"

'(;CKf>

?-/-8?

19DEOO.: 1 ';IDEDU: 190EOO: 19UI=.UU,

19DEOO,

20SCOO' 20RBOO: 20E8UO' 20RFOO·

--None--

20Df:..!JU :.1IJOEUU' ''': IJOt:=.:JIJ

/JJx 1't!Olnp (P/ (', '3/ (,.., 7/ II ) (/)<!.{}Yi K h !.. Lo-'L-

(87/)53 J \ ~ 7210 '- !5-3S) r/J

\~ co -bl \ ~\..- (J1j q() ph

/' tf !J'\.~. L,lJ2L.

5-)-l7

1)1''<-1)

(Pi'}(.,\~1 Lf'(>.CYl (31)

'-- C r: '1- L. le.1---' w!J'1 utt%.-' (-'3'7') ,

~\\

\S"J '?J ' fS 17 j,ffl 'ID ~ ~ (AJ~ If\tI5v\.L,.L.tu----

~~\i? lAW\. ~) \Aeo/\ ~'1)

5::>r\J

W;~'l ~ (~;~\~

-

15...31

/53~ /530

fJAJlku./ ~R /1~I9-V 4t LII

~ 4&pf ;fur !ltL--

· . ,~. .;' '

,., \

.~~~'~~~~~~$.J"~ : ... ;~~~~\- ~~~ r,\.,y",,<.

" ··'(:~~:t.tf-3'":~~ .~:{. 't4L: I ~! .' : ~ ...... !

.' "

1

r:'r.I.~t: I UI:. U r:{ 'f i Ht: bJ:: i tk'b ; f-f ,-.~'; :'11::, l. At!t itotA I I :k' '(

Agency: l';;>lUIJ WAYNI:. Unt'~ i':..nterei"1: Ht-'~ '/H.) [''tH6 1\ '(Ie: t l: 044 .

SHf:.R I H· • S Ur" II.:I:. i-<e-~tnt : IIIJ

JUNI:.~, NINA M.IJ~U 1J\I'~t 1m: oervlce COCor":::;o.: LJare Lompleter.1: --Nnne--Ua t e M.-'3 \ 1 ed: . --.None--

•..• l:.ntr~) U1

I::.n t e red ~~I! bAH iJi- r; ,-.p.r,=.: ',<1111,14 H. H. Hi:-otl:.::.

1';>11'> I? III U

l';;>llU

U U:iL:U 'J J U'Ik";;iUU;

Uli:.t:nJll! IIlt:;- !jlJj

U lIJr IJ U '<

Utlli:I'; 1I11 .. -lJU: k'~,-:, :- rom: Uk'. J, tlYk'UN UA")~UN A I I HI:. A I LAN I A LA~LJRA IURY V I A AU I Ur'!:> Y U u< .. IJ 1.1 ;

l:H4 1':(1 Q ... A Me. ;;',1-Iransfered to the Iran~r?red to the

Uate completed: --None--HH !Jervtce HI ':"lel"V1Ce

LJ< oervlce Iransfered h~ :;)e r\, I ce I ran .... ~P:,...ed MI:. ~erVlce iransfered if- :=-e i"V I ce I r"r.:tn$ f e r'ed

Up.s(;:r lpt iCon "'. i::..V) nenc:e: 1, ONr_ GLA!:>~ UiAL & . . hit-'

'2'_ UNI:. lOLA!;;!;; VIAL 1,,);:4b I NRL ~blt4t:1!;:)

&1-1,;1-'

Wli H

WIIH

Atlanta Lab PIt lanta La·-

\0 the At lanta Lab to the .. " lant", L;;;,-,

\0 the Atlanta Lao to rna R"i"JantA La,

tlLAI..:K PLAo I I I..: SI..:~I:.W CAt" I..:UNIRININI'; tlLUUI)

tlLRI..:K ,",LR!;;III..: SI..:k'I:.W I..:Rr' CUNIAIN1NG IWIJ

,L "'(I:.LLUW r'ILLtlU)( L.I.JNIAtNINt; lIt,1:. • 'L'2 !;;HIII-< I LI:.AU !:lULLI:.I fll:.MlIVeO t-f/UM LI:.f-1 SHUULUl:.fI UI- NINA JUNI:.S

&Kf-@) r'LR!;;!' It.: Z!I-'-LUCK BAG I.:UNTAINING KNIJWN HI:.AI) HAIR Of- NINA JUNf:.S ~fl1 &If/o ' ® PLA!;;rtt.: ZII-'-LUI..:K BAG CUNfAININI; KNUWN PUIclIC HAIR O~ NINA JON!::S ,eSM. ~flS ' , ~ 8f/UWN P~I:.R C!At; CON I A I N I Nt; ONI:. WH t fE S ... EI:::T CUN r A ( N I NI; t 3l\o hrno l L\)

A. UN!:. Ir:Itt I be, L;UWN '~I " , ' , ' 8. ONI:. PA I f/ 01- WH I TE. PAN'I I E.o a;: '\0 hh 'lD (i\ )

IleM 6 f/I:.MUU"IJ >-f/UM NINA JUNeS

-'" , .....

UIUl:.IJIJJ IJ ll"- U U, UIUI:.UIJ; lJ1LJt: OUi o lUI:.U IJ~ UIDI:.UUt

UIUc.UU~

U 1OI:.U U~ U1UI:.U1l U10l:.U11 U 11)1:.)) 1:< IJlUEUl j UlllloUl.< OlUEO 1~ UIUI:.UH !Jll.lJ::112-;

·.,

•• t. ""

R E COR 0 E V IDE NeE

Page:

RECEIVED BY THE GEORGIA CRIME LABORATORY Date: OCT 01, 198,

Case: S86-01'333 Date Entered: lJi-ctim:

Agency: 1'3100 WAYNE SHERIFF'S OFFICE APR 28, 1986 Time: 11: '77 Re-stat: 00

Service Codes: Do t eMail e d :

JONES .. JR., eLi FFORD; JBD. h BA aT CR FA ME CL no ~ l?!i) P Date Completed: 'SEP 04 .• 1986 JUL 03, 1986

, . .. En t ry 01 .... Oa t e Received 8y: J8D (JGW/TRS) Entered 8y: GAB Officers: JERRY ROWE

Received: APR 27, 1986 Time:

H. H. HIRES

04:00

1HOO 1?1l0

01SCOO 01R800 01E800 010FOO 010FOO: OlOFOO:

Rec. From: . DR. J. BYRON DAWSON

20004 1'>11'> 00003 AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY 01RFOO

Remarks: FA DELETED PER KF ON 5-28-86 BY MJS. 01RMOO'

Services: BA BT CR ME Date Completed: JUN 19, 1986 BA Service Transfered

-9T Service Tran.fered ;R Service Transfered ME Service Transfered

CHECK FOR TRACE

Description of Evidence: 1. ONE GLASS VIAL WITH BLACK PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD 01DEOO:

RWP - .. 01DEOO: o ZIP-LOCK P.L~STlC BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD 'OlDEOOc JONES, JR. K::'\Y\' . 01OEOO'

c:§R~IP_LO~K PLASTIC BAG CONTAI"I!NG QUESTI,ONED I~AIR~I\OM 800Y R' F gig~gg; CLIf'FORDJONES, JR.C€!.\Onr,10W),(t.L\Or,I-\'\'iO,J0'?,},· J)\D<\()b ~ 01OEOO;

ATRS '. . . . 1I-p/\5:1d-l10EOOE (5) BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINiNG ONE WHITE SHEET CDN1AJNING:~~~/\ \014- 01DEOO\

A. ONE PAIR OF 8R6Wi~ STRIPED PAJAMA~Dhhlb~).3Ll\6ldl.~~<>.I.W'''I 01OEOl( 8. ONE PAIR OF WHITE JOCKEY STYLE.UNDERSHORTSIb<.\ol,h"10-L3;) 01DE01)

&TRS 010E01~ ITEM 4 REMOVED FROM 80DY OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR.' OlDE01"

.,"" Entry 02 •••• Date Received: MAY 13, 1986 Time.: 11:28 Entered By: JWK Rec. From: U. S. MAIL

Servic"s: CL Da t e Comp let ed: CL Service Transfered to the Atlanta Lab

D~scriDtion of Evidence: THREE' COPIES OF CL THREE

Entry 03 ..•. Date Received: AUG OB, 19B6' Time: 12:5B

02SC001 02E8001 02RF001

--None--

020E001

03SC001

! I I !

F'CE C 0 R.D E V IDE NeE

Page: 2

RECEIVED BY THE GEORGIA CRIME LABORATORY Date: OCT 01, ~986

Case: 58601533 (Con't)

Recs i veo By' Entered By: Rec. From:

KMF AK U. 5. MAIL

03R8001( 03ESOOl( 03RFOOl(

,Services: FAID

FA Date Completed: SEP 04, 1986 03S?OOl(

Descri'ptlon of Evidence: SEALED MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING:

5. PLASTIC VIAL CONTAINING TEST BULLETS FIRED FROM A .22 RIFLE SER IAL ~W825186

6. PLASTIC VIAL CONTAINING TEST BULLETS FIRED FROM A RUGER .22 PISTOL SERIAL *18-24878

&KMF

"'." ~"<'''" ... < .• , •.•••. +s· .ii,

03DEOOl( 030E002t 03DE003( 03CE004( 03DE00'5( 03DE006(

., ,I ..

R E COR D E 'J I DENCE

Paoe:

RECEIVED BY THE GEORGIA CRlME LA80RATIJRY Da t e: MAR '19.' ~ 't:

Cd5e: 586-1)1533 Dat.e Ent9:red;

Aoenev: 1'> 1 0 0 WAY~lE SHER IFF'S OFF I CE: APR :.13, 1'ltl6, . TIme: 11:57 Re-5t"t: U2

Ule!" :m: JONES. ,JR .. CLl FFORD: J80 SA, 8T'@FA ME CL Date Completed: MAR 06. l'rl:l', Ser·~'i.ce Codes:

Da t ~ Ma 1. 1 e d : JUL 03, 1986

.. " Entru 01 .... Date ReG~ 1 \.'e,:; 8~: .. 180 t .JGhJ/ I ~S)

Entered Bv:. GAB Dff: :::er:.-: J!':RRY ROWE

ReceIved: APR 27. 1986

20004 ~. H. HIRES 1'>11'>

Time: 04:00

1"1110 1<;110

iJ ':',-:ciJ

01EBlI OlI)FlI OlOFI)

00003 OlUFO Ree. From: DR .. J. BYRON DAWSOi'1 AT THE ATLANTA LABORATORY VIA AUTOPSY, QlRFO

Remar"ks: FA DELETED PER KF 01-1 "-28-86 BY MJS, OlRMlf

Ser";-! ces: 8A BT CR ME Date Completed: MAR 06~ "I ,.;, 'J A.' '.'

8A Se ,.. ... ) i ce rransfered ,t 0 the ·At l~nta Lab 8T Se'-vlce Tr:~n5fe,..ed to t;he At lanta Lab CR Service Trqnsfered to the Atlanta Lab ME Ser-vlce .Transfere~ to the Atlanta Lab

CHECK FOR TRACE

Oeseriotion of EVldence: 1. ONE: GLASS UIAL WITH BLACK ,PLASTIC SCREW CAP CONTAINING BLOOD g,]!,.lP

2. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING KNOWN HEAD HAIR OF CLIFFORD JONES. JR.

&TRS ' 3. ZIP-LOCK PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING QUESTIONED HAIR FROM BODY OF

CL I FFORD' JONES., JR. &TRS ' 4. BROWN PAPER BAG CONTAINING ONE WHITE SHEET CONTAINING:

A, ONE PAIR 'OF STRIPED PAJAMAS B. ONE PAIR OF WHITE' JOCKEY STYLE UNDERSHORTS

&TRS ITEM 4 REMOUEO FROM BODY OF CLIFFORD JONES, JR.

.... Entrv 02 .,.. Date Received: MAY 1:;, 1986 'Time: 11:28 Entered By. JWK Rae. From: U. S. MAIL

Ser' ..... ices: CL Date Compieted: CL SerVlCe Transfered to·the A~lanta Lab

....,)e'5t:,.,lp1:io.n of! E\Jidence: TH~EE ;';aPIES OF 'CL THREE

Entry, 1)3 Date R13Cel t )ed: AUG US .. 1';'86 Tlme: 11.:':>$

IJ1S?O

01DEO 010EO 01DEO 010EO 010EO 010EO OlDEO 01DEO OlOEO 010EO 01oEO 01DEO OlDEO

02SCO 02EBO 02RFO

--None--

02DEOI

~ I =:-:

R E .-. 0 R D E U' I D Er'~C:E

Page:

RECE [UEO BY rHE GEIJRI.:; [A CR I ME LABORATORY Date: MR~ 19, 1~

Rece 1 t.led 8'J: Entp.r~d 8~': Ro·;:,. ;":(ori:

KMF AK d. .:"). rlH i L.

O;lR8l O.5!o:8l ::::;:""F ,:

FAID

Date Complet~d: SEP IJ4. '1~~ OJSPI.

Desc·,ot)on of EVidence: SI':ALED MriHILA EHVELOPE COHTAIHING:

? . PL;;ST! C 'i [RL CONTR I N I NG TEST 1:lULL~TS F I RED FROM A .:n RIFLE SERIAL "0820;;186

6. PLAST I C '.Jl AL CONTA I N I NG TEST" BULLETS FIRED FROM A RU.;I':R .22 PISTOL SERIAL U8-24S'78'

&KMF

Ent:·,) 04 Date Re,oelved: t'AR 19, 1987, Tune: 11:25 f.?ece lvl3d 8~): ,JGW/IRS

030£( IJjUt:[

030E( I)}O~ i.

03DE( U;.t)E~

·..c:n t e red By: DHF

04SC( .14R8' o ,,-E8 ( U4R~ \

',-

1e c. F r-om: .JERRY ROblE

Ser\) ices: BT CR Date £ompleted: _ --None--

Oescrlptl0n Q~ EVld6nce: 7, ONE, RED STOPPERED TEST TUBE AND ONE PURPLE STOPPERED TEST TUBE

'EACH LABELED "LARRY LEE" I':ACH CONTA IN'ING BLOOD' 8. ONE'REO STOPPERED TEST TUBE, AND ONE PURPLE STOPPERED TEST TUBE

EACH LABELED uSHERRY LEE" EACH CO~nA I NI NG BLOOD &JGW ' 9. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED wITH TAPE IDENTIFIED, AS CONTAINING KNOWN

PUBIC HAIR OF SHERRY LEE, 1 O. WH ITE ENVELOPE SEALED W ITH J.AP~ IDENTI F I ED AS CONTA [ N I NG KNOWN

HEAD HAIR OF SHERRY LEEf!>MlWrl ,11. 'WHITE ENVELOPE SEALEO WI.T'H TAPE IDENTIFIED AS CONTAINING KNOWN

BODY HAIR'OF SHERRY LEE 12. WHITE ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE' IDENTIF lED AS KNOWN ,PUBIC HAIR

OF LARRY LEE t<.~lY\ 13. WH ITE ENVELOPE SEALED WITH TAPE IDENTIF I ED AS KNOWN BOOY HA I R

OF LAt<Rr LeE ~~jy\{,' , 14. WHITE ENVELO~!f S~AJ..-.E.D WnH TAPE IDENTIFIED AS KNOWN HEAD HAIR

OF LARRY LEE ~1) ¥6!\'\ ,',' I? A PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING:

A. ONE PA I R OF WH ITE TENN I S SHOES !DENT r"F I ED AS BELONG I NG TO 8RUCE LEE 31t' -"1D-l6\.V -Pr '0'

B. 'Ot~E BLUE' STR I PED BELT .,.1),.\0'>" c! ><l lObi.( l\.\:' & TP-S ' ' .,

6-/;-37.", " , ,&'v-~ Cl h" jjl'lp. er,(( I 3Jj 1'\;:11

'" t ~h~) l\'5l'\) '3 \ T

.... ' -.• 1, h'

04DE. o4DE' OADEI J)4DEI

040E' ,04DE'

04DE' 04DEI 04DEI 040EI 04DE! 04DE' 040E' 04DE' G4DE' 04DE: 040E' OADE 040E 04DE 040E O"OE

... !t. ...

; . ,

/ . ~'J

.. -. " . ", . r ." ., • :' • L •

PX 196

i!


LAWRENCE WILLlAM LEE, .•

Petitioner,

vs.

• • CASE NUMBER: 89·V·2325

HABEAS CORPUS • FREDRJCK HEAD, WARDEN, GEORGIA DlAGNOSnC PRJSON,

• Respondent.

• -rD"'e:Cpo:::,'-i nT:' oC:-n'::oTfJ"O"H""l\'" "'B"'. J"O"HJ1l\"" S"O"N",'"'ta"'k"'e"'n aD b eh aJf af the Petitioner in Jesup, Georgia, befare Melissa M. Parker, Certified Court Reporter, B·1204, commencing at appro,imately 10:00 a.m. aD the 23rd day af September, 2003. APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PETmONER: KEITH LINDSAY, ESQ. CARTER & ANSLEY, LLP SUITE 2300

1180 WEST PEA CHTREE STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309

FOR THE RESPONDENT: JEFF ROHRBACH, ESQ. SR. ASST. AITORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF LAW STATE OF GEORGIA 40 CAPITAL SQUARE SW

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334·1300 ALSO APPEARJNG: STEVE BA YLlSS REPORTER: MELISSA M. PARKER

SOUTH GEORGIA COURT REPORTING, lNC.

~" ~2.oU-~_,\ P. O. BOX 676 ALMJ\, GEORGIA 31510 1·800'073·6398 PETITiONER'S r

EXHIBIT ~ I

f 2 I MR . .l.INDSAY: Let's ga ahead and swear

-="""~-e;'~;o~:;,:~",. ",.-::.:' ilig'i'i;;~s.

3 4 5 WHEREUPON: 6 JOHN B. JOHNSON 7 having been duly swam, was examined and 8 testified as follows: 9 MR. LlNDSA Y: This will be the

10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

deposition of John JohlLSon 1aken in connection with the Lawrence William Lee versus Fredrick Head babeas corpus matter currently pending in the Superior Court of Butts County. This deposition is taken pursuant to notice as well as pursuant to agreement of counsel. It's Wken for discovery, for cross·examination, and any and all other purposes allowable under the Georgia Civil Practice Act. My suggestion would be that all objections but for those as to the form of the question or the responsiveness of the 'answer be reserved until the fIrst use of the deposition. Any objections with respect to time and place of taking and formalities of that nature be

SCRUNCHTM South Georgia Court Reporting, Inc.

- .. ---.-----.---.. ~-.-.. ,--~~~-.~. --- -----;-----"---

3 1 waived. 2 MR. ROHRBACH: nat's agreeable. 3 MR. 'LINDSA Y: Have you discussed 4 signature with Mr. Johnson at all? 5 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, we have. 6 WITNES,S: I know about that. 7 MR. UNDSA Y: Okay. Do you want to 8 read and sign? 9 WITNESS: I will read and sign.

lO MR. LINDSAY: Okay. And that'll be II flne in front of any notary, if that's all 12 right with you, Jeff. 13 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fIne. 14 MR. UNDSAY: Okay. 15 EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. UNDSAY: 17 Q Please state your name for the record. 18 A John .. J·o-h·n .. Brantley-19 B·r·a·n·t·l·e·y .. Johnson .. J·o-h·n·s·o·n, m. 20 Q And where are you employed, sir? 21 A I'm employed at Chief Assistant District 22 Attorney for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit. I 23 work under the direction of Stephen .. 24 S·t·e·p·h·e·n .. D. as in David, Kelley -2S K·e·l·l.e·y .. who is the district attorney, and

4 1 I work in the office primarily ioeated at 145 2 North Brunswick Street, Jesup, Wayne Caunty, 3 Georgia. .' 4 Q And how long have you been with the 5 district attorney's office for the Brunswick 6 Judicial Circuit? 7 A With the exception of one thirty·day 8 period, si;ceSeptemb'e; the 1st, 1976. 9 Q' Okay. In ~annection with your duties

10 as ... 11 A' Or,;t rnay b~ '77 • '77. 12 Q Okay. In connection with your duties 13 as an assistant district attorney, did you· or 14 were you .. excuse me .. involved in the 15 prosecution of Lawrence William Lee, the 16 petitioner bere? 17 A Yes. 18 Q I'm going to show you an exhibit I've ]9 marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit Number I, which is 20 a copy of the' deposition notice for your 21 deposition today along with a subpoena. And I 22 would ask, if you would, if you'd turn to 23 Exhibit A. You were asked to provide a number 24 of documents at the deposition todaY~"and I 2S wanted to go througb some of the documents you

Pages 1 - 4 1

;~

'1,

.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JO II 12 J3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JO il 12 J3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

21 file?

A It would not be - not be noted in our file:'

Q' Why is thai? A Because that was not something that was

in Our custody. If they brought a latent fingerprint card and had it in their file and we did not use it in court, I would not bave any reason to Dote down that they had a fingerprint because I - card because I would not know that they bad it.

Q Okay. Do you recall whether or not the GBl crime lab personnel or witnesses brought any other kind of forensic evidence with them to court?

A I don't - I cannot tell you what they brought. Q Would there be any note in your file as to what - or any notes in the DA's file as to what they brought assuming any of it was used at trial? A No. Now, we do have in our file the

crime Jab reports and multiple copies of them generated on different days, and that would be Some indication of what was either in their possession of what they analyzed, so we would

22 know that. But in terms of writing down that they brought On this particular date for trial this following document, the answer is no, we have no such indication, that I'm aware of.

Q Okay. And I believe your testimony earlier Was that as far as you know, any evidence that they might have brought down with them would have been - either been retained by the GBI or the sheriff's office?

A They would either retain it themselves . at the crime lab,or the GBI or the sheriff's

office would have that if it sliJ] exists. Q Okay. Does your office have any kind

of logging procedure to - to reflect the receipt of forensic evidence, be it blood evidence or fingerprint cards, or things of that nature, whereby if it's turned over to you,. you'd actually log in when it was received?

A Evidence that was turned over to us generally would have been turned over to us on the GBI evidentiary evidence log fonn. They would show where they released it to us and we would sign for it. That's generally the procedure that I'm familiar with.

Q Was - in addition to that -- and I'm

. SCRUKCHTM South Georgia Court Reporting, Inc.

---.--~-------- ...... ----- ---

23 I assuming that form would be something that would_ 2 'be maintained by the GBI as opposed to you~'

3 office? 4 A Generally it is, yes. 5 Q Okay. Was there any fonn from your 6 office that you would use to - I guess to back 7 up ... 8 A No. 9 Q ... that documentation from the GBl?

10 A No. I I Q When, if ever, do you last recall 12 seeing any of the forensic evidence from the J3 Jones file in this case? 14 A Trial. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Well, now, I have - yeah, I have seen 17 evidence that had been introduced at trial since

18 that date. 19 Q Okay. 20 A But trial would have been -- well, I'll 21 say that's probably the last time as. to some of 22 that evidence. 23 Q Okay. Since the trial in this matter, 24 bave you ever communicated with anyone at the 25 GBI about locating any of the physical evidence

24 I in this case? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Okay. Who have you spo~en with? 4 A. I believe that I spoke with the - the 5 head of the pbotograph department in Atlanta Or 6 one of the people there and also the SAC, 7 special agent in cbarge of the office in 8 Kingsland and Douglas at that time to obtain or 9 make SUre that I had all of the photographs and

10 copies of photograpbs that I - that we bad II generated. 12 Q Okay. Have you ever communicated with 13 anyone at the GBI about locating the flngerprint 14 cards? 15 A Not that I'm aware of. Not that I 16 remember, no. 17 Q Has anyone on the -. let me strike 18 that. To your knowledge, bas anyone at the GBI 19 ever contacted you or your office with resp"!'t 20 to where the flngerprint cards might be located? 21 A No, not to me. Now, I can 'I. speak for 22 Mr. Thomas. 23 Q I understand. 24 A All I can do is talk about me'. 25 Q Have you ever requested or instructed

Pages 21 - 2~

,Q

.1 anybody at the GBI to destroy or dispose of any 2 of the physical evidence in this case?

3 A No. 4 Q Is there ever a situation or instance 5 in the district attorney's office where you·

6 you requested that the GBI go ahead and dispose 7 or destroy evidence, or is thaI up to them?

8 A You use the term 'ever,' and the 9 answer to that question would be yes.

10 Q Okay. If that is done ...

11 A But not in this case. 12 Q Oby. In a situation where that is

13 done, would there be a written record of thaI 14 request to the GBI anywhere in the district 15 attorney's office files?

16 A Probably not. There may be in the 17 file. I mean, you have 10 understand thaI we're

18 talking - there's a difference between a death 19 penalty case and, let's say, a common burglary. 20 At a point in time when the burglar· money was 21 stolen, for instance, and the case was pled or 22 tried, I might issue· issue a letter or I mighl 23 just agree and sign off On returning property to 24 the victim or to the defendanl, depending on

25 what the situation was. But in death penalty

26 cases, 1 don 'I do that.

2 Q Oby. Is there any policy. is there 3 written policy or procedure with respecllo the 4 . 10 the mainlenance of physical evidence that 5 your· thaI your distncl attorney's office .• 6 let me strike that. That's a badly asked 7 question. 8 A' I can answer your question, thpugh. I

9 know wbat. .. 10 Q Yeah, I know, bul it's not going to

11 "read on the record very well. Does the district

12 'uttomey's office for the Brunswick Judicial 13 Circuit have any policies or procedu'res, manual 14 or documentation, with respect 10 the 15 maintenance, preservation, or destruction of the 16 physiCal evidence?

17 A We do not have a policl of the office; 18 however, the Secretary of State bas generaled a 19 state-wide policy that I am aware of. I may

20 even have a copy of it al some· some place, but 21 I know thaI there is some· thaI there is a 22 policy about retention of records by governmenl 23 agencies. 24 Q And y'all are in compliance with those

25 policies?

SCRUNCHTM South Georgia Court Reporting, Inc.

- ---- --- -. ----.~-----

"--'--'-'.---~'~-' -",~- .. -~- -- ---------,----_.

27 1 A I hope. 2 Q What was - what was your role in tl;Je 3 prosecution of the Joe Thomas and Raben

. 4 Yarbrough case for the murder 'of Glenda Ann 5 Strickland? 6 A I may have done some work as an 7 associate to Mr. Thomas on that case, but I was

8 nOI' I do not recal) being at trial. And if 9 you can • if you can tell me a date, I may can

10 be a little mare - let me • let me answer il 11 this way. From 1981 until 1991, I was primarily 12 responsible for running the office in Glyon 13 County. That was my duty assignment. And I 14 would be primarily doing work there and down in

15 Camden County during that time frame. I think 16 January of 1991 was the last date that I was

17 there, and April of '81 was the firsl date thaI 18 I was there. There would have been another 19 assistanl DA here who would have assisted Mr. 20 Thomas in the actual work on that case, bUI I 21 can 'I· and, again, I know I'm faroiliarwith it, 22 and I know thaI I may have done some. side-line 23 work as an assistanl al thaI time. 24 Q Okay. And with respect to that case,

25 iI's my understanding you also produced some

I 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

28 documentation from· from the Yarbrough file, for wont of a better term. Were any items removed from that panicular file under the contention thaI they. thaI they constitute work,product?

A Yes, And my answer would be the same

dealing with thaI work product. Q Okay. Same Iype of documents as would

have been removed from the other files? A Yeah.· Anything done by an assistanl DA

or the district attorney in preparation for trial. Q Okay. Would that include also, in this

situation, communication with the Yarbroughs' attorneys?

A Yes. Q Have you ever communicated with the

Depanmenl of Corrections regarding Robert Yarbrougb for any reason?

A With the exception of trying to find bim, thaI would be the only. and I don't recall doing thaI, but thaI would have been the only . - . '- ,. .. connection thaI.! • communication I had with them.

Q How abOUI the parole board? A Sarne. Q Have you ever communicaltlQ,with Jerry

'. Pages 25 - 28

7

PX 203

04-0328-01-86

On Tuesday, May 6, 1986 at approximately 7:30 a.m. Special Agent

lee J. Sweat, Jr. was contacted by the Wayne County Sheriff's Department

and was requested to respond to the Empire Road in Wayne County . .. -.'.~

Upon arrival 4t the scene, this agent met with Investigator Earl

Calloway and Investigator Herchell H. Hires of the Wayne County Sheriff's

Department. It was explained to this agent at that time, they had been

investigating a burglary of this residence belongingto Danny Johnson.

Investigator Calloway stated that the circumstances were very suspect and

it being in close proximity to the scene of the murders, it was determined

that further investigation be conducted at the scene.

A search of the interior of this residence revealed that it was a

very unkempt, dirty residence, however, certain areas of this house appeared

to be blood· stained. An area in the tub appeared to have markings of where

some type of bloody object had been washed out and a blood ring was left on

the tub. Also observed on the door leading from what is believed to be a

den into the hallway has the appearance of a bloody smear on said door.

Investigator Calloway did, in fact, obtain certain samples from these areas

to be submitted to the Georgia Crime lab for analysis.

A1so observed on the back porch area were several empty .22 caliber

cartridges casings which were recovered by Investigator Calloway to be sent

IBIT2e'1

Deponenl ___ _

Dale __ Rptr. __ WWW_DnOtK:>OK.COM

p"

04-0328-01-86 Page #2

to the Georgia State Crime Lab for further analysis. Also observed by

Investigator Calloway was one .22 caliber lead projectile from a piece of ." : ....

particle board parallel to and adjacent with the back door of the residence.

An extended search of the exterior of the residence resulted in

locating a small waterhole. approximately 5 to 8 feet deep and 25 feet

square. At this time. the Wayne County Sheriff'.s Department had access to

professional divers and one was brought to the scene to search this waterhole.

Special Agent l. J. Sweat. Jr.: 05/09/86 ~ pbw: 05/16/86

\r

04-0328-01-86

On Tuesday, May 6, 1986 at approximately 2:00 p.m. Special Agent

Lee J. Sweat, Jr. and Chief Deputy Bill Moseley of the Wayne County Sheriff's

Department interviewed -Herman D. "Danny" Johnson. Mr. Johnson was questioned .

as to his whereabouts and activities on Saturday, April 26, 1986.

Mr. Johnson stated he was at home the entire day having been there

since early Friday, Arpil 25, 1986. The first information he heard about the

murders of the Jones family was on the 11:00 news that night of April 26, 1986.

Mr. Johnson agreed to submit to a polygraph examination and arrangements were

made to administer same.

1. O. Data: Herman O. "Danny" Johnson W/M, DOB 04/02/59 Jesup Motel Room #38 & #39 Jesup, Georgia DL/SS #255-15-2682 Une oyed

Special Agent L. J. Sweat, Jr.: 05/08/86 ~

,. \

04-0328-01-86

,On Tuesday. May 6. 1986 at approximately 3:00 p.m. Special Agent

Lee J. Sweat, Jr. and Investigator Earl Calloway of the Wayne County Sheriff's

Department. along with Specjal Agent Jerry A. Rowe. interviewed Bobby Jean Knight.

the common-law wife of Herman Danny Johnson. This interview was conducted at

the Wayne County Sheriff's Office. Mrs. Knight was questioned independent of

of her common-law hushand. not being familiar with the questioning that had

occurred with him.

Mrs, Knight stated that on Saturday. April 26. 1986. they had been home

at the residence on Empire Road the entire day and had heard about the murders

of the Jones family on the news that night. Mrs. Knight was questioned about the

blood in the house and she stated that the blood i~ the house had not appeared

there until three or four days later after they had left and moved to town. She

was scared to stay in that area because of the murders. When they returned to

find their clothes. they also found the blood in the tub and on the door.

Mrs. Knight also produced two .22 caliber handguns ~hich were in her

possession and allowed the Wayne County Sheriff's Department to test fire these , ,

bullets to be sent to the Georgia State Crime lab" for further analysis comparison.

I. D. Data: Bobby Jean Knight W/F. D08 07/20/68 Jesup Hotel

'Jes!JP. Georgia DL/SS 259-31-0186 Unemployed

Special Agent l. J. Sweat. Jr.: 05/08/86 \(

pbw: 05,16/86

~

in the superior court of wayne county state of … · state of georgia the state of georgia,...

Documents