[Pants-of-dog]

It probably wasn't the best idea for a black guy - a black guy who had previously been suspected in the rape of a white woman but was never convicted - to then go sleeping around with a white woman who was already in a relationship and engaged to a police officer, especially in this part of Texas.
Even if there's a chance this black guy is innocent, he had to be incredibly stupid and has to be seen as at least a little bit partially responsible for this situation. He should have known he was putting himself in harms way.

The story about having an affair with the cop’s wife is what we call “reasonable doubt”. If the cop’s DNA is on that belt, the conviction could easily be overturned.

No wonder cops are trying to not test it.

[Puffer Fish]

The story about having an affair with the cop’s wife is what we call “reasonable doubt”. If the cop’s DNA is on that belt, the conviction could easily be overturned.

I don't think they want to buy that argument, because if they did, most any rapist-murderer could escape punishment.

Hate to say it, but in these sort of situations the burden is kind of on the accused to prove that there likely may have been consensual sexual activity going on.

Besides that, let's consider the other evidence against him.

He was previously suspected of being the rapist in another case, though was not convicted.


But here's one more piece of evidence:
Stacey Stites' sister, Oliver, said that Stacey's former co-worker, who was 16 at the time of Stacey Stites' death, began claiming several years ago that Stacey Stites confessed to her over a lunch break that she was cheating on her fiance with a black man.

But more evidence against Reed:
At the request of the defense police had conducted additional testing and allegedly found Reed's DNA in the victim's rectum.
It's more unlikely that a woman would have engaged in that form of intercourse if the sex had been consensual, and rather tends to point to a brutal rape having taken place. (Although it is not completely impossible for fluids from the vagina to be able to migrate to the rectum in some unusual situations)

But here's something else to consider. When people think that an accused person is guilty, or think that accused person is innocent, and have been convinced to the point of being "sure" about it, sometimes law enforcement will tamper with evidence to falsely incriminate the person, and sometimes witnesses will lie.

No one wants to let someone they think is guilty of a horrible crime go, and no one wants an innocent man to be put to death, so certain people might do unethical things in an attempt to cause the "right" outcome to result.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, if the local Texas law enforcement had become convinced that this was the man who had committed the rape-murder, and probably committed other brutal rapes as well, could they have tampered with the results of subsequent DNA evidence (that were carried out after the first test) to make sure the tests would incriminate their suspect? Not trusting the justice in the court system.

[Puffer Fish]

A black guy can sleep with whomever he wants, even white women, you racist piece of shit.

Racism isn't an argument.

It actually is. It may have played a role in biasing police (causing them to falsify DNA evidence) and possibly may have even been a factor in the decision the jury reached. (The jury might have blamed the black guy for doing something like that that put him in that situation, and then been willing to have him put to death based on the fact that he was probably guilty)

Can you imagine this from the point of local police? Woman murdered in what appears to be a brutal rape. There have already been previous rapes of white women by a black suspect, and police think this guy could be responsible for all those other rapes. Police find actual DNA proving this black man had sex with the victim shortly before she was murdered, but then the suspect comes up with a bullshit difficult to believe story about having had an affair, a claim that seems unlikely because she was already engaged to someone else. And then on top of that, even if he were telling the truth, that would still make the police very angry, a black man having an affair with a white woman who was already engaged to another white police officer.

I don't think it's really that improbable that the local law enforcement may have falsified the evidence when it came time for the additional DNA evidence after the first test. They wanted to make sure this "piece of shit" got the death penalty.

[Puffer Fish]

A black guy can sleep with whomever he wants, even white women, you racist piece of shit.

It's not a good idea to be going around having casual sexual encounters with women who are already engaged. Especially if you are a black man and she is a white woman. Especially if that person she is engaged to is a police officer.

Men can get wrongfully accused all the time when they have casual sex with women, outside of a committed relationship. The woman might accuse him of rape (for various reasons). Or in the case here, she just happens to get murdered, they find his DNA in her, and there is no other witness who knew that the two were involved in a relationship.

You might not think it's "fair", but I'm just telling you the reality.

[Godstud]

Especially if you are a black man and she is a white woman.

This only shows your racism. This is more normal than you'd like to believe, dumbass.

You might not think it's "fair", but I'm just telling you the reality.

I never said anything about fair. You're responding to an argument I did not make. That's called a Strawman Argument, and is a logical fallacy.

The "reality" that you don't like, is that false allegations of sexual assault are about as common as other false allegations for crimes. Your whole narrative, in that vein, is based on that of being a victim, though.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think they want to buy that argument, because if they did, most any rapist-murderer could escape punishment.

Hate to say it, but in these sort of situations the burden is kind of on the accused to prove that there likely may have been consensual sexual activity going on.

I doubt it.

If the defense can show that the police did not follow up a lead, which they can, and that evidence may have been overlooked, it is bot that difficult to argue that new evidence should not be looked at.

Besides that, let's consider the other evidence against him.

He was previously suspected of being the rapist in another case, though was not convicted.

That is not evidence.

But here's one more piece of evidence:
Stacey Stites' sister, Oliver, said that Stacey's former co-worker, who was 16 at the time of Stacey Stites' death, began claiming several years ago that Stacey Stites confessed to her over a lunch break that she was cheating on her fiance with a black man.

All the more reason to look at the belt.

But more evidence against Reed:
At the request of the defense police had conducted additional testing and allegedly found Reed's DNA in the victim's rectum.
It's more unlikely that a woman would have engaged in that form of intercourse if the sex had been consensual, and rather tends to point to a brutal rape having taken place. (Although it is not completely impossible for fluids from the vagina to be able to migrate to the rectum in some unusual situations)

…or that the woman enjoyed sex with this man.

But here's something else to consider. When people think that an accused person is guilty, or think that accused person is innocent, and have been convinced to the point of being "sure" about it, sometimes law enforcement will tamper with evidence to falsely incriminate the person, and sometimes witnesses will lie.

No one wants to let someone they think is guilty of a horrible crime go, and no one wants an innocent man to be put to death, so certain people might do unethical things in an attempt to cause the "right" outcome to result.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, if the local Texas law enforcement had become convinced that this was the man who had committed the rape-murder, and probably committed other brutal rapes as well, could they have tampered with the results of subsequent DNA evidence (that were carried out after the first test) to make sure the tests would incriminate their suspect? Not trusting the justice in the court system.

Yes, especially if the suspect was also having an affair with a cops wife.

[Puffer Fish]

I doubt it.

If the defense can show that the police did not follow up a lead, which they can, and that evidence may have been overlooked, it is bot that difficult to argue that new evidence should not be looked at.

Unlike what many people assume, investigators are not under an obligation to follow up on every possible lead or clue. That simply is would just not always be practical, for one thing.

Even if testing of the belt shows some other man's DNA, that still is not automatically going to mean they are not going to execute him. You realize that, don't you?
It wouldn't prove that Reed didn't do it. It would just cast a little bit more doubt about whether he did it.

That additional doubt might not even be enough to change the outcome of the case. Not unless they find the DNA of some other man who has been convicted of rape. That seems kind of unlikely, considering there is a high chance they might not find any DNA, or the murderer could have been the victim's fiance (naturally it would not be too surprising to find traces of a man's DNA on her belt if he was her fiance).

[Pants-of-dog]

Unlike what many people assume, investigators are not under an obligation to follow up on every possible lead or clue. That simply is would just not always be practical, for one thing.

Even if testing of the belt shows some other man's DNA, that still is not automatically going to mean they are not going to execute him. You realize that, don't you?
It wouldn't prove that Reed didn't do it. It would just cast a little bit more doubt about whether he did it.

That additional doubt might not even be enough to change the outcome of the case. Not unless they find the DNA of some other man who has been convicted of rape. That seems kind of unlikely, considering there is a high chance they might not find any DNA, or the murderer could have been the victim's fiance (naturally it would not be too surprising to find traces of a man's DNA on her belt if he was her fiance).

And I repeat, the story about the affair provides a reasonable motive for another killer. The lack of DNA testing on the belt is a lead no one followed up on.

While it may not be enough to change the outcome all by itself, it can open up a new line of investigation that seems promising.

[Puffer Fish]

The lack of DNA testing on the belt is a lead no one followed up on.

I guess they never really felt there was a strong enough reason to subject the belt to DNA testing.

(Already extensively explained to you why)

Any additional doubts it might raise might just be too confusing, and not really impact the case one way or the other.

Unfortunately for Reed, there is already a Supreme Court case, Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009), that decided in a very similar case that the defendant had no right to DNA testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... v._Osborne
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-6
https://witnessla.com/forgive-them-william-osborne/

[Godstud]

@Puffer Fish Do you know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, or are you simply willfully ignorant?

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess they never really felt there was a strong enough reason to subject the belt to DNA testing.

(Already extensively explained to you why)

It seems odd to not test a possible murder weapon for DNA.

Any additional doubts it might raise might just be too confusing, and not really impact the case one way or the other.

It might be confusing for you. For the rest of us, it seems clear.

The murderer obviously handled the belt during the murder. Therefore it is logical to check the belt for trace evidence that would lead to his identity.

Unfortunately for Reed, there is already a Supreme Court case, Third Judicial District v. Osborne (2009), that decided in a very similar case that the defendant had no right to DNA testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... v._Osborne
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-6
https://witnessla.com/forgive-them-william-osborne/

How was it similar?

[Puffer Fish]

@Puffer Fish Do you know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, or are you simply willfully ignorant?

Those are just words. That's not exactly how it actually works out.

In reality it usually ends up coming down to whether the level of doubt is reasonably small enough.

[Puffer Fish]

It might be confusing for you. For the rest of us, it seems clear.

Then I suspect you don't actually understand it very well as much as you think you do.

Just because this is a test does not mean the results will prove guilt or innocence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then I suspect you don't actually understand it very well as much as you think you do.

Just because this is a test does not mean the results will prove guilt or innocence.

You misunderstood.

I did not say it would definitely prove guilt or innocence. I argued that it was probably inserted into her mouth by the murderer, and therefore should be checked for DNA.