Talk:Rodney Reed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 NPOV problems 2 ME testimony 3 categories 4 the beer cans 5 The New Abolitionist 6 Witnesses 7 Reed's Signed Statements 8 Reed's other rape victims

[edit] NPOV problems

This first draft is terribly unbalanced and written entirely from the POV of the defendant. As such, it is most unworthy. Rklawton 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I didn't intentionally write to just Mr. Reed's point of view; I wrote what I knew about the case. Is it really "unworthy" of a Wikipedia article? His case has garnered the attention of the press; there was an award-winning (SXSW) film made about him; and this is a death-penalty case with a strong claim of actual innocence. I think it's notable. Lunch 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What was unworthy was the strong POV used in writing the article. Death penalty-related justice in the U.S. is especially worthy since the world-trend is clear regarding the death penalty. Thus we are witness to one of the last few industrialized nation's struggles to end this practice. Rklawton 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the POV problems are fixed to your satisfaction, would you then say it's worthy? (Again, thanks for the edits.) Lunch 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ME testimony

With regards to the Travis County Medical Examiner's testimony, Reed's defense attorneys at the original trial didn't call any expert witnesses of their own to try to contradict the examiner. This was part of Reed's claim of ineffective council on appeal. Lunch 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be evidence that his attorney was incompetent. It may also be evidence that this attorney was highly competent. Attorneys tend to avoid calling witnesses damaging to their case. While you, me, and the jury must assume the defendant is innocent, defense attorneys must take a much more practical view of the case. What would they have left of their case if they had their own expert examine the evidence only to confirm the prosecution's expert? They would have effectively killed their client. As a result, attorneys must use their best judgment. Note also that Reed's attorney didn't call 8 of the 10 witnesses to the alleged relationship. This, too, has been criticized by Reed's family. However, it would have opened a whole new can of worms. To wit, the witnesses were either family members or had criminal histories that would have exposed the jury to Reed's prior criminal conduct. The attorney appears to have played his hand as carefully as he could under the circumstances. Rklawton 06:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it was also my impression (from the articles and from what I've heard by word of mouth) that they didn't cross-examine the medical examiner much either. Presumably, dating the age of a semen sample isn't accurate to within minutes or even hours. One imply as much in a cross examination with questions like, "Do you know the sex was (nearly) simultaneous with the murder?" The way the article is phrased now seems like Reed was lying and the doctor exposed this, but I don't think the case is so clear cut. Lunch 06:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens when the expert witness answers "Yes, I am sure"? Answer: you've just killed your client. The expert witness is certainly not likely to say "golly, I ruled rape/suicide, but now that you mention it, I was really just guessing." I suppose that happens on TV, but it's not likely to happen on the stand after a length investigation, depositions, etc. - not from an expert witness with his reputation on the line. Also keep in mind that the examiner ruled the crime rape/murder one year before Reed became a suspect. Thus, there was no racial taint to the medical evidence. The examination was completed without any notion of the attacker's race. Reed's lawyers were no doubt aware of this going into trial.

On a separate note, have you found any references to the condition of the body? She was strangled with her belt. Was it also disrobed? If so, this would also support the finding of rape. However, I have found no references to this in any of the articles. If her clothes were all in order (except the belt), then I'm pretty sure the defense would have brought this up. I find it odd that there's no mention of this one way or the other in the articles, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Rklawton 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I found one report that says she was half undressed: [1]. (comment left by rklawton)

When Ms. Stites' body was discovered, she still had her pants (and underwear) on. She was wearing a brassiere, but her shirt was left in Fennel's truck (the one she was said to be using to drive to work). Her HEB employee name tag was somehow lodged between her knees. Her belt was supposedly used to strangle her; however, the marks on her neck appear to have been made after she died. That is, the coloration of the marks indicates they were made after her heart stopped beating. Several independent medical experts who reviewed the autopsy report and the crime scene photos and video have come to the same conclusion; that is, Bayardo was mistaken. He (Bayardo, the ME) was correct in concluding she had been asphyxiated, but was wrong in saying she was strangled. When confronted with this information after the trial, he admitted, "I guessed" (his words). This is all part of Reed's claim of an inadequate defense at trial.

Also, with regards to the condition of Stites' body, there were several large burn marks (one on her neck, I think; two on her torso, one below each breast; and one large one on her leg). These source of the burns was never explained (by the defense, the ME, or the prosecutor). There also wasn't a clear chain of custody of the body after it was removed from the crime scene. Several marks on the body appeared some time after it was removed from the crime scene (the marks clearly do not appear in the crime scene photos or video; for instance, one is a large mark on her forehead).

All of Stites' fingernails were clipped off, and her nails filed. Presumably, she had fought with the killer and scratched him. In order to conceal evidence, he clipped them off and scrubbed her fingers. The prosecution alleged that Reed (in order conceal his participation) wiped all his fingerprints from Fennel's truck. But only his prints - the truck was still loaded with Stites and Fennel's prints. A decidedly non-NPOV question: if Reed went to all the trouble to clip the nails and clean the truck, why would he have forgotten about his semen? I suppose there's always the old rag, "criminals are forgetful". One could also believe that someone else knew about the semen (Fennel) and deliberately left it to implicate Reed.

There's more relevant information about the condition of the body, but I can't remember it all right now.

By the way, there are several more articles from the Chronicle on the murder. Should I add those too? I didn't originally because I didn't want to list too many from one source. Thanks. Lunch 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories

A Wikipedia-ish question: any other categories you might suggest adding to the article? Lunch 06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Added two more. Rklawton 06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the beer cans

in the article, you wrote "A later judged ruled the beer can evidence omission unimportant." from what i read in the newspapers, what's in the movie, and what i've heard, it was the prosecutor - and the prosecutor alone - who deemed the beer can DNA evidence unimportant. (and so unnecessary to turn over to the defense.) could you point me to the source that says this? thanks. Lunch 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote and source: In 2001, after the DNA analysis was discovered by Reed himself as a newly provided document in his case file, Bastrop District Judge Harold Townslee granted Reed an evidentiary hearing -- but the court ruled the new evidence would not have been enough to create reasonable doubt for the jurors.[2] Rklawton 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you agree to the clarification, "An appellate judge later ruled that not giving the beer can evidence to the defense was not sufficient to warrant a new trial"? That is, if you read the judge's ruling carefully, it says that the evidence would not have been enough to sway all of the jurors, not that it wouldn't be enough to create reasonable doubt or to sway one juror (all that would have been enough to aquit). Lunch 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems very reasonable. Rklawton 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Abolitionist

Given that this source has a stated agenda - ending capital punishment - I don't think it's sufficiently NPOV enough for this article. Upon reviewing the page cited, it doesn't add any information that less biased sourced don't already provide. However, it does make many statements as fact that have not been proven. Given this, I've removed it from the article. If others think it should be included I'd be very interested to see the reasoning below. Rklawton 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd agree that the New Abolitionist isn't a neutral party. I'd been fishing for more sources on the story; I added it to lend credence to the idea that this was more than a local story (and thus notable).

With regards to Wikipedia NPOV, I didn't incorporate part of the New Abolitionist article in the Wikipedia article. My understanding of NPOV is that all "mainstream" or "reasonable" points of view need to be represented in the article. Also, my experiences with the Wikipedia community is not to delete, but only to add. In order to make the article on Reed NPOV, one should add other articles representative of other points of view (not delete existing information). This, of course, is going to be difficult.

If you believe the current list of sources is too unbalanced, then sure, remove the reference. Although I wouldn't do such a thing myself, I understand and I'll go along with it. Lunch 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the articles reflect the prosecutor's point of view. They either aim for balance, or they side with the defense. The Abolitionist article seemed the most extreme, so I thought we might take it out. I doubt we'll find an article from the main stream media that defends the prosecution, but I think it would be great if we could. Rklawton 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Ann Coulter will weigh in, and we can quote her.  ;) Lunch 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's too funny. Actually, I'm less interested in authors with an axe to grind and more interested in an academic analysis of the evidence, the trial, and the appeals. There's tons of details missing in the articles cited. For example, Stacey's fingernails were cut to the quick and filed. I've lived in Texas, and I can say I've seen this style many times there. I'd be interested to know if Stacey's mother knew whether or not this was her usual style or something completely out of character. No article mentions this. So my main complaint is the articles provided are far too superficial - not that that is out of character for the main stream media. Rklawton 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like the joke.  :) With regards to the fingernails, if you look at the crime-scene close-up photos, they're cut close (into the pink close). I don't remember whether or not Stacey's friends mentioned the clipping of the nails (either at trial or in other interviews). Like I mentioned below, I'll see what I can do about copies of the photos trial transcripts. Lunch 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witnesses

This article makes no mention of witnesses. It should discuss who was called and why as well as who wasn't called. For example, one witnessed placed Fennell and Stites together the morning of the murder. However, this witness had been previously arrested by Fennell for DUI. She was not called. Other witnesses were willing to testify about Reed's relations with Stites. However, most of these witnesses were either family members or criminals. It appears Reed's attorney did not want the jury exploring Reed's criminal connections. Two witnesses were called about the relationship, but Reed's current defenders claim these were not sufficient. As you can see, there's a lot of interesting stuff here, and there should be some sort of way to coherently organize and present it in the article. Perhaps we might add a table with witness names, relationship to the case, evidence, and whether or not they were called (and if not, why not). Rklawton 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If you can do it, great! If not, I'll try to get to it when I can. (BTW, if you want more information, just Google "Rodney Reed". Anything that's not about LSU's football player of the same name is probably him.) If I can find scans of the trial transcripts, crime scene information, or appeal notices, I'll try to post a link to them. Lunch 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reed's Signed Statements

It seems that Reed initially denied ever knowing Stites, and these signed statements significantly hurt his case. Reed said later that he didn't think admitting to knowing a "dead white girl" was a good idea at the time. Bastrop County Advertiser, May 2, 1998: "PROSECUTION SCORES FIRST IN REED-PRE-TRIAL"

Rklawton 03:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reed's other rape victims

Vivian F. Harbottle. While she could not identify her attacker in a line-up, the DNA in her case pointed to Reed. Harbottle was raped while walking along railroad tracks by an individual unknown to her and faced a gag order prior to Reed's trial. Bastrop Advertiser July 12, 1998. "Letter to the Editor" by Vivian F. Harbottle. Rklawton 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Connie York - identified by prosecutors during the trial. Rklawton 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)