January 21, 2016 by bkl67 Questions??? I Have Plenty!!! Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading...
Question?? What is everyone thoughts opinions .. basically who do you think did it and why ??
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jwb, my opinion is the right guys were convicted but there are questions. The few things that stick out in my mind; first Josie Scionti’s story, although it wasn’t heard in court, it’s just too hard to ignore especially her explanation has to how they got into the woods and what rode they took. Clifford Oliver still denies this and says Josie was lying for the reward money. Second I have to believe David’s parole officer Gene Deal. He stated shortly after the murders David came to his office for his regular check in and told Deal that he knew something about the murders and was afraid he was going to be killed because he knew too much. Deal called Detective Salinas but Salinas wasn’t interested, just another lead Salinas ignored. At this point Deal didn’t know if David was involved in the murders but he thought David knew something, it wasn’t until after Deal got a call from David’s mother that he started to believe David was responsible for the murders. That’s another thing you just can’t ignore. Then we have what I feel was the strongest evidence against David Wayne Spence, Dorothy Miles. She was like a mother figure to David why would she lie? Every case is not a perfect slam dunk, sometimes there are no eye witnesses, the murder weapon is never recovered, there’s a lack of physical evidence but some one still committed these murders. In the absence of all this we have to turn to the people closest to those involved and that’s what we have in Gene Deal and Dorothy Miles. Sure we would like more but where can we get it. I’ve tried to talk to Christine Juhl but she isn’t too much help, I don’t know if she is still too mixed up or if she has something to hide but I can see why the state originally didn’t want to use her as a witness. Beyond her I really don’t know whom could give us a better idea of what David was like at that time. Christine did share some things with me in private conversations that show what kind of person he really was. I guess I’ll have to break down and ask her if I can post them. I will say this, the person that killed and tortured the kids that night enjoyed inflicting pain, they took their time with it, it wasn’t a rush grab, slash and stab job, David Wayne Spence had that kind of personality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know, everything I’ve read over the last 5 years points to Tab Harper until you come to this site. Now I don’t believe Tab Harper did it. Unsure but very intriguing reading that you don’t read anywhere else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Depends on who you talk to ! One group says Tab Harper and the Wilkins boys. This is where the van belonging to Tab’s sister comes in. Fredrick Dannen has information on this theory. He is the writer now in Mexico.
Other group believes the Spence, Deeb, &Melendez brothers were the killers. Most people agree the murder-for-hire, mistaken identity theory is not truth and some kind of drug scenario got out of hand. Will we ever know the truth? I pray we will, somehow.
Fred Dannen could answer many of these questions, if he would ! He started the Tab Harper Theory claiming he has proof. Why can’take he be forced to bring this proof forward. By not doing so, is he saying he has nothing ???? I wonder !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mrs. Thompson, are you saying you still have faith in Fred Dannen? Ma’am you were there when he presented his findings to the family, what did he say he had back then? He shared it with you. I don’t understand this at all, I don’t know what was discussed at this meeting but it apparently went on for hours, so something was discussed. No there won’t be anyone to force Fred Dannen to do anything, why would they? I think people misunderstand this, the state of Texas and the prosecutors proved David Spence and the Melendez brothers were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s all they have to do. If some one comes along and finds something to dispute this good for them, they can bring it forward but that’s their choice the state isn’t going to force anyone to do anything, they don’t have to lift a finger and they feel no need to, they believe their convictions are solid. Spence had two jury trials, and went through all the appeals and they all agree, David Wayne Spence is guilty. Like it or not the Melendez brothers pleaded guilty, so they really didn’t have trials and I think some people don’t understand the significance in this. In the eyes of the judicial system they are guilty, they could cry they are innocent all they want but with their admission of guilt the State can say and rightfully so they were able to prove guilt. Innocent until proven guilty the State met that bar. I wrote this on Bernadette Feazell’s, A.K.A. Harry Storm. site when you talk to her again could you please ask her to stop talking about herself in the third person, but she just deleted it. Just because you don’t like the truth or like to hear the truth it doesn’t make it not true. You can’t find the truth by ignoring it!!! But with Spence and the Melendez brothers being found guilty now it’s up to them or the parties representing them to prove innocence not just question guilt, that’s very important, it might just sound like a play on words but it has significant meaning and no one has even come close to this. The best way to show this is go over the decisions the appeals courts made during David Spence’s appeals, this was another thing I posted on Bernadette’s site that she deleted. I will break it down point by point. Before I go there I do have something to say about Fred Dannen and him running off to Mexico. According to the reports that are out there, when Dannen first met Truman Simons, which was when Dannen first came to Texas in 1997, Simons made a remark like people get killed in Texas including police officers, this is what Dannen took as a threat. Was it? I don’t know, remember Dannen had a partner back at that time, a private investigator or whatever, this partner decided to return to New York, Dannen didn’t, he stayed in Texas for years. So really is this statement the cause of his exodus to Mexico? I have my doubts. Dannen hung around for years, in that time he gained access to the DNA evidence and he stated he found the carpet that was in the van that could tie Tab Harper to the crime. And the State’s response to this was they would question the chain of custody of the DNA evidence Dannen had access to. It was after all this that Dannen headed to Mexico. I’m just going to put this out there, any DNA evidence Fred Dannen had access to will be questioned and severely scrutinized and rightfully so. It’s one thing if you mishandled evidence it is completely different if you did something with that same evidence to try and prove a point. And then if you try to bring that to court you have committed a crime at least tampering with evidence if not an obstruction of justice charge. Fred Dannen is no dummy, once he heard the State was going to question how he handled the evidence he knew it was better for him to get out of Dodge. Maybe it’s better for him to stay in Mexico and play his music. I would still like for him to write his book. But in the end that will just be his opinion not proof. What proof did Dannen have, it seems no one knows, not even people he discussed it with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I were sitting in the jury box I would still have to say Muneer Deeb and David Spence are guilty. IMO Muneer Deeb was all about money and thought he could pay for anything he wanted and when he didn’t get what he wanted he thought he could have it paid for to be taken care of. David Spence sounds like a violent psychopath, Christine is lucky to be alive. Was she David’s last girlfriend? I do have one question did David Spence ever account for his time that night or say where he was?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Vero, If I’m not mistaken David Spence said he was at the lake but not at Koehne Park, I think he said he was at Airport Park. And Christine was his last girlfriend but definitely not the last girl or person he roughed up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jwb73….Dannen made the statement that he felt threatened by a statement Truman Simon’s made to him during an interview in Simon’s office. He also stated that he wanted to complete his book without any trouble from Simons, Feazell, and a few others. That happened in 2001.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I honestly don’t have a clue .. I do not believe DWS is innocent in the least . But he is guilty of so much. As are the brothers . So I don’t feel the conviction was wasted .. BUT that being said I do believe there was enough evidence that (had it been anyone else) there should have been re-trials.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jwb73. Are you saying it was the “bad” reputation and background that kept those people from being retried? Were there errors in the proceedings , or perhaps the bad bitemark evidence that could have given Anthony Melendez a retrial before he died last January?
I’m saying U believe people lied during the trials on ALL sides… Also I also believe Simons had tunnel vision.. im saying there is definitely reasonable doubt ..
But I’m also saying with ALL we know Spence and the brothers WERE guilty of , they deserved what they got ..
I have another question ( I was very young when this all happened ) WHAT is it that Dannen is supposedly so afraid of?? I’ve read several accounts , but don’t get exactly what scared him off the trail??
LikeLiked by 1 person
OOPS I meant to say in the previous comment I believe .. Did not mean “U” .. sorry for typo
Jwb73….Dannen made the statement that he felt threatened by a statement Truman Simon’s made to him during an interview in Simon’s office. He also stated that he wanted to complete his book without any trouble from Simons, Feazell, and a few others. That happened in 2001.
Here is the Court’s findings for Spence’s last appeal in 1996:
David Wayne SPENCE, Petitioner-Appellant,
Gary L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 94-20212, 94-20213.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 29, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
In 1982, David Wayne Spence tortured and stabbed to death three teenagers in Waco, Texas. He has been convicted and sentenced to die for two of the murders in Texas courts and has been denied habeas corpus relief by the federal district court. Spence now seeks relief from this court. We find no reversible error and affirm.
On the morning of July 13, 1982, Jill Montgomery and Raylene Rice drove to Waco to pick up and cash Jill’s paycheck from the Fort Fisher Ranger Museum and to meet their friend Kenneth Franks. Later that day, the three drove to Koehne Park, located on the banks of Lake Waco.
They were never seen alive again by their loved ones. Their bodies were found in a wooded area of Speegleville Park, across the lake from Koehne Park, a day later. Their last moments are recorded in the record of the two trials.
After arriving at the park, Kenneth, Jill, and Raylene encountered Spence and his cohorts, Anthony (Tony) and Gilbert Melendez. The six “hung out” together for some time drinking beer and smoking marijuana joints. After a few hours, in the evening, Spence persuaded the group to go to a convenience store and buy more beer. En route in his car, Spence attempted to grab Jill’s breast. When she resisted, they argued heatedly. Spence then warned Kenneth and Jill he was going to “get even” with them “for some dope that he [Kenneth) had burned me for.” Kenneth denied he had “burned” Spence for anything.
Instead of driving to the convenience store, Spence turned and drove back into a wooded area in Koehne Park. After everyone got out of the car, he produced a knife and in vile terms ordered Jill and Raylene to undress. The girls immediately complied. Spence then forced Jill to walk with him to another part of the park. Gilbert ordered Raylene to get into the car. Gilbert then raped her.
Spence told Anthony to bring Kenneth, forcibly, to where he was with Jill, so that Kenneth could watch him rape Jill. Spence forced Jill to the ground, sat on her legs, and rubbed her breasts with his knife. He then raped her while Kenneth and Anthony watched. After Spence finished, Anthony traded places with him and raped Jill. Spence marched Kenneth back to the car where he raped Raylene.
After this rape, Spence returned to Jill. He cut her breasts and repeatedly stabbed her. At some point, Spence bit off one of Jill’s nipples. He then handed his knife to Anthony, telling him to stab Jill. When Spence believed that Anthony was not properly stabbing her, Spence took back his knife and finally inflicted the lethal wounds.
Spence then returned to the car and stabbed Kenneth to death. After this second murder, Spence grabbed Raylene and repeatedly stabbed her. He also ordered Tony to stab her. He then bit her body several times and rammed a piece of wood –which he referred to as his “lovestick” — into her vagina.
While Spence remained with the bodies, Anthony and Gilbert drove to Spence’s mother’s home and exchanged the car for Gilbert’s pick-up truck. During their absence, Spence bound the bodies. When the Melendezes returned, the trio threw the bodies into the back of the truck and, at Spence’s direction, drove to Speegleville Park. They dumped the dead teenagers’ bodies apart from each other in an off-the-road area. In placing Kenneth’s body, Spence boasted to Tony that the police “were going to freak out when they find this boy because he will be sitting up.” Spence and the Melendez brothers divided up several hundred dollars Spence had taken from Jill’s wallet.
The tortured bodies of Jill, Raylene, and Kenneth were found the next day.
From the federal habeas record, it transpires that intensive investigation of the highly publicized murders yielded no clear suspects, leading the Waco Police Department to reduce the case to inactive status in September. That is to say, the department no longer committed extraordinary resources to the case. One dogged police officer, Truman Simons, volunteered to pursue the investigation and continued to work on it even after he changed jobs and became a jailer employed by the McLennan County Sheriffs Office. After January 1993 [sic], a newly elected district attorney, Vic Feazell, encouraged the investigation. By late March 1993 [sic], Simons persuaded Gilbert Melendez to confess his involvement and that of Spence in the crimes. Gilbert and Anthony Melendez, Spence and Muneer Deeb were indicted for the capital murders in November 1983. Spence was tried first in McLennan County for killing Jill, while his second capital murder prosecution was moved to Brazos County. The evidence in the two trials differs somewhat, as will be described below.
II. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
In July 1984, Spence was convicted in the 54th Judicial District Court of McLennan County for the capital murder of Jill Montgomery. Following a separate punishment hearing, the jury affirmatively answered the court’s special issues required by the former Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071. Accordingly, the court sentenced Spence to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Spence’s conviction and sentence, Spence v. Texas, 795 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Crim. App.1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 932, 111 S.Ct. 1339, 113 L.Ed.2d 271(1991). Spence then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus with the convicting court. The court adopted the State’s response as its findings and recommended relief be denied. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief based on the trial court’s findings, Ex parte Spence, Application No. 15,346-03 (Dec. 12, 1991).
In September 1985, Spence was convicted after a change of venue in the 85th Judicial District Court of Brazos County for the capital murder of Kenneth Franks. Again, after a separate punishment hearing, Spence was sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, Spence v. Texas, No. 69,554 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1239,111 S.Ct 2875, 115 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1991). Spence’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals based on the trial court’s recommendation. Ex parte Spence, Application No. 15,346-03 (Dec. 12, 1991).
In December 1991, Spence filed federal petitions for writ of habeas corpus regarding each conviction and sentence. The petitions were assigned to one judge. After reviewing his allegations in each case, the court denied the petitions in separate opinions and orders dated April 29, 1992. Spence filed a voluminous motion to alter or amend the judgments.
The district court consolidated its proceedings and ordered an evidentiary hearing on Spence’s allegations that the State had suppressed material exculpatory evidence. The parties agreed the best way to develop the evidentiary record was through depositions and affidavits, followed by massive briefing and oral argument. Numerous depositions were taken and numerous affidavits submitted. After the hearing, the district court re-entered, with very brief opinions, its earlier judgments denying habeas corpus relief.
This court granted certificates of probable cause to appeal, heard consolidated oral argument, and treats both cases in this opinion. For convenience, the claims raised in the Kenneth Franks case are discussed first, followed by the Jill Montgomery case issues.
 This court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions de novo, applying the same standard as the district court, and its factual conclusions for clear error. Amos v. Scott, 61 F.3d 333, 337-38 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 557, 133 L.Ed.2d 458 (1995) (citations omitted). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed.” In re Henderson, 18 F.3d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 573,130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
A. Spence’s Claims Regarding Kenneth Franks’s Murder
Critical to evaluating Spence’s claims is a general understanding of the evidence offered at the trial for capital murder of Kenneth Franks.
By the time of the Kenneth Franks trial, both Gilbert and Tony Melendez had agreed to testify for the state, each having pled guilty to two life sentences while the third capital murder indictment hung over their heads. The State introduced expert evidence identifying Spence as the source of Jill’s bite injuries.
The State also offered incriminating statements Spence had made to Regina Rosenbaum and inmate David Puryear. Spence’s defense was predicated on the lack of conventional demonstrative evidence connecting him to the crime; the internal and mutual inconsistencies in the testimony and statements of Gilbert and Tony Melendez; the asserted lack of corroborating evidence for the Melendez brothers’ version of events; and the unreliability of the State’s forensic odontology evidence. The defense also sought to show that Gilbert’s truck was inoperable on the night of the crimes and that people present in Koehne Park that evening did not recall seeing Spence’s group with the victims.
Challenging the constitutionality of his conviction, Spence contends that (1) the State failed to disclose some benefits Gilbert Melendez received for his testimony; (2) the State knowingly presented perjured testimony from Gilbert and David Puryear; (3) the State suppressed Waco Police Department reports from citizens who believed they possessed evidence linking other persons to the murders; (4) the federal district court erred in not granting a hearing on the reliability of the State’s odontology evidence; and (5) the district court failed to evaluate the cumulative effect of the above violations.
1. Gilbert Melendez’s Testimony
Spence argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose certain privileges and benefits Gilbert Melendez received in exchange for his testimony. The standards for a Brady violation are well settled. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. The Court further established in Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154-55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), that:
“when the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the general rule of Brady…. Here, the Government’s case depended almost entirely on [one witness’s] testimony. [The person’s] credibility as a witness was therefore an important issue in the case, and evidence of any understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution would be relevant to his credibility and the jury was entitled to know of it.”
Id. at 154-55, 92 S.Ct. at 766.
 To establish a Brady claim, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence, (2) the evidence was favorable to the petitioner, and (3) the evidence was material. U.S. v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748, 756 (5th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). In assessing the materiality of suppressed evidence, the Supreme Court explained that “evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). “A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id., at 682, 105 S.Ct. at 3383. Recently, the Court further observed that a “reasonable probability” of a different result is shown when the non-disclosure “could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the jury verdict.” Kyles v. Whitley, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (footnote omitted). “[A] showing of materiality does not require demonstration by a preponderance that disclosure of the suppressed evidence would have resulted ultimately in the defendant’s acquittal.” Id. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1566. Finally, the materiality inquiry is applied to “the suppressed evidence collectively, not item-by-item.” Id. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1567.
 Fifth Circuit decisions have expanded upon these statements, holding that “[t]he materiality of Brady evidence depends almost entirely on the value of the evidence relative to the other evidence mustered by the State.” Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950,967 (5th Cir.1990), judgment vacated on other grounds, 503 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 1463, 117 L.Ed.2d 609 (1992). “[W]hen the testimony of a witness who might have been impeached is strongly corroborated by additional evidence supporting a guilty verdict, the undisclosed evidence is generally not found to be material.” Wilson v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 433,439 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 754,130 L.Ed.2d 653 (1994). Similarly, when the undisclosed evidence is merely cumulative of other evidence, no Brady violation occurs. See Allridge v. Scott 41 F.3d 213, 218 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1959, 131 L.Ed.2d 851(1995).
 Regarding Gilbert Melendez, Spence complains that the State failed to disclose that (a) Gilbert’s initial cooperation was induced by the prosecution’s insinuation that he could be granted immunity from prosecution for truthfully assisting the state; (b) the then-district attorney Feazell and investigator Simons orally promised not to oppose Gilbert’s release on parole; and (c) Gilbert received special privileges with his girlfriend while in the McLennan county jail leading up to his trial testimony. Because the State does not deny the nondisclosure of this information, the issue before this court is whether the evidence is material. Like the district court, we conclude it is not. Before addressing Spence’s specific allegations, it is important to set forth several overriding considerations against finding the undisclosed evidence to be material.
First, Gilbert’s testimony was supported by other evidence presented at Spence’s trial. Gilbert’s eyewitness-testimony was closely corroborated by his brother Tony, whose testimony has not been attacked at all by Spence. It was also consistent with the State’s autopsy reports, [footnote: 1. Gilbert testified, for instance, about Spence’s use of the “lovestick”, which inflicted injury consistent with the vaginal injuries observed on Raylene.], the testimony of Regina Ann Rosenbaum and David Puryear [footnote: 2. At Spence’s direction, Puryear, a fellow inmate, decorated a bandana for Spence with pictures of a blonde and a brunette girl, like the victims, and a knife.], and the odontological evidence [footnote: 3. We later address Spence’s challenges to some of this evidence and his contention that Gilbert’s and Puryear’s testimonies were fabricated.].
Second, the undisclosed evidence is cumulative of other evidence impeaching Gilbert. Gilbert admitted at trial his prior convictions for assault with intent to murder and aggravated sexual assault, both of which resulted in prison terms. Gilbert further testified that he had been charged with three counts of capital murder for the deaths of Jill, Raylene, and Kenneth. He stated that he had received two life sentences in prison in exchange for his testimony against Spence, and that he had accepted the plea bargain to avoid facing the death penalty.
Also at trial, Spence’s lawyer questioned Gilbert extensively about inconsistencies between his testimony and statements made to investigators about the crimes in March and April, 1983. Gilbert conceded that portions of his previous statements relating details of the murders had not been true, in part because he was initially concealing his brother’s role. Thus, the jury was amply informed about Gilbert’s criminal record, his inconsistent statements, and his motives for testifying. Defense counsel emphasized Gilbert’s untrustworthiness in closing arguments.
Third, the State presented other evidence of Spence’s guilt. Most prominent was the testimony of Tony Melendez to essentially the same gruesome facts of the murders. Consistent with the Melendez brothers’ testimony of the manner of the victims’ deaths, the Dallas County medical examiner testified that Jill, Raylene, and Kenneth had sustained multiple stab wounds and that the bite marks on Jill’s and Raylene’s bodies had been inflicted near the time of their deaths.
Also, the State presented evidence that Spence had made general admissions of guilt soon after the murders. A few weeks after the murders, he told Regina Ann Rosenbaum and others present in his apartment that he had taken some girls to Lake Waco and raped them; no other similar crime was reported to police. Spence told David Puryear that he had committed the Lake Waco murders and was glad he had done so. Further, the State’s forensic odontological expert concluded that the bite marks on Jill’s and Raylene’s bodies were inflicted by Spence. Even Spence’s rebuttal expert in this field could not rule out the possibility that Spence’s teeth caused the wounds, although he believed there was too little evidence to support a firm conclusion.
[5-7] Keeping in mind the general state of the evidence, we address Spence’s specific Brady arguments regarding Gilbert Melendez. [footnote: 4. Repeatedly, Spence asserts that because the federal district court did not specifically address certain underlying facts related to his claims, e.g. the potential offer of immunity to Gilbert or the photos of Gilbert and his girlfriend in the D.A.’s office, the court did not adequately analyze the case. We strenuously disagree.
The court took extraordinary measures in permitting Spence to embark on voluminous discovery pursuant to his motions for new trial after the court’s first opinions in these habeas cases were written. Detailed additional briefing was undertaken. The court held a hearing on the post-trial motions and then concluded that his original opinions were still valid. The record reflects the court’s efforts to uncover, not obfuscate, the facts. That his conclusions on rehearing do not mirror the vehemence of Spence’s arguments is no criticism of their ultimate accuracy.]
(i) Spence contends that the State violated Brady by not disclosing its initial “overtures” of immunity, which induced Gilbert to testify against him. This argument is unpersuasive.
As the federal habeas testimony shows, the State’s initial immunity offer to Gilbert was based on his telling the complete truth about the murders. Gilbert admits that he did not tell the complete truth in his early statements and thus foreclosed any chance of immunity. Having misled the police in his early statements, Gilbert was left with two choices: he could refuse to cooperate and face prosecutions for capital murder, or he could plea bargain and avoid the death penalty. Gilbert chose the latter course and explained his plea bargain to the jury. Even if the state’s overture toward immunity might have influenced Gilbert’s decision to make his initial statements, that effect could hardly be considered material to the jury’s consideration of his truthfulness after they had learned of his plea bargain. Any hint that Gilbert might have originally falsely incriminated himself had vanished.
(ii) Spence next argues the State violated Brady by not disclosing that Truman Simons, then a deputy sheriff, and Vic Feazell, then the district attorney of McLennan County, orally promised they would not oppose Gilbert’s release on parole from his two concurrent life sentences in prison. The state now concedes that such oral promises were made and have been complied with by those two individuals. Nevertheless, the fact that such promises were made is not material on the record before us.
No reasonable jury would have believed Gilbert fabricated his testimony — incriminating himself and his brother in kidnapping, rape, and murder — and pleaded guilty to two life sentences in prison based on oral promises that two individuals would not oppose his parole efforts some time inthe distant future. Such promises were hardly a guarantee that Melendez would be paroled, nor did they bind future McLennan County officials.
(iii) Spence’s last assertion, concerning the State’s failure to disclose that Gilbert received unsupervised visits with his girlfriend while in the McLennan County jail, is also without merit. Even if the allegations are true, no reasonable jury would have believed that Gilbert fabricated his testimony and statements given over the course of two and a half years, from March 1983 to trial in September 1985, just to receive a few conjugal visits. This evidence is not material
2. Perjury Allegations
Spence contends the State violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), by failing to correct perjured testimony given by Gilbert and David Puryear. In Napue, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor’s knowing use of, or deliberate failure to correct, perjured testimony, violates a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. 360 U.S. at 271, 79 S.Ct. at 1178-79.
However, the Supreme Court also established that a defendant will only receive a new trial if there is a reasonable likelihood that evidence of the perjury would have affected the guilty verdict. U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that neither Gilbert’s nor Puryear’s trial testimony was perjured. Further, we conclude that Spence’s claims, even if proven, would have not have affected the jury’s verdict.
a. Gilbert’s Testimony
 Spence argues Gilbert’s trial testimony was perjured because he told an extravagant tale in his 1993 federal habeas deposition concerning how then-deputy sheriff Simons helped him fabricate his statements, changing the details of the murders allegedly to match revelations in the ongoing investigation. The district court was unpersuaded that perjury had been promoted, and so are we. First, as has been repeated, Gilbert’s trial testimony incriminated himself and his brother for multiple murders, kidnappings, and rapes, for which they each received two life sentences in prison. The third capital murder indictment remains outstanding. It seems highly unlikely that Gilbert, having accepted such consequences as these, would retain any incentive to fabricate his testimony about the murders.
Second, that Gilbert’s 1993 deposition was given under oath is not dispositive. His trial testimony was also sworn. Given these conflicting sworn statements, the district court did not clearly err in finding the trial testimony more convincing. The Fifth Circuit has often noted that “[r]ecanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extreme suspicion by the courts.” May v. Collins, 955 F.2d 299, 314 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 504 U.S.901, 112 S.Ct. 1925, 118 L.Ed.2d 533 (1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Third, the differences between Gilbert’s and Tony’s trial testimony only concern details of their involvement in the murders, leading even Spence, in his appellate brief, to concede their similarity in relating the basic course of events. Spence’s hideous cruelty permeates the testimony of each man in graphic and startlingly parallel particulars, e.g. Spence’s systematic torture of Jill, the tag team rapes of both girls, Spence’s insistence that Kenneth watch as he raped Jill, and Spence’s gleefully sitting Kenneth’s body upright at Speegleville Park.
From the discrepancies in Gilbert’s and Tony’s testimony, one could more reasonably conclude that there was no fabrication. If Simons or Feazell had masterminded a conspiracy falsely to convict Spence, surely their efforts would have been designed to harmonize the brothers’ versions of the murders as closely as possible. Fourth, as Gilbert’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence presented at Spence’s trial, the probability that the state knowingly presented false testimony further diminishes.
b. David Puryear’s Testimony
 Spence contends Puryear’s trial testimony that Spence told him to draw on a bandana a picture of a knife and two girls — one blonde like Raylene and one brunette like Jill — was perjured. [footnote: 5. Spence’s brief does not charge that Puryear lied in quoting Spence’s admission that he committed the Lake Waco murders.]
We conclude the district court’s factual finding that Puryear did not commit perjury is not clearly erroneous. Spence bases his assertion on an affidavit from Puryear’s former brother-in-law, Steve Moore, stating that Puryear told Moore he had lied at Spence’s trial. [footnote: 6. Contrary to Spence’s assumption, the district court did not make a factual finding that Moore’s account was the correct version of events or that Puryear lied at Spence’s trial.] Not only does this affidavit relate inadmissible hearsay, but the record shows Puryear wrote an unsolicited letter to prosecutor Ned Butler stating his willingness to testify against Spence. Puryear’s letter asserted he was not seeking any “deal” for his testimony. Spence’s argument that Puryear committed perjury because he did not tell the Waco police about the bandana when initially interviewed is also not dispositive. The omission does not prove he lied at trial, but may only demonstrate he was reluctant to “get involved” when first approached. See Smith v. Black; 904 F.2d at 961.
3. Police Reports
Spence contends that the State violated Brady by not disclosing Waco Police Department reports that might have implicated other persons in the murders, and that the district court applied erroneous standards in evaluating this argument. We reject these contentions.
a. Standard of Materiality
 Before considering materiality, we address the district court’s legal approach. The district court concluded that the undisclosed evidence was not material because under Texas law it would not have been admissible at trial. The Fifth Circuit has expressly found otherwise in Sellers v. Estelle:
In addressing the issue of materiality, the Magistrate found that [statements in police reports] would have been inadmissible, hence these reports were immaterial. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. First, by enabling the defense to examine these reports, [the petitioner] may have been able to produce witnesses whose testimony or written statements may have been admissible. Second, the evidence here suppressed was material to the preparation of the petitioner’s defense, regardless of whether it intended to be admitted into evidence or not. 651 F.2d 1074, 1077 n. 6 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 927, 102 S.Ct. 1292, 71 L.Ed.2d 472 (1982) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, the court’s error was harmless, as will be seen.
Second, Spence contends the district court erred in interpreting Brady’s materiality standard as a result-oriented inquiry. The Supreme Court recently clarified that Brady is not a sufficiency of evidence test:
Bagley’s touchstone of materiality is a “reasonable probability” of a different result, and the adjective is important. The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. A “reasonable probability” of a different result is accordingly shown when the Government’s evidentiary suppression “undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.”
Kyles, — U.S. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Taken as a whole, the district court’s opinion did not narrow the Brady standard. The court’s analysis begins, at page 2, by quoting Bagley to require a petitioner “to show that the suppressed evidence is material in that ‘there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different’ (emphasis added and citation omitted).” We have no reason to believe the court deviated from this standard simply because he repeated it in a shortened version later in the opinion, doubtless, it seemed needlessly repetitious to include the entire Brady materiality formula in discussing each of Spence’s claims.
Spence focuses on undisclosed police reports that implicated Terry (“Tab”) Harper as a suspect, and suggested that a drug deal motivated Kenneth’s murder. [footnote: 7. Spence also contends the state violated Brady by not disclosing police reports containing statements by persons in Koehne Park the night of the murder stating that they did not see Spence or the Melendez brothers or hear any screams. This evidence is not material because, at most, it would have been cumulative of defense testimony at trial from several people who had visited the park and neither noticed the defendants nor heard screams.]
b. Reports on Terry “Tab” Harper
 Spence contends the State violated Brady by suppressing Waco Police Department reports indicating Terry “Tab” Harper was a suspect. We reject this claim; information in the police reports, even if admissible evidence, does not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. While Spence’s argument accepts as true all of the reports that tried to link Harper to the murders, it ignores contradictory reports. The investigating officers, whose depositions are in the federal habeas record, unanimously concluded that the murders were not drug-related, that they were not consistent with Harper’s prior criminal behavior, and/or that he had an alibi.
Harper was well-known as a bully, and the officers testified that whenever a high-profile crime occurred locally, young people would call the police station and associate Harper with the incident. Harper was brought to the police station and questioned about the Lake Waco murders but then released for lack of evidence. Spence highlights reports made to the police by two witnesses to whom Harper allegedly bragged about killing someone, but the reports furnish no other “evidence” of Harper’s involvement. In short, had Spence been given these police records and presented his theory regarding Harper at his trial, the State could have countered with other facts exonerating Harper. Thus, nondisclosure of the Tab Harper reports does not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict; the information
is not material.
c. Kenneth Franks’s Alleged Drug Use
 Spence next argues the State violated Brady by failing to disclose police reports suggesting that Kenneth Franks was in debt over drugs and was a “known drug associate” of Harper. These reports, inadmissible by themselves, are not material and would not have supported a defense theory that the murders reflect a failed drug deal. Spence’s argument again ignores reports and evidence that contradicted his drug deal theory.
The autopsy report indicated no evidence of drugs in Kenneth’s body, and the police could not find any persons who would verify that Kenneth was a drug dealer or a customer or supplier of Tab Harper. The police unanimously concluded the murders were not drug-related, because of their viciousness and the fact that the bodies were not hidden or disposed of. Spence’s assertions that Koehne Park was a location known for teenage drug use and that Jill had cashed her paycheck before going to the park hardly raise an inference that Kenneth was murdered because of drugs.
d. Cumulative Effects of Suppressed Information
[13,14] Kyles reminds us that the determination of the materiality of withheld evidence must be made “collectively, not item-by-item.” Kyles — U.S. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1567. So that no misunderstanding arises, we have considered cumulatively the significance of the withheld evidence — Gilbert Melendez’s benefits for testifying, police reports on Tab Harper, reports on Kenneth Franks’s status as a drug user and on Koehne Park witnesses — against the state’s total case on Spence.
In stark distinction to the result of such a comparison in Kyles, the defense does not profit here. The strength of Tony Melendez’s testimony is unchallenged, while that of Gilbert is only somewhat weakened. Spence’s statements against penal interest to Rosenbaum and Puryear remain unassailed, while the status of hotly contested bite injury testimony is not changed. Without credible support, the Kenneth Franks-as-drug-dealer scenario could easily have backfired on the defense as a shoddy tactic to blacken the victim’s reputation.
The police set no store by the reports of Tab Harper’s involvement after they investigated it; there is no reason to suspect defense counsel could have challenged their work based only on innuendo from the police reports. The Koehne Park witnesses would have repeated testimony that came out at Spence’s trial through other visitors to the park. Kyles presents a wholly different picture on the cumulative effect of withheld testimony. As the court summed up the withheld evidence there:
But confidence that the verdict would have been unaffected cannot survive when suppressed evidence would have entitled a jury to find that the eyewitnesses were not consistent in describing the killer, that two out of the four eyewitnesses testifying were unreliable, that the most damning physical evidence was subject to suspicion, that the investigation that produced it was insufficiently probing, and that the principal police witness was insufficiently in-formed or candid.
— U.S. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1575. The jury, the Court believed, might legitimately have been led to wonder whether Kyles or his erstwhile friend “Beanie,” the voluntary police informant, was best situated to have committed murder. In this case, the withheld “evidence” is of a decidedly less significant cast, and, even if disclosed, it would not have undermined Tony’s testimony and other evidence already recited. We do not believe that the cumulative effect on Spence’s defense of withheld information was reasonably likely to have affected the jury verdict.
4. Odontological Evidence
Spence argues that the district court erred in not holding a hearing on his challenge to the admission of testimony by the State’s forensic odontologist, Dr. Homer Campbell, and that it erred in excluding Spence’s expert reports challenging Dr. Campbell’s testimony. We reject these arguments.
 To receive an evidentiary hearing, a habeas corpus petitioner must allege facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Lavernia v. Lynaugh, 845 F.2d 493, 501 (5th Cir.1988). “The court need not blindly accept speculative and inconcrete claims as the basis to order a hearing.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Nor is a hearing required when the record is complete or the petitioner raises only legal claims that can be resolved without the taking of additional evidence.” Id.
 Spence contends that, because he submitted materials challenging Dr. Campbell’s methodology and conclusions, the district court should have held a hearing to determine whether the admission of Dr. Campbell’s testimony violated the Eight Amendment’s requirement of “heightened reliability” under Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988). Johnson is, however, inapplicable to the instant case. In Johnson, the Supreme Court vacated the death sentence because the jury had been allowed to consider evidence that was false. Id. at 585, 108 S.Ct. at 1986 (emphasis added). [footnote: 8. Furthermore, in Johnson, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the false evidence was “the sole piece of documentary evidence of any relevance to [the State’s] sentencing decision.” Id. at 585, 108 S.Ct. at 1986. In the instant case, much other evidence demonstrated Spence’s guilt.] In the instant case, Spence does not raise a question over whether Dr. Campbell’s testimony is false, but rather over what weight the jury should have accorded his testimony. Spence’s argument that Dr. Campbell had misidentified the remains of another woman likewise does not expose his testimony against Spence as false.
Spence is simply trying to relitigate this aspect of his defense eleven years too late. At trial, Spence introduced his own forensic odontologist, Dr. Gerald Vale, a leading expert in the field. Dr. Vale spiritedly criticized Dr. Campbell’s methodology and conclusions, although, critically, Dr. Vale admitted he could not rule out Spence’s teeth as the source of the bite marks. Because this evidentiary issue was fully and competently aired in the state courts, no violation of fundamental fairness under the due process clause has been shown. Bailey v. Procunier, 744 F.2d 1166, 1168 (5th
 Alternatively, Spence argues that the federal district court erred in excluding reports from five other expert odontologists who concluded that Dr. Campbell’s testimony was unreliable. But because Spence filed these reports after the district court’s discovery deadline, without explanation for his untimely filing, the district court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to admit the reports.
5. Cumulative Error Doctrine
[18,19] Finally, we reject Spence’s argument that he is entitled to relief for the “cumulative errors” in his trial. The cumulative error doctrine provides relief only when the constitutional errors committed in the state trial court so “fatally infected the trial” that they violated the trial’s “fundamental fairness.” Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453, 1457 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2928, 124 L.Ed.2d 679 (1993). “Few defendants, however, will succeed in demonstrating on collateral review that their prosecutions merited such condemnation…. We therefore have defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly.” Id. (citations omitted). In determining whether the cumulative error doctrine provides relief, we must “review the record as a whole to determine whether the errors more likely than not caused a suspect verdict.” Id. at 1458.
 In the instant case, Spence cannot demonstrate he was deprived of a fundamentally fair trial. First, the undisclosed evidence undermining Gilbert Melendez’s credibility is not material. The jury would not have reasonably believed Gilbert falsely incriminated himself in the murders, for which he accepted two life sentences in prison. Second, Spence failed to establish his claims that Gilbert’s testimony was fabricated or that the state knowingly presented false testimony of Puryear. Third, Spence failed to establish that police reports mentioning other suspects could reasonably undermine the jury’s verdict. Fourth, the admission of Dr. Campbell’s testimony did not violate the Eighth Amendment or due process. Fifth, the trial record reviewed as a whole does not suggest the jury’s verdict is suspect.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment denying Spence habeas corpus relief regarding his conviction and sentence for Kenneth Franks’s murder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Part II: B. Spence’s Claims Regarding Jill Montgomery’s Murder
Because the evidence at this trial was different from that in the later capital murder trial, a brief summary is necessary to place Spence’s claims in perspective. No eyewitness or codefendant testimony was offered in the first prosecution; Gilbert and Antonio [sic] Melendez had not yet pleaded guilty. Instead, the state built its case around the theory of a failed murder-for-hire plot spawned by Muneer Deeb, co-owner of a Waco convenience store, to avenge his jealousy over 16-year-old Gayle Kelley. Evidence suggested that Spence, Deeb’s friend, was persuaded to attempt to kill Gayle so that Deeb could cash in an accidental death insurance policy Deeb had recently purchased on Gayle. Murder victim Kenneth Franks was in fact a close friend of Gayle and an antagonist of Deeb; had Gayle not unexpectedly been placed on restriction at the Methodist Home in Waco, she testified, she almost certainly would have been at Lake Waco with Kenneth on the fatal evening. Other testimony suggested that Gayle resembled victim Jill Montgomery and that Spence, though he knew of Gayle from Deeb, did not necessarily know her on sight.
As the defense rightly pointed out, no hair or fiber evidence from the victims was ever tied to Spence or his automobile. The only forensic evidence against him was the hotly disputed testimony of the state’s odontologist that Spence’s teeth produced the bite injuries on Jill and Raylene. Instead, the bulk of the state’s case rested on incriminating statements from Spence himself.
About 1:30 a.m. the night of the murders, Spence told two acquaintances that he had been at the lake or that he had been with Tony earlier that evening. After the murders, Spence appeared depressed, was drinking heavily and obliquely confessed to his friend Dorothy Miles that he cut someone and might have killed someone. Witnesses who contributed to the murder-for-hire theory included Karim Qasem, the co-owner of the convenience store with Deeb, and Spence’s co-worker Ray Payne and his wife. Spence and Deeb argued loudly in front of Payne and Qasem about the murder of a girl named Gayle later in the summer, 1992: Spence was accusing Deeb because he incorrectly thought the victim was Gayle Kelly. Spence told Regina Rosenbaum within a few weeks after the Lake Waco murders that he and his friends had raped two girls out at Lake Waco.
Significant reinforcement of the state’s case was provided by seven men who were inmates with Spence, five of them in the McLennan County jail from September 1982 to March 1983, and two others, Snelson and Ivy, at TDC later. At trial, the inmate witnesses all testified to highly incriminating statements of various sorts made by Spence, and they all denied receiving any promises or inducements to testify.
Inmate David Puryear described the bandana Spence asked him to decorate and said that Spence told him he had committed the Lake Waco murders and enjoyed doing it. Spence’s defense consisted of an attack on the weaknesses of the murder-for-hire theory, eg. the fact that the accidental life insurance policy would not pay Deeb in the event of Gayle’s murder, and the possibility that Spence knew Gayle on sight and could not have accidentally killed Jill instead. Spence’s attorneys tried to minimize the incriminating effect of statements to Dorothy Miles, Regina Rosenbaum and David Puryear.
They vigorously cross-examined the inmate witnesses about the likelihood of deals received from the prosecution. They showed, for instance, that Jennings just happened to keep notes of his conversations with David Spence — and David Spence only — on a legal pad in his cell. They intimated that Sypho had received a more lenient sentence than he ought to for being a four-time felony convict. They suggested that Jordan had been let out of prison soon after he gave a statement against Spence. And they used Puryear’s testimony about the bandana, among other things, to intimate that Truman Simons was planting rumors in the McLennan County jail that effectively acquainted many of the inmates with facts about the Lake Waco murders and enabled them to concoct stories about Spence. Finally, they pointed out the patent inconsistencies between the testimony of Snelson and Ivy concerning their motive for talking with Spence about the crimes. [footnote: 9. The defense attempted to offer testimony that two other men, James Bishop and Ronnie Breiton [sic], could have committed the murders. This attempt fell apart because Breiten’s accuser, his stepmother, testified outside the presence of the jury one day and, recanting her earlier statements, refused to testify at all the next day. The state trial court was not persuaded that the defense had offered evidence sufficient to connect Bishop or Breiten to each other, much less to the Lake Waco murders.]
Regarding his capital conviction for Jill Montgomery’s murder, Spence principally contends that (1) the State failed to disclose that inmates testifying against him received special privileges in exchange for this cooperation; (2) the State knowingly presented false testimony from the inmates; (3) the State suppressed evidence implicating other persons in the murders; and (4) the district court failed to evaluate the cumulative effectof the above violations. He also repeats the argument, dealt with above, that the federal district court erred in not granting a hearing on the admission of the State’s forensic odontologist’s testimony.
1. Inmate Witnesses
Spence contends that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose that the inmate witnesses were given special privileges for their testimony against him, and that the district court applied erroneous standards in evaluating the materiality of this suppressed evidence.
 In its opinion in this case, more than in the companion case, the district court seems to emphasize a result-oriented approach to materiality under Brady. As we have noted, Kyles re-emphasized that the proper question is whether there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence could have affected the verdict. Kyles, — U.S. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 1566. To the extent the district court erred in applying the standard, however, the error is harmless. Spence also contends the district court erred by conducting a “piecemeal” analysis of his Brady claims. While it is true that Brady violations must be considered for their cumulative effect on the jury verdict, Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir.1985) [sic]. Spence’s piecemeal argument is erroneously premised on his contention that all seven inmate witnesses received undisclosed privileges for their testimonies. The district court rejected Spence’s claims concerning Puryear and Sypho, and Spence omits to mention that he did not assert that James Jordan ever received undisclosed benefits or privileges. The magnitude of cumulative Brady error is much smaller than Spence would have us believe.
 Spence alleges the State violated Brady by failing to disclose that the inmates who testified against him were given special privileges — such as conjugal visits, the ability to keep food, alcohol, and drugs in their jail cells, access to “free world” food and cigarettes, recommendations of leniency, and assistance in gaining admission into the Federal Witness Protection Plan — in exchange for their testimony. At trial, each of the seven inmate witnesses denied having received any privileges for his testimony. Six years later, two of these witnesses recanted their testimony, claiming in affidavits or depositions that they and other inmates received such benefits. The district court found that only David Snelson and Jesse Ivy received undisclosed privileges. The court specifically rejected claims that David Puryear and Charles Sypho received undisclosed inducements to testify. [footnote: 10. Spence’s broad complaint that the district court could not make credibility findings about the inmate witnesses because it conducted a “paper hearing,” is without merit. Through his counsel, Spence had agreed the best way to develop the evidentiary record for the hearing was through depositions and affidavits. He cannot now complain about this method. We also note that “the concerns about the inadequacy of ‘trial by affidavit’ are even more diminished in the context of a factual dispute rooted in witnesses’ claims that they perjured themselves at trial.” May v. Collins, 955 F.2d at 314.]
[23,24] At the outset, we reiterate that “recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extreme suspicion by the courts.” Id. (citations omitted). “In the [Fifth] [C]ircuit, a federal district judge, faced with a motion for a new trial predicated upon the contention that a witness has provided a recanting affidavit, must compare the trial record with the affidavit of recantation and determine for himself whether the affidavit is worthy of belief.” Id. In the instant case, the trial record shows that both the prosecution and Spence’s counsel questioned each inmate and former inmate extensively about any agreements with the State. [footnote: 11. By the time of trial, Jennings, Jordan and Beckham had all been released from prison, while Puryear, Sypho, Ivy and Snelson were still incarcerated.] Each witness claimed he had received nothing for his testimony. That some of these witnesses — Snelson, Ivy, and some other inmates who did not testify, now claim that the testifying inmates received privileges for their testimony does not make it so. Further, the law enforcement officers’ testimony about special privileges is conflicting. Given the competing testimony, it would be difficult to hold the district court’s factual findings clearly erroneous.
The court’s treatment of Charles Sypho is illuminating: Spence alleged that, Sypho received conjugal visits with his wife in exchange for his testimony against Spence. Spence bases this claim on affidavits from other inmates. Sypho, though, testified at Spence’s trial that he did not receive any inducements to testify. Thus, even if he enjoyed a few conjugal visits, the district court did not clearly err in finding they were not the inducement of his testimony. Given the competing sworn statements, we uphold the district court’s finding. The district court also did not clearly err in rejecting Spence’s claim that David Puryear received undisclosed assistance with his case for his testimony.
This claim is identical to the one made regarding Spence’s trial for Kenneth Franks’s murder. It depends on the hearsay affidavit of Puryear’s former brother-in-law, which was contradicted by Puryear’s unsolicited letter to prosecutor Ned Butler volunteering to testify and disclaiming any “deal” for his testimony against Spence.
While we are bound by the district court’s findings that Snelson and Ivy received privileges that were undisclosed at trial, we also conclude this evidence is not material under Brady. Both Snelson and Ivy were effectively cross-examined by the prosecution, although not on the subjects of conjugal visits or their potential eligibility for the federal witness protection program. But even if these inducements, made known to the jury, had caused them [sic] to discount the two inmates [sic] testimony, this would not have been reasonably likely to affect the verdict.
 The impact of the undisclosed evidence in this case is distinct from the evidence that was held to require a new trial in Giglio v. U.S., supra. In Giglio, the evidence undermined the credibility of the only witness tying the petitioner to the crime. To the contrary, the prosecution for Jill’s murder did not depend on the credibility of one or two witnesses, such as Snelson and Ivy. Besides his challenged admissions to the inmate witnesses, Spence made general admissions of guilt to other people. He told his neighbor, Dorothy Miles, that he “might have killed somebody” and that he “cut somebody.”
Miles testified that Spence appeared “troubled” and “depressed” during July and August of 1982, the period right after the murders were committed. Regina Ann Rosenbaum testified that, in late July or early August of 1982, Spence recounted to her how he and “some friends” had gone to Lake Waco, come across some “chicks,” tied them up, and raped them. Spence has never attacked the testimony of former inmate James Jordan, to whom he confided not only his guilt but also striking details of the offense and the possible motive of jealousy. [footnote: 12. Spence’s statements to Ray Payne about the murder of “Gayle” and his loud arguments with Deeb about that murder implied that he knew of sinister plans or plans gone awry relating to Gayle Kelley. Qasem heard Deeb and Spence frequently discuss whether Gayle Kelley ought to be killed for insurance, but Qasem did not take these conversations seriously. Puryear’s testimony concerning the blonde and brunette on the bandana circumstantially incriminated Spence.]
Second, the State presented evidence consistent with the inmate witnesses’, Miles’s, and Rosenbaum’s testimony. The State’s pathologist testified that Jill’s and Raylene’s bodies had numerous stab wounds on the chest, shoulders, and breasts. She also testified that the girls’ bodies had internal bruises on the genital areas consistent with rape. Additionally, the State presented forensic odontological evidence demonstrating that the bite marks on the girls’ bodies were consistent with Spence’s dental impressions. Third, the State presented evidence tying Spence to the time and location of the murders. Todd Childers testified that Spence told him he had been at Lake Waco the night of the murders. Clifford Oliver testified he remembered Spence saying he had “been with Tony” the night of the murders. Given the voluminous amount of testimony and evidence in the trial record, we cannot conclude that the state’s failure to disclose certain privileges granted to some of the inmate witnesses was material.
2. Perjury Claims
Spence’s brief is long on vituperation and innuendo but precious short of facts supporting his contentions that the State violated Napue v. Illinois, supra, by knowingly presenting false testimony from all of the inmate witnesses that they had received no inducements and by assisting all of the inmates in fabricating their testimony. Spence also urges that the district court applied incorrect materiality standards in evaluating his Napue claims.
Notwithstanding Spence’s extremely one-sided characterization of the depositions and affidavits before the federal habeas court, the court did not accept his theory that Truman Simons orchestrated false inmate testimony by seven witnesses against Spence. At best, the court may have found that Snelson and Ivy, inmates who never encountered Spence until he was sent to TDC, might have delivered false testimony. The court’s opinion moves on to the materiality issue without expressly making findings that Snelson or Ivy perjured themselves at trial or that the state knew of the perjury. As to Puryear, the court finds only “inconsistencies”, but no perjury or knowing presentation of perjury by the state. In its rehearing opinion, the court saw no need to modify these findings.
 The court did not clearly err in rejecting the broad claim of mass-manufactured inmate testimony against Spence. There is no support for it in any of the numerous law enforcement officers’ depositions, [footnote: 13. Some officers were generally critical of Simons’s investigative techniques and use of informant [sic]. Because of these troubling allegations, we have reviewed the record carefully. These officers had limited involvement with Spence’s case in its critical stages. None have alleged that Simons “fed” information to the inmate witnesses or aided them in fabricating their testimonies.] including that of Jan Price because her testimony, vehemently disputed by Simons in his deposition, does not deal with this case. Spence also quotes selectively from depositions of other officers who appear to criticize Truman Simons; those quotations are not faithful to the overall context of their statements. It should finally be pointed out that a conspiracy to fabricate inmate testimony about incriminating statements made by Spence could surely have first been identified and challenged at trial rather than six years later in habeas proceedings.
But even if Snelson and Ivy testified falsely at trial, and even if the district court incorrectly employed an outcome-determinative approach to the materiality of their testimony, no constitutional error occurred. Under the proper materiality standard, it is not reasonably likely that Snelson’s and Ivy’s false testimony would have affected the jury’s judgment. Napue, 360 U.S. at 271, 79 S.Ct. 1178. This standard, concededly less onerous than the Brady materiality standard, Kirkpatrick v. Whitley, 992 F.2d 491, 497 (5th Cir.1993), is not met here. The quantity and quality of the evidence against Spence, including his incriminating admissions to Rosenbaum, Miles and the other inmates, and the circumstantial and forensic odontology evidence, rendered Snelson’s and Ivy’s testimony cumulative.
3. Police Reports on Other Suspects
As in the Kenneth Franks case, Spence contends that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose Waco Police Department records implicating other persons in the murders, and that the district court applied an erroneous standard in evaluating this contention. We need not repeat the previous discussion concerning nondisclosure of reports about Tab Harper and Kenneth Franks’s alleged drug dealing. Those claims are also invalid here.
[27,28] New to this case is Spence’s contention that the State violated Brady by suppressing police reports implicating James Russell Bishop and Ronnie Lee Breiten in the murders. Specifically, the State does admit it did not disclose a police report that one person stated he had seen a man resembling Bishop threatening Kenneth over drug debts and a report suggesting Bishop and Breiten were acquainted. However, we reject Spence’s Brady contention; we do not find the information in the reports exculpatory or material. [footnote: 14. We agree that the district court erred in concluding the undisclosed police reports were not material because they would not have been admissible at Spence’s trial. The Fifth Circuit has held that inadmissible evidence may be material under Brady. Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d at 1077 n. 6. However, we also conclude this error was harmless.]
First, Spence’s materiality argument is premised on his theory that Kenneth was murdered over drugs. We have already rejected this assertion. Second, the State’s forensic odontological evidence eliminated Bishop as a suspect in the murders. The State made dental impressions of Bishop’s teeth, compared the impressions to the bite marks on the Jill’s and Raylene’s bodies, and concluded the two were not consistent. This inconsistent odontological evidence rules out Bishop as a suspect. As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals explained,
[t]here is, however, unanimous agreement in the field of scientific odontology that if even one point of dissimilarity is found between the suspect’s dentition and the bite mark, it may be said with certainty that the suspect did not make the bite mark. Thus, that suspect may be eliminated.
Spence v. State, 795 S.W.2d 743, 751 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (en banc) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 932, 111 S.Ct. 1339, 113 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).
Third, the undisclosed police report indicating Breiten and Bishop may have been acquainted cannot be material. The report documents that, two days prior to the murder, Bishop cashed his paycheck at a store where Breiten’s wife worked. This fact is too tenuous to undermine confidence in Spence’s conviction. Further, Spence’s materiality argument regarding this report is premised on his assumption that Breiten conspired with Bishop to commit the murders. The odontological evidence eliminated Bishop as a suspect, and as such, undermines Breiten as a co-conspirator. Because these reports were not exculpatory of Spence, no Brady violation occurred from their nondisclosure.
4. Cumulative Effect of the Undisclosed Information
 So that no misunderstanding arises, we have considered cumulatively the significance of the undisclosed evidence — the special privileges given to Snelson and Ivy, and the police reports on Tab Harper, James Russell Bishop, Ronnie Lee Breiten, and Kenneth’s alleged status as a drug user — against the State’s total case against Spence. Unlike in Kyles, supra, this evidence was not the basis for the State’s case and, taken cumulatively, does not undermine our confidence in the jury’s verdict. The State’s case was based on incriminating statements Spence made to Miles, Rosenbaum, Childers, and Oliver. This testimony was reinforced with testimony from the inmate witnesses who, other than Snelson and Ivy, have not recanted their testimonies. The State also presented witnesses supporting its murder-for-hire theory. Spence has not attacked any of these witnesses. Additionally, the State presented the odontology evidence.
Thus, while the undisclosed evidence regarding Ivy and Snelson may have weakened their testimonies, Spence cannot undermine the testimonies of all the other witnesses. The undisclosed police reports similarly would not have weakened the State’s case. As discussed regarding Kenneth’s murder, the police did not find credible the reports on Harper, and there is no reason to believe Spence could have challenged their work based on the reports. There is similarly no credible support for Spence’s theory that Kenneth and Jill were murdered because Kenneth was a drug dealer. Further, the odontological evidence ruled out Bishop as a suspect, and thus the police report about him would not have affected the jury’s verdict. Finally, the police report suggesting Breiten may have been acquainted with Bishop hardly support’s Spence’s theory that Breiten and Bishop conspired to commit the murders.
5. Odontological Evidence
Spence contends that the district court erred in not holding a hearing on his challenge to the admission of testimony by the State’s forensic odontologist, Dr. Campbell, and that it erred in excluding Spence’s expert reports challenging Dr. Campbell’s testimony. This contention is identical to the one raised regarding Kenneth’s murder. We have already rejected it.
6. Cumulative Error Doctrine
 Finally, we reject Spence’s contention that the district court erred in not evaluating the cumulative effect of his above four allegations. Taking his arguments as a whole, he was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial. The undisclosed evidence undermining Snelson’s and Ivy’s credibility is not material. Spence cannot establish his Napue claims or his Brady claims regarding the police reports. We also concluded that the State’s admission of Dr. Campbell’s testimony did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgment denying Spence’s habeas corpus petition regarding Jill Montgomery’s murder.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgments.
1. Gilbert testified, for instance, about Spence’s use of the “lovestick”, which inflicted injury consistent with the vaginal injuries observed on Raylene.
2. At Spence’s direction, Puryear, a fellow inmate, decorated a bandana for Spence with pictures of a blonde and a brunette girl, like the victims, and a knife.
3. We later address Spence’s challenges to some of this evidence and his contention that Gilbert’s and Puryear’s testimonies were fabricated.
4. Repeatedly, Spence asserts that because the federal district court did not specifically address certain underlying facts related to his claims, e.g. the potential offer of immunity to Gilbert or the photos of Gilbert and his girlfriend in the D.A.’s office, the court did not adequately analyze the case. We strenuously disagree. The court took extraordinary measures in permitting Spence to embark on voluminous discovery pursuant to his motions for new trial after the court’s first opinions in these habeas cases were written. Detailed additional briefing was undertaken. The court held a hearing on the post-trial motions and then concluded that his original opinions were still valid. The record reflects the court’s efforts to uncover, not obfuscate, the facts. That his conclusions on rehearing do not mirror the vehemence of Spence’s arguments is no criticism of their ultimate accuracy.
5. Spence’s brief does not charge that Puryear lied in quoting Spence’s admission that he committed the Lake Waco murders.
6. Contrary to Spence’s assumption, the district court did not make a factual finding that Moore’s account was the correct version of events or that Puryear lied at Spence’s trial.
7. Spence also contends the state violated Brady by not disclosing police reports containing statements by persons in Koehne Park the night of the murder stating that they did not see Spence or the Melendez brothers or hear any screams. This evidence is not material because, at most, it would have been cumulative of defense testimony at trial from several people who had visited the park and neither noticed the defendants nor heard screams.
8. Furthermore, in Johnson, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the false evidence was “the sole piece of documentary evidence of any relevance to [the State’s] sentencing decision.” Id. at 585, 108 S.Ct. at 1986. In the instant case, much other evidence demonstrated Spence’s guilt.
9. The defense attempted to offer testimony that two other men, James Bishop and Ronnie Breiton, could have committed the murders. This attempt fell apart because Breiten’s accuser, his stepmother, testified outside the presence of the jury one day and, recanting her earlier statements, refused to testify at all the next day. The state trial court was not persuaded that the defense had offered evidence sufficient to connect Bishop or Breiten to each other, much less to the Lake Waco murders.
10. Spence’s broad complaint that the district court could not make credibility findings about the inmate witnesses because it conducted a “paper hearing,” is without merit. Through his counsel, Spence had agreed the best way to develop the evidentiary record for the hearing was through depositions and affidavits. He cannot now complain about this method. We also note that “the concerns about the inadequacy of ‘trial by affidavit’ are even more diminished in the context of a factual dispute rooted in witnesses’ claims that they perjured themselves at trial.” May v. Collins, 955 F.2d at 314.
11. By the time of trial, Jennings, Jordan and Beckham had all been released from prison, while Puryear, Sypho, Ivy and Snelson were still incarcerated.
12. Spence’s statements to Ray Payne about the murder of “Gayle” and his loud arguments with Deeb about that murder implied that he knew of sinister plans or plans gone awry relating to Gayle Kelley. Qasem heard Deeb and Spence frequently discuss whether Gayle Kelley ought to be killed for insurance, but Qasem did not take these conversations seriously. Puryear’s testimony concerning the blonde and brunette on the bandana circumstantially incriminated Spence.
13. Some officers were generally critical of Simons’s investigative techniques and use of informants. Because of these troubling allegations, we have reviewed the record carefully. These officers had limited involvement with Spence’s case in its critical stages. None have alleged that Simons “fed” information to the inmate witnesses or aided them in fabricating their testimonies.
14. We agree that the district court erred in concluding the undisclosed police reports were not material because they would not have been admissible at Spence’s trial. The Fifth Circuit has held that inadmissible evidence may be material under Brady. Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d at 1077 n. 6. However, we also conclude this error was harmless.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow there’s a lot to get into I don’t know where to start. I went with David Spence’s final appeal in 1996, in the end that’s the one that counts, but for those that would like to read more his other appeals can be found on-line but they all have the same conclusion; Spence is guilty.
The “Cumulative Effect”, this is something some people just don’t want to understand and it is a very simple principle, the court must take into consideration all the evidence and testimony presented in court not only the points the defense want to question. In this case and in the decision of this court, which would be in agreement with all courts, they clearly state the testimony of Regina Rosenbaum, Dorothy Miles and others, any appeals court can not dismiss this without cause. With this case we do have the issue of recanted testimony and we see how the courts view this, “At the outset, we reiterate that “recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with extreme suspicion by the courts.”, and I would add this is especially true when it comes to testimony of criminals. This might sound harsh or unfair but remember the courts are use to dealing with these type of people, their judgement is formed through experience. A second point that usually gets overlooked in regards to the recantations of the jailbirds, it doesn’t prove anyone’s innocence. None of the jailbirds testified they were present during the commission of the crimes, they testified about things David said while he was in jail. this would be after the events in question occurred. All the jailbirds did was tell stories they said they heard and recanted, that doesn’t prove anything other than lying criminals lied, surprise surprise!!! So take out all the testimony that has been recanted by all the criminals, we still have the testimony of Miles and Rosenbaum that hasn’t been tainted in anyway and furthermore they support each other. The weekend after the murders Spence made the comment to Miles that he had done something bad and would expand on that over time that he cut some one and might have killed some one. By the end of July Spence was telling Rosenbaum and her friends he had raped two girls out at the lake. As the court points out in their findings, there are no other reports of similar crimes occurring during this time, so what girls did Spence rape at the lake, whom was the other person Spence cut and thought he might have killed in July or August? It’s not the states responsibility to figure out what other crimes Spence may have committed at that time, if there were other crimes it was up to the defense to make the court aware of this, they didn’t because there were none!!!
Next I will get in the bite mark evidence and the problems with it. Here the court makes two points in their findings, seeing how things have gone over the last few years this is still important and another thing that seems some people just don”t want to understand. Spence argued two issues on this, first that the State’s expert was unreliable and second that after the trials the defense had put their own expert panel together and their findings should have been allowed by one of the earlier appeals court. The court found Spence was wrong on both of these issues and I see this is still an argument some people still try to make, which totally makes no sense either these people are too ignorant or being disingenuous, either way they shouldn’t be allowed to stand up and speak in a court room!!!
On the first point, the reliability. No one questions that bite mark evidence is questionable!!! The jury heard this debate. And to make matters worse for the defense, their own witness testified he could not discount David Wayne Spence as the source of the bite marks going by the molds that were made, he couldn’t say one way or the other. Again this doesn’t prove innocence!!! In recent years I’ve seen Forensic boards make their findings about the unreliability of bite mark science and some trying to push this as a new thing, they are missing the appeals courts’ findings. Is there a legal definition that differentiates junk science from questionable science? At this point in time no, it’s only parsing words. The science was questionable back in the 80’s when the trials took place, calling it junk science now doesn’t mean anything in legal terms, it was questionable at the time and was questioned in front of a jury and the jury made their decision of guilt hearing these arguments. Again we have the ” “Cumulative Effect”, even if a court would for some reason decide let’s remove the bite mark evidence and all the recanted criminal testimony we still have Miles. Rosenbaum and others’ testimony we can’t touch.
On Spence’s second point, the panel of experts the defense put together after the trials and an appeal court would not allow their findings. In the courts own words, which are so much better than mine, “Spence is simply trying to relitigate this aspect of his defense eleven years too late. At trial, Spence introduced his own forensic odontologist, Dr. Gerald Vale, a leading expert in the field. Dr. Vale spiritedly criticized Dr. Campbell’s methodology and conclusions, although, critically, Dr. Vale admitted he could not rule out Spence’s teeth as the source of the bite marks. Because this evidentiary issue was fully and competently aired in the state courts, no violation of fundamental fairness under the due process clause has been shown”. Let me break this down for all the little crackheads that have a hard time comprehending English. “Spence is simply trying to relitigate this aspect of his defense eleven years too late”; that simply means Spence’s defense presented their case in front of a jury, well actually two juries and they lost. They can’t 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years later go well we would like to try something different now because we lost before maybe we will do better this time around. Only new evidence will be given this consideration. As I stated in my last paragraph and the courts clearly state, this had already been argued in front of the jury, it doesn’t matter and it won’t be allowed to argue this point a different way, the original appeals court that did not allow this was correct. I guess I should make a point about new evidence and it’s relevance and it being permitted in court. Earlier I mentioned the comments Spence had made to Miles and Rosenbaum and that the defense didn’t bring up other crimes Spence committed during that time. One might ask what if his defense would like to do so now would that be permitted? Probably not, even if they could say Spence raped two other girls and cut some one else, David Spence is no longer among the living and can’t be questioned on this and any determination of guilt or innocence would be nearly impossible. Again we need proof of innocence not question quilt and this is all any new admissions of committing other crimes would be. It would bring into question the testimony of Miles and Rosenbaum and what crimes they testified to but doesn’t prove the innocence of Spence it would just bring up the possibility he committed other crimes in addition to the Lake Waco Murders.
Relitigate? This is something I would like to get into because I see people are still trying to do this to this day, again either because they are just too stupid or are unhinged conspiracy theorist. There are a couple areas where I see this again and again and it’s never brought to it’s proper end. First Gilbert Melendez’s truck. How many times have we heard about how Truman Simons bought the truck and had it destroyed? So what??? The state never presented any evidence from the truck and never tried to say there ever was any evidence in that truck but guess what neither did the defense. If the defense had a legal issue about the truck that should have brought that up during the trial. Again you don’t wait 10, 20 or 30 years later and say well we would like to take a look at the truck but we can’t because one of the officers destroyed the truck. And a fact these people forget to mention was Simons took possession of the truck after Spence’s trial and the Melendez brothers pleaded guilty. it doesn’t matter what happened to the truck afterwards, Simons could have dumped it into the sea, shot it to the moon it doesn’t matter. But there is a dishonest aspect at work here, whom was in possession of the truck prior to this? Gilbert Melendez’s family, his step father took possession of the truck after Gilbert was arrested in September 1982 for the Darwin Pack incident and had it for a couple years. If the defense thought whatever that truck could prove would help their case they should have gone to the defendants family and got what they wanted. You can’t blame that on the State or prosecution and you can’t argue that point decades later and cry the truck is no longer around. Again only shady people with questionable motives try to make an issue out of this and make it sound like it really means something, despicable!!! Another area where I see this is with the Blood splatter expert, again there are those that try to point to this expert and what he says from what he saw in pictures years later, again this is trying to relitigate but there is another issue at play here the the court addresses and this also has to deal with favorite conspiracy theorist target Terry “Tab” Harper.
Here is what the court had to say about this:  Spence contends the State violated Brady by suppressing Waco Police Department reports indicating Terry “Tab” Harper was a suspect. We reject this claim; information in the police reports, even if admissible evidence, does not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. While Spence’s argument accepts as true all of the reports that tried to link Harper to the murders, it ignores contradictory reports. The investigating officers, whose depositions are in the federal habeas record, unanimously concluded that the murders were not drug-related, that they were not consistent with Harper’s prior criminal behavior, and/or that he had an alibi.
Harper was well-known as a bully, and the officers testified that whenever a high-profile crime occurred locally, young people would call the police station and associate Harper with the incident. Harper was brought to the police station and questioned about the Lake Waco murders but then released for lack of evidence. Spence highlights reports made to the police by two witnesses to whom Harper allegedly bragged about killing someone, but the reports furnish no other “evidence” of Harper’s involvement. In short, had Spence been given these police records and presented his theory regarding Harper at his trial, the State could have countered with other facts exonerating Harper. Thus, nondisclosure of the Tab Harper reports does not undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict; the information
is not material.
OK first I will deal with this very important sentence, ” In short, had Spence been given these police records and presented his theory regarding Harper at his trial, the State could have countered with other facts exonerating Harper”, and this also would be the same for the blood expert. The blood expert never shared his findings in front of a jury, again this took place after the trials, trying to relitigate, not admissible. And this is the simple reason why. As the appeal court is stating in their findings if the attorneys tried to include the reports about Terry “Tab” Harper as part of their defense at the trial the State would have been able to dispute those claims. It’s the same with the blood expert, if the defense tried to present this in court the state would have disputed this. For those that are not aware of this fact all the officers that arrived to the scene mentioned there wasn’t any blood splatter at the scene, which told them the murders occurred elsewhere. So if the defense put their expert on the stand the State would have put the officers on the stand to give their view. Now some might question whom to believe police officers that were at the scene or a blood expert that saw pictures later and made his findings according to what he saw in those pictures. A couple simple questions what can the expert tell us about the ground between the victims bodies from the pictures he saw? The victims were found in a wooded area, again what did the expert see in the pictures that would tell us what he saw in the branches over head of the victims? I could go own but I think you should get the picture, if you can’t you should just stop reading because you are a total moron. The police could describe the area and what they saw and the expert couldn’t, whom would you put more faith in, the multiple people that were there and have the same information or the one person that wasn’t there and has limited information? So there are people that like to point to this expert but they fail to see his expert findings were never scrutinized in front of a jury, like for instance the questionable Dr. Homer Campbell was. And this is why an appeals court doesn’t allow people to relitigate, if this was the defenses contention they needed to argue this in front of a jury, appeals courts are not substitutes for a jury, their function is to correct errors and if they determine errors occurred they have to decide if the errors would have changed the verdict. In this case court after court it was found the verdicts would have still been the same. I always say take out whatever you feel you can reasonably question, and you truly need to be open minded about this. Take out all the recanted testimony, take out Dr. Campbell’s testimony and the dental molds. You still have a lot of things to deal with if you are the defense and in trying to find answers to these issues will lead you to the truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and everything. Nevertheless imagine if you added some great graphics or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this site could definitely be one of the most beneficial in its niche. Fantastic blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Over the last few weeks I have received many questions from some of my regular readers about the animosity that exist between Harry Storm and myself. I really didn’t want to get into this but it is becoming apparent that I need to address this. Harry Storm is Bernadette Feazell, Vic Feazell’s ex-wife, for some crazy reason she believes I’m Vic. She writes things I never post, this blog isn’t the place for their personal problems, Bernadette Feazell doesn’t seem to understand this and it is getting old. Here are some of her comments I haven’t posted:
Vic. You and Truman cannot impress little girls anymore, now you’re just mean to them.
“Evidence, Bernadette”, that’s what you used to scream at me, well, now it’s your turn….
Stop being condescending to women and thinking we’re all fools. Go watch CSI.
This is Vic Feazell’s blog or Truman or some combo of these two aging heroes that are trying to save a Historical Reputation that simply doesn’t exist. Poor Vic.
Clearly this woman is mentally unstable, it’s sad to think people have put faith in her to help find the truth over the years. And getting into this even in responding takes away from the purpose of this blog; to find the truth. Ignore the craziness it only distracts, let this be the end of it!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brian you’re doing an awesome job, very intriguing. There’s always going to be haters!
LikeLiked by 1 person
in response to your private message regarding “your Flying monkeys” finding me and my answers “entertaining”…..
I am not your or anyone else’s “entertainment”.
You asked me question after question after question and I answered as many as I could. In response, you have on occasion called me a drug user, insinuated that I had something to do with the murder, and/or withheld information from you. Because you of course are the all mighty knowing one?
You would not know the truth if it bite you in the ass. Because there was not much that Vic or Truman did that was honest or close to the truth, in this case and many other cases. And yet you continue to follow their every word like the bible.
When or if you decide to climb out of their shithole and want to talk to me with respect – only then – would I consider (as you sooooo eloquently put it)…. “entertain your readers”.
Christine such hostility. Engaging your audience is very important, some one might ask questions that no one else ever thought of. So please stop with the drama this case has enough already. You know you are taking the drug comments a Little out of context. Apparently I need to repeat this for you, for some reason you cannot grasp this; I don’t believe in the mistaken identity theory pushed by Simons and Feazell, I believe the murders were drug related Truman and Vic don’t. So how can you honestly say I follow their words like the bible? You can’t just like you haven’t been able to truthfully answer a lot of my questions. Hey when some one can’t keep her stories straight or refuses to answer questions I find that suspicious. I can’t apologize for that, usually when some one stands in the way of the truth it’s because they have something to hide or as Nietzsche said,” Why does man not see things? He is himself standing in the way: he conceals things”.
A simple case in point. You know you went to the park with David and the Melendez brothers sometime that summer, I know I have been trying to get you to give us an exact date but even without that date this would help answer some questions but now you won’t answer this question, why? You only saw the Melendez brothers one time after their fall out with David, this isn’t something Truman and Vic said, you did. You told me this is why it stuck out in your mind. So now can you even admit to this now? And if not why? Very questionable!!!
Christine I’m just looking for the truth. If I’m only here to entertain I would just post the conversations we had before you decided to open up publicly. It would be new to my readers and they could see how you keep changing your story and see what I’m talking about. Christine I thought you could help find some answers and some truth, I still believe you could, you need to answer some hard questions. I will try to be more sensitive and respectful to your feelings, look it’s here where everyone can see it and hold me accountable.
Also there was something I wanted to ask you about since we haven’t talked for a month, it’s about Doris Tucker. I thought Mrs Tucker said the argument happened in August, when you returned to Waco a couple days to get married. Christine you testified it happened September 4th or 5th. I didn’t know you returned to Waco until Truman called you on the night of September 14/15. Why were you in Waco on the 4th and 5th. And remember the pattern; July 19th you say that was the night you left David it was also the night Patti’s apartment first got broken onto. You left Waco on August 10th, that’s the night David rapped Lisa. September the 5th was the day David and Gilbert attacked Darwin Pack. Christine have any thoughts about this? Did you see David when you returned to Waco that time?
So there you have it Christine 3 easy questions, Can you answer?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Christine, The cruelest lies are often told in silence. ~Adlai Stevenson! Remember when you told me this back on July 13; ” I am horrified that anyone else had to go through it. And it hits me hard because I refused to go back with him that day. I got in my sisters suburban and left. If I had stayed she more than likely would have not have been raped and spent the rest of her life living with it. It hurts me to know that my actions in leaving caused her a lifetime of pain”. What do you think your silence does now? When you have answers but refuse to talk it just allows people like Bernadette Feazell and Fred Dannen to continue to spin their lies when in fact you know the truth. I’m not saying you know the whole truth or can answer all the questions but you could clear up many things. Failing to do so only helps the cloud of doubt to persist and that doubt deepens the sadness for all those that have been touched by his unfortunate tragedy. Why would you want that?
I Know you get upset and angry with me and then you want to think I’m like Truman and Vic and I know how you feel about them, you have made me well aware of this. In your anger towards them you can’t forget you took their money, you played their game but don’t forget why. I know you feel guilty because of Mrs. White, you have compassion towards her, that’s understandable. Don’t let the anger on the one side and compassion on the other blind you from the truth. Remember what you told me on July 4th; Yes I moved back in with Juanita after the murders. This was requested by Truman. He was working in the jail and was trying to get David to talk to him. So Truman asked me to play his game. I thought two things…. 1) if I could fuck with David’s mind I could get back at him for all the mean things he did to me.2) I thought I was helping the police catch a killer.
How mean was I? how deceitful I was to Juanita? Very…. I was devastated when she was murdered because I used a good hard working woman to get even with her son. I never apologized to her as I should have.
Again on July 7th you told me; The reason I never spoke of the reason I moved back in with Juanita is clear to me …maybe not to you or anyone outside. I was asked to help get David to break down. Juanita did not know about the deal I had with Simons. I felt guilty that I used her. I was told not to reveal the reason. At the time I was told I was helping. I was no angel I did thing that still make me want to throw up.
On July 12th you added; Keep in mind I had refused to testify at the first trials. Not because I did not believe that David had done it – because I did believe he had .But because I was still afraid he would find a way to kill me. I was scared. I was scared that looking at him across the room would somehow make it possible for him to kill me. Strange as this may sound, I was never truly free of fear until he was executed. He was a total sociopath.
And on July 14th; One of the biggest regrets I have in life is the way I tricked Juanita. Living in her home while secretly terrorizing her son. Juanita did not deserve that. David was a monster. The pattern you mention on your blog is interesting and falls in line with I have stated. yet earlier you mentioned that the Parole officer said he was at the house on July 21st? My impression is that you did not believe my dates given. And yet the escalation in David’s violence matches his rage and abuse at home.
So Christine we can see your confusion, your divided loyalties but you can’t allow the truth to get lost in the gulf that exist between those two feelings. On January 18th you asked me; Do you have any idea how it feels and to live with the fact for 35 years knowing that just hours before he raped me, he raped and murdered 3 teens. Do you understand how dirty I still feel 35 years later. Do you know how sick that man was? Christine no one would understand unless they have been through it. I know you feel lucky to still be alive. What I do understand and what you need to understand is there were three kids laid out in a park that weren’t so lucky. There were a couple other kids that had the misfortune to cross paths with this monster that has damaged them for life. Christine you have answers, you know the type of person that committed these crimes, he was violent, he liked to inflict pain and torture. You were living this and could see things no one else could. Remember you tried to explain it to me so I would better understand;
Sir, I have had nightmares that when I wake up it is not just a few moments and I can smell him. Smell him in my mind. I am not sleeping well right now. Many thing going on here and then throw in you and I talking rehashing the past. Let me explain if I can how David was. I have said repeatedly… David was a bad man. He was a biter. He got off only when he inflicted fear or pain. Which brings me to another gross point. If David was inflecting pain he would have ejaculated very quickly. In the beginning sex with him was what a normal person would think sex between a boyfriend and girlfriend would be. As he began to change it progressed to talking talk dirty. Roll playing so to speak. He would say thing like “your my 17 year old whore” “you want me to hurt you don’t you” “you want it harder don’t you” he became rougher and rougher. Then it was slapping me – not hard enough to leave marks but hard enough to excite himself. Then it was enough to humiliate me by bringing girls to the house and fucking them in his mother’s bed. Progressing to the next step – he started biting my breasts and hitting me harder inflicting pain because it longer and longer for for him to get hard. afterwards he would say he was sorry. “It won’t happen again” “I just got carried away” “you just make me so horny Christie”
It had evolved into to not being able to get hard unless he was inflicting more and more pain. But once he reached a level of excitement it would not take him long to ejaculate. He could not hold it once he reached that point.
So now throw in his mother had moved back into her house. Thing quieted down. For a short time he was the nice David. It would take him longer to get hard and longer to ejaculate. He was still drinking and doing drugs so I thinks its because of the drugs. But He can no longer inflict the pain on me that he needed to be satisfied. It did not take long for the abuse started again but with Mother in the next room he found ways to quietly get what he needed. So he used the stick. it was about getting mental satisfaction from the humiliation, fear and the pain he was inflicting to get him hard. and over time even that was not enough violence to get a physical arousal. About this time we move out of Juanita’s house and the abuse gets suddenly worse. He was a very bad person. So in reality it had nothing to do with being high or drunk that he could not get hard as I had originally though and testified to. IMO knowing now what I did not know then….he could not get hard without being violent. It has taken many years for me to understand with this, even harder to come to terms with, and still harder to put into words. Its easier to just say he could not get hard because he was drunk or high.
I am not sure I am making sense to you but I am trying to explain. He was capable of murder. He did rape. he hurt people. he only got off on violence. What he is not capable of his forgetting it. he would need more…more fear from his victims. He tried to act like a murderer. The look in his eyes was intense. Very scary. I still do not know why I am still alive. Christine I would say in keeping with the balance of the universe you are still alive today so you can share your story and the truth so others may learn which could lessen and ease their pain and suffering. To remain silent does the opposite. And you know there are still many other things we need to get straight and I’m not going to be silent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christine, I saw where you wrote.” Brian posted some things that was supposed to be private between the two of us. He is so mad at me!”. Christine I’m not mad at you, I have tired to talk to you, you don’t want to talk, you are the one that seems to be angry about things. Christine did I not ask you for your permission before I ever posted anything? Are you just forgetting or are you being dishonest again? Either way let me refresh your memory!
Brian Lewis July 7 6:27 a.m.: But this is the kind of thing I would like to share with the public to see what others think, can I have your permission to post this on my lakewaco82 page?
Christine July 7 9:14 a.m.: I have no problem with you using my information for your blog.
Now that you are mad and don’t want to talk, you want to bend the truth. I still want to talk to you and you are well aware there are so many things that you told me that I haven’t even gotten to. In your anger you fail to see I have been trying to use some discretion and patience. So I have tried to back off some. Remember when you told me this; ” I think my recollections are not clear now. I do believe you are right about getting the nights messed up. Not about Clifford but about the brothers and what night that was when I was in the back of a pickup. I do believe I have it all muddled together. I had forgotten about the gun at the lake with David and the brothers. So much I have forgotten/pushed out of my mind. I need to think”. Christine I’ve been giving you time to think, do you have anything to say about this now? You do understand how important this is?
There is another thing you said that I’ve been wanting to get to. The same day I asked and you granted me permission to use what you were telling me you told me something very interesting, something I have really been wanting to work on but I don’t know if it is true, Christine that is the problem dealing with you, just as Truman said, no one can be sure what you are going to say and if it is reliable and this could be the case with this. I’ve been mulling over this for some time, what should I do? Should I even believe you?
Remember this story you told me? “Back when I went down for the meeting in Dallas with my son was the first and only time I seen the crime scene photos. That night I lay in my hotel room a thought came to my mind… I reached over and called Simons and asked him if the girls undergarments were found? he said no. I told him that if David killed those girls he would have kept them and buried them in the back yard of Juanita’s house with his dog – Blu. He buried things with him during that time frame. One day he dug up blu and put his grandmother’s obituary and a picture of himself with her in the dog;s grave. He said “blu keeps all my secrets”. At the trial I asked Truman if he went a looked and he said “there was no need”.
Now Christine if this is true, there are so many questions, the first being why did you wait like a decade before you ever mentioned this? I can see why Simons said there would be no need at that point, David was already on Death Row, you were testifying at Deeb’s re-trial at that time.
Christine in your same post I mentioned at the beginning of this you also wrote,” Some of us stayed silent too long.” Christine see that’s the thing that’s not totally true, yes it looks like people like you would like it to be that way, which is troubling. Why don’t you want to be honest now? There are plenty of things we can still check out. Remember there were many things with this case that just weren’t put together, that’s what happens when you have a mistaken Identity story, people are not trying to make connections. So finding the victims underwear in a hole in the backyard of Mrs. White’s former residence would answer a lot of questions. So Christine I need to ask you a couple questions about this. You told me this story knowing I live in Maryland, probably not much of a chance of me doing anything with this piece of information. Christine I’m trying to put together a dig, Simons might not have been interested but I will check it out. Christine before I do I want to be sure your story is true. To the best of your recollection did David bury things in the grave of his dog in the backyard of his mother’s residence? And if he did so could you give us a general idea where the dog’s grave was located in the backyard? Christine I hope in one of your rare moments of clarity you will answer these questions, so I can find the truth, if you point me in the right direction I will arrange the dig.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Finally more from Clifford Oliver: Only have internet intermittently. Power is down on my street from the hurricane. Don’t remember much honestly. Haven’t seen Josie since probably the late 80s. Ran into her once at the pool hall. Don’t remember much about her sister or brother in law. Not white supremacists. Most of the evidence surrounds the Rainbow drive in grocery and Davids relationship with the owner and Melendez.
Since I haven’t posted in awhile, things are moving slow as usual and I received another crazy message from crazy Bernadette Feazell, a.k.a. Harry Storm today, I thought I would share, at least for entertainment value. I have to say I’ve never met neither Vic nor Bernadette Feazell but from her messages she sends me from time to time I see why Vic left her, she’s a serious whack job!!! So without further adieu:
If you arranged the dig you’d have to admit you’re big boy Vic. Instead of writing to yourself on this blog, maybe you should be a father for once. You got your son addicted to GHB and just left him. Left me with it too. Big Vic the guy who worked as the “drug counsellor” for the heroin addicts at MHMR. Now you just care about your ego. Remember when you gave me GHB on Corum Cove after we were divorced? I remember. I couldn’t move but I knew what you did and I hate you for it. Mental health issues? PTSD. Go meditate and pretend. God’s going to get you if I don’t. But I’ll bet you I will, your ego taped itself. 300 tapes too. Idiot. Mr. Forgiveness and God, right? Fucked over your own kid. Cheated the woman who stood by you when you were arrested. Blame others. Your little secretary Sherre? Instead of whining about how she lost her “boutique” maybe you should advise her not to drive with a gun drunk. The holidays are coming, your son is alone and I am sure you’ll be surrounded by ass kissers you think like you for you. HA! Hope this is your last Christmas a free man. You’re a terrible man, you were a terrible crooked DA and worse, a bad father who takes out his anger on his son. I stood by you 15 years, through nothing but YOUR problems. Big hero. Big joke. Vic Feazell, my ex husband and one bad, angry, hypocrite. Yep, I’m nuts and you’re a hologram of nothing.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I hadn’t heard from Clifford Oliver in about a month but recently he contacted me and he’s still willing to talk, so of coarse I had plenty questions and over the weekend he responded. Hey if anyone else has questions please ask. Here is Mr. Oliver’s response to some of my earlier questions:
Lot of coincidences perhaps. But I assure you my role was simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And slumming so to speak instead of being home with my wife at the time. I was having quite a few issues myself at the time.
I honestly don’t remember much. I hadn’t even seen David in years, and had only spent less than a year back in Texas. Since I moved to California before that, and just returned with Guitterez while waiting on delayed entry.
David was a teenage friend. We were like brothers I guess you would say at that time. But never white supremest or gay beaters lol We had a few run ins with a few blacks but nothing of substance. I believe when he got stabbed he was probably at his mother’s work place. A bar downtown Waco.
Didn’t know that the Guiterrezs even knew Frank’s. Just knew they were the type to try and get rid of the car that was plaguing me at the moment. Not a good decision either. But seemed the only way at the time.
They actually found David because of my mentioning it. And the Melendezes. They were looking at Bishop who was in California prior to my initial testimony.
And Christine Juhl, now that Clifford Oliver is talking, I want to check on something you related to me many times. You told me you believe David was with Clifford the evening and night of July 13th, you said you were at work and you saw them drive by, you thought it was about 7:00 p.m.. A couple statements you made:
Again….. over 30 years…. but one thing I can say… is there is a reason that Clifford was lying about being with David on the evening of the 13th.
David and Clifford were together that night. The reason that David did not pick me up that night was because he was with Clifford. drinking
Clifford and David were together from at least 7pm until 7 am. It was before dark that they drove past the store. I was outside having a cig when they past. Sparky a guy that lived across the street was standing with me. Where and what they did between those times is what is in question.
As far as I knew Clifford and David were together the whole evening. at some point the may have parted ways and reconnected late in the night but they came to the apt together after I had gone to bed. The were together before dark because they passed the store together in a truck before dark. Also when David came into the bedroom that night he was wearing his vest without a shirt and jeans. The next morning I remember being mad because he said he left his shirt somewhere while he was out with Clifford. I remember this because I had just got him the shirt. It was green, short sleeves and had snaps instead of buttons. A few days after the murders I threw his vest away because it stank so bad. It was not until years later that I believe that what I was smelling was sweat and blood. Who’s blood I do not know. David had no injuries during this time frame. He refused to wash it. He wore it constantly. I threw it away in the dumpster behind the Rainbow.
Christine to the best of your recollection do you still believe this to be true? There have been many things you have not been sure about, one example, when you first told me about throwing away the vest you told me this caused a fight between you and David and this is when you attempted suicide, that was in the message I just posted, I didn’t add that because later you changed this and told me this wasn’t when you cut your wrist. But you have been very consistent about seeing David and Clifford together that evening. You know Clifford testified he didn’t get up with David until later that night,between 1:30 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.. This is why we are here, to clear up these discrepancies. There is only one truth but the truth has depth, lies are shallow, we dig deep enough we bust through the lies and find the truth.
LikeLiked by 5 people
And more from Clifford Oliver:
Guitterez went to California with me. Just to hang out. We stayed at my cousins in San Diego for a while. He returned to Texas alone afterwards. Follow up later
For the sake of the victims and their families, I’ll try to clarify what I can. But careful with your tone. I had nothing to do with it. Other than by association. I may have forgotten, or even repressed some memories perhaps? I don’t know.
They did hypnotize me. The defense was concerned about it for some reason. But I never heard it, so don’t know if anything?
I owed money on the car that the Gutierrez’s took.
I still don’t know who broke in to my car. My stereo and things in the trunk were gone.
Expected it to be there, when we got back the next morning.
Brian, Christine told you she saw Clifford Oliver with David Spence on the evening of July 13th? I’ve never heard that before. Is Clifford Oliver still saying he didn’t see David until he went to David’s apartment later that night?
And Clifford Oliver hasn’t really answered the question on that yet. Give him time, he is working on it. We have to give people time to think about things.
CC, that is what Christine told me months ago and she repeated it more than once as you can see, so to me it sounds like she is pretty sure about it. And yes this was the first time I had ever heard this and that’s the problem. The question becomes why did she never say this to anyone before? Why didn’t she tell this to the Grand Jury, remember during the Grand Jury Vic Feazell and Ned Butler were openly questioning Clifford Oliver’s honesty, this information Christine
gave me would have further brought his credibility into question and things might have turned out differently and we probably would have different answers today. So why didn’t Christine say anything about this back then and it’s the same thing when she told me David liked to bury things in his backyard, why did she wait 10 years to ever say anything to law enforcement about this? I can understand why no one was interested about that information at that time, David had been convicted and was on Death Row, the focus of their energies and efforts at the time she told Simons was trying to win their case against Deeb during his retrial. This information would have been nice to have before David was convicted but now they needed information on Deeb. I know people sometimes have a hard time understanding that, the D.A. is trying to put a case together, trying to win a case, he doesn’t need all the answers, he just needs enough to win his case and with that we are always left with questions. It’s easy for us to go, hey Mr. D.A. don’t you want to know if David Spence buried Jill Montgomery and Raylene Rice’s belongings in his mother’s back yard. his answer would simply be David is on Death Row I don’t need to find anything more on him. But since this information is out there for those that want to know the truth shouldn’t we look?
LikeLiked by 5 people
So Brian who do you believe Clifford or Christine?
Brian are you going to piss off another person? Is Christine ever coming back?
CC it’s not that simple, actually it doesn’t matter whom I believe. Let me put it like this, when I started this the whole point was to get people to talk, anyone that takes the time and reads the police reports and trial transcripts will obviously see there are so many inconsistencies and discrepancies and these were never fully resolved, not even close and that’s why so many questions remain today. And Christine did make a good point when she said, ” there is a reason that Clifford was lying about being with David on the evening of the 13th”. But that same rule applies to every one including Christine, if she is lying there is a reason for her to be doing so. All I know for sure is I wasn’t in Waco Texas on the night of July 13, 1982. I was 14 years old at the time hanging out at the beach at either Fenwick Island, Delaware or Ocean City Maryland that’s what I was doing at the time. To find out what was going on in Waco at that time we need to talk to people that were there. Even 35 years later and this is why, now we hear a story we have never heard before, that Clifford Oliver was with David Spence much earlier than has ever been stated before. I don’t know if it’s true but maybe there is a person out there that was in Waco at the time that we have never heard from and they remember seeing Clifford and David together that evening, they never thought anything about it at the time but now seeing and hearing these stories maybe it awakens a memory that could help explain some things.
In this case, with this scenario in particular David and Clifford beginning together much earlier than what has been told as the truth to this point, we can ask where could have David and Clifford been, to me that answer is simple, the pool hall where they usually hung out. The next easy step would to be ask others that regularly hung out at this pool hall and ask if they remembered seeing David and Clifford. I don’t think this was ever done during the original investigation, really there wasn’t any reason to, there was never any indication that Clifford and David were together earlier until Christine stated this was the case a few months ago. And I would even question things further, Kenneth Franks hung out at this same pool hall, I wonder while Kenneth and Jill were dating did he ever take Jill to this pool hall? And if so maybe more than once? And could have Jill stopped by this pool hall just to visit and say hi the day she returned to Waco and in doing so did she run into her eventual killers? This could help explain or fill in the time line of what and where Jill and Raylene went that day, there are a few hours unaccounted for. And I would add this I have always found it strange that it doesn’t look like Jill tried to get up with Kenneth until about 7:00 p.m., remember the girls were planning to be back home by 9:00 p.m., you know how people will associated a song or a place with a person, I could see this as the case here. Jill and Raylene stop by the pool hall, Jill maybe knows somebody that works there or that hangs out there, this sparks in her mind this was a place her and Kenneth pent time and with that decides maybe she should stop and see him while she is in town. That’s just something I can see as a possibility. CC Idon’t want to get too far off your question, so at this point I don’t know whom to believe there are still to many questions and possibilities.
LikeLiked by 5 people
And what if nobody comes forward with anything to add, where does that leave things?
CC, again it is not that simple, it’s not like we just wait around hoping some one will come forward, there are many other avenues we need to go down. One is trying to talk to people we know are connected to this case in one way or another that didn’t say much nor testified. I try to track down people all the time. For the purpose of this conversation and what I have been discussing with Clifford Oliver, one comes to mind particularly at this moment; John Arnett Jr. Clifford mentioned he was the one that first brought David Spence and the Melendez brothers to the attention of law enforcement. There is some question if this is true in the case of David Spence, I will get into this in a bit. But this is absolutely true with Anthony Melendez. You will see and hear Tony’s defenders always say there was absolutely nothing that connected the Melendez brothers to these rapes and murders. That is almost true, the only thing that ever connected either of the Melendez brothers to this case was a statement Clifford Oliver made to the authorities, he stated when he went to David’s apartment that night David told him he had been out at the lake with Tony. That’s it, that is the only thing that ever connected the brothers to this case, well before they pleaded guilty. Anyone would have to agree, no matter if you believe they are innocent or guilty, this is awfully weak. And some would question when did Clifford first state this. For those that hate Truman Simons and Vic Feazell, and there are plenty out there that do, they will say Simons concocted this story and fed it to Clifford, then Feazell sold it during the trials. There are legitimate reasons for these doubts.
There is no record Clifford Oliver ever mentioned David Spence to the Waco Police department when he was interviewed days after the murders. We need to get a few things clear to start, when Mr. Franks first called the Waco police out to Midway Park at approximately 6:00 a.m. he was reporting an abandoned and vandalized car and this is what the original responding officer, Meeks, made his report on, the case number 25706. Mr. Franks told this officer the reason he was out at the park was because his son and two girls had not returned home and he feared something was wrong. Officer Meeks would call in for assistance but still at this point it was still a case about an abandoned and vandalized car, the officers told Mr. Franks it was usual for kids not to return home and just spend the night with some friends, they advised him to call around to see if the kids had spent the night with friends. This is what Mr. Franks did and this is when he called Jill’s mother and Raylene’s father, it was after this that Mr. Franks went to the police station to fill out a missing persons report, this was a little after 9:00 a.m.. The important thing about this is this was the same time Clifford Oliver was at the station paying to get his car released, the release slip shows the time as shortly after 9:00 a.m., that would tell us whatever Clifford was questioned about at the time, I would guess it was about his car it probably wasn’t about the missing kids because the police department as a whole at that time were unaware there were three kids missing, this wouldn’t happen until a little later. So Clifford not mentioning what he did or whom he was with later wouldn’t mean much and we really don’t know what he said at that time either way, to find this you would have to look at the file for the case number 25706.
Clifford’s check bounced and he had to return to the police station a couple days later, by this time the Waco police were well aware they had a triple homicide on their hands and they knew Clifford was out at the lake that night, so they wanted to talk to him again, he was interviewed again this time by Lt Horton. And here is when we run into problems, in the only report Lt Horton filed around that time he doesn’t mention he interviewed Clifford Oliver, so we don’t know what Clifford really said. I guess we have to ask Clifford, which I’ve done. But were back to the question whom do we believe. unless we can find another report from Lt. Horton that relates what was said during this interview. For those that doubt Clifford told Horton that David told him he was at the lake with Tony at that time they will say the police wanted to talk to anyone that was out at the lake that night, which is true, and that they never tried to talk to David or Tony, and Detective Salinas still says David’s name never came up, that shows that wasn’t Clifford’s account at the time, it was something he came up with later, maybe after he talked to Truman Simons in December.
And some of you might be wondering what does this have to do with John Arnett Jr. For people like myself that believe David, Deeb and the Melendez brothers are guilty, my question would be why would Clifford Oliver just pull Anthony Melendez’ name out of the thin air, ditto with John Arnett? The more I look into this case the more I learn, one of the most interesting things I learned this past year was John Arnett Jr. was the younger half-brother of the Melendez brothers, that little piece of information really added a new view, I see a connection I never thought of before. Both Clifford Oliver and Todd Childers, another guy that was with Clifford that night, testified they ran into some Mexican guys in a truck in Koehne Park around 10:30 p.m. that night, they are a little shaky on the time. Todd Childers added it was a white truck. They traded beer for marijuana with these guys. We know whom had a white truck at that time and he was Hispanic. Did Clifford and Todd run into these guys because some one they were with, John Arnett Jr, knew the guys in the white truck, they were his brothers. That would add a new element to this case.
LikeLiked by 5 people
CC to finish up my earlier thoughts, that post was getting rather long and I am at work and need to actually do some at some point but back to the subject. I want to express a personal observation, as I stated earlier there are a lot of people out there that hate Truman Simons and Vic Feazell. One person that has been the dominated voice in this is Bernadette Feazell, Vic’s ex-wife, she is so bitter, filled with anger and just wants to get some kind of revenge, she’s pushing her own personal agenda no matter whom it hurts but she is so blinded by her rage to see this. Take a look at the fate of Tony Melendez some one she thinks she was helping, in his later days when he was in failing health and hoping to get released, the best thing he could have done was shown remorse and sympathy and asked for forgiveness, it’s hard to ask for sympathy from a system when you are at the same time complaining how that same system rail roaded you. You reap what you sow. I don’t know if Tony deserved some kind of passionate release, I’ll leave that to others to debate, but if he wanted compassion he should have shown some of his own. But it is this same battle that keeps us from seeing all the possibilities and could in return help us find the answers we are looking for. The people that hate Vic Feazell and Truman Simons will never accept or even look at the possibility that they were only interested in getting the people responsible for these crimes off the street and in the process were compassionate to some that may have got caught up in this complex web. Look at the people we know are connected to this case in one way or another, they were teenagers at the time, and that is a difficult time in most people’s life and with the people in this case it looks like they were going through an even harder time of their lives at that time. Christine Juhl, Gayle Kelly, Lisa Kader. I would say were all wayward girls to some degree. And I just don’t want to pick on the girls, it’s just their stories have come to the forefront more but we can look at Clifford Oliver he was still a young guy, it does seem he was trying to find some direction in his life by joining the Navy. And look at two of the guys that were with him, two 17 year old high school students, John Arnett Jr. and Todd Childers. Think about it what if John Arnett Jr. and the guys ran into his brothers after the rapes and murders and John’s brothers asked for help and he and the guys he was with helped out, maybe not totally willing, yes that is a crime; accessory after the fact, but can you hold this kid responsible for helping his brothers, can you really blame him and that would go the same for the guys that were with him. It was a terrible mistake if they helped out and never said anything but would you want to destroy their lives over this. As long as you got the people that actually committed the rapes and murders off the street, could you show compassion towards some of those that may have got mixed up in this some how. The people that hate Truman and Vic will never be able to see this as a possibility. Clifford told me to watch my tone, I know Christine believes I was extremely hard on her. Gayle Kelly and Rhonda Evans both told me I didn’t understand and would never understand how they felt because of this, yes I push hard, question after question, actually probably harder than anyone within law enforcement that questioned them back then. Maybe it’s because people like Truman Simons and Vic Feazell realized the kids they were dealing with were going through a hard enough time they didn’t need to make anything any harder for them and in doing so they didn’t get all the answers and this would leave huge holes in the story, the inconsistencies and discrepancies would remain and there would be plenty questions that would not be answered, if they had enough to get the rapist and killers off the street, they could give a pass to others that might have known more and maybe even got their hands dirty to some degree. In the end we have this brutal and vicious crime that has destroyed so many lives, do we need to be like Bernadette Feazell so hell bend on destroying more lives that we would be unable to see the truth?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Clifford Oliver has been very responsive over the past week. And I always have more questions.
Brian, there are a lot of things that happened in my life during that period. Many I either have forgotten, or would just as soon forget. But moving bodies or hurting innocent children is not one of them.
I don’t care how drunk or high I may or may not have been that night. But it’s just not in my nature.
I don’t remember telling Josie anything like that. Because I wouldn’t know.
We didn’t see David until much later. After the murders had supposedly taken place.
I didn’t know Arnett was related to the Melendezes either. They were more of an acquaintance to me. David had been hanging around them while I was still in Cali the first time.
I’ll try and clarify some of this, and the timeline if I can.
But please bear with me if I do so at my own pace.
There were many things somewhat fishy about that trial. But in the end, I think they got the right people.
I mostly worked with Truman Simons and Ned Butler. I wasn’t given any deal. But was thanked afterwards and apologized to, for putting me through hell with the grand jury.
If Arnett knew anything about what had happened from the Melendez he didn’t share it with Todd or I.
I knew the murders had happened by the newspapers like everyone else. And did mention to Josie that I thought it was strange because we had been there on the same day. But David’s name didn’t come up until Naval Intelligence pulled me aside to ask if I knew him. That was the first time I even knew that he might have been involved.
With Clifford Oliver, still swinging and missing, such is life but we keep trying. So here’s some more answers without answers:
Try to remember exactly how it went down. Like you say, it’s been over 35 years. Had enough trouble trying to remember back a year or two. The Melendez confessed is what I heard. And that David was bragging in jail while Truman was a jailer. He asked to be transferred to the case because of it.
Don’t remember speaking to anyone at the police department. Other than about the Gutierrez thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
B. we see Clifford Oliver’s responses but we aren’t getting to see what you are asking him, kind of hard to get the true sense of the exchange.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CC, I guess that’s a good point but a lot of the stuff I’m asking or talking to Clifford Oliver about I have posted here somewhere, so really I would just be duplicated things over and over, that could be boring for some. I do go over things again and again and again until I can get a clear precise answer, something I rarely get. And many times I’m repeating the same question over and over, until I get an answer. You would be surprised how times you have to ask a question before you get any answer. CC I doubt if I can go back to when I first started talking to Clifford that would be too confusing for everybody. What I will do is post what I wrote him which correlates with his response that I just posted. And then I will post my reply which he has yet had time to answer. So the two post I will share is what I wrote on Wednesday and Mr. Oliver answered yesterday and then the response I wrote today. Hope this makes things better or more understandable. .
Mr. Oliver, a couple things. First please understand I want you to take your time, I want you to be clear as possible, I understand this was 35 years ago. I know I shoot off a lot of questions, it’s just you have been very responsive lately so I’m trying to get into as much as I can while you are available, I apologize if it is too much at one time. One thing I would like you to understand, I also believe David, Deeb and the Melendez brothers were/are guilty but there are questions. With that said you just said, ” There were many things somewhat fishy about that trial”. I will tell you I have heard that before from others but I can never get any detail it’s like it was just a feeling. But for some one that is not use to the mechanisms of our judicial system they could seem a little strange at times. Could you share with me any details that made you feel something fishy was going on?
On Friday you wrote, “They actually found David because of my mentioning it. Now you just wrote, ” But David’s name didn’t come up until Naval Intelligence pulled me aside to ask if I knew him”. Mr. Oliver honestly you have to see the problem with this, these are the inconsistencies and discrepancies I’m talking about. And honestly I’m just trying to be objective, I don’t care one way or the other, I just would like to get it straight and know the truth. Mr. Oliver, again you and I are two guys that believe the right people were convicted but there are many out there that don’t believe this and it’s because of stuff like this.
Mr. Oliver, the people that believe in the innocence of the Melendez brothers always point to the fact there was nothing that connected them to the crimes, the only time either brothers’ names came up was by you. You stated when you went to David’s apartment that night he told you he had been out at the lake with Tony. Mr. Oliver that’s the only thing that connects the Melendez brothers to this case. And then there is some question when you first reported this. Mr. Oliver for the people that think Truman Simons concocted this whole story will point to the Waco police department saying David’s name never came up during their investigation and that would point to Truman feeding you this information then in turn you testified to it during trial. Mr. Oliver you do understand that? And when some one can’t keep the details straight that adds to the perception that this is a totally made up concoction and the reason no one can keep it straight is because it’s a lie. Just to let you know I don’t believe that but I do understand why people can make this argument. So Mr. Oliver I would like to go over this with you and try to get it straight.
A couple days after the murder, I think it was Friday July 16th, I could be wrong about that if you can remember please correct me, you had to return to the police station to take care of the bounced check you wrote on the 14th to get your car out of the impound. When you came in that day Lt. Horton interviewed you, by then the police knew there was a triple homicide and wanted to talk to people they knew were at the lake that night, they knew you were there because of your car, hence the interview. I know I just asked you this the other day but since I didn’t get an answer I will ask again. Do you remember what you told Lt. Horton at that time. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like Horton filed any report on this interview, a big mistake on his part, so now we don’t know what was said. And Mr. Oliver this is the argument and it’s a good one. Lt. Horton and the Waco Police department in general were interested in talking to anybody they knew or were told had been at the lake that night, if you had told him that David told you he and Tony had been out at the lake that night that would suggest the police would have tried to talk to them, which they never did. So the simple answer for many is Clifford Oliver didn’t say anything about David being at the lake that night because it wasn’t true and it didn’t become part of the story until later, after you talked to Truman Simons. Mr. Oliver again as I have said I don’t know what you said, either you did or didn’t mention David during the interview, I just want the truth, can you remember if you did mention this to Lt Horton? Mr. Oliver I can’t believe Lt. Horton would not have asked you whom you were with and where you went that night, so if you were with David that night and if Horton did ask you this and you did not mention David Spence then you were not totally honest and I would have to ask why? Again that is very suspicious. Please try to clear this up.
O.K. Mr. Oliver you just said David’s name didn’t come up until Naval Intelligence asked if you knew him, one question about that, maybe I have the timeline wrong about this. I know you were interview by Naval intelligence in the Spring of 83, this was after you had been back to Waco in December 1982 and interviewed by Truman Simons. Are you trying to say some one from Naval intelligence asked you if you knew David before you returned to Waco in December, while you were still in boot camp? If that is the case do you know how Naval intelligence got involved at that time, did they tell you they got a call from so and so and we need to talk? The way I always have thought the timeline went was you returned to Waco in December that’s when Josie called the hotline and Truman interviewed you, then you returned to the navy but Truman wasn’t done with you so the navy was contacted and this is when you were interviewed by the naval personnel. Is this the correct chain of events? If this is the correct time line I would have to ask what did Truman Simons ask you about? He never asked you about David Spence? I would find that hard to believe, he had just received the information from Josie and she said you had told her David was the person that had shown you and Truman didn’t ask you about this? Mr. Oliver again please understand I’m just trying to get it straight. Thank you again for your time and thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mr. Oliver, it does seem you are having a hard time remembering things and/or the chain of events. Yes the Melendez brothers confessed but that was in 1984 after the Grand Jury handed down indictments on them at the end of 1983. Mr. Oliver you testified at that Grand Jury. On Truman Simons and when and how he got involved in the case, well he was always interested in the case, remember he had gone to the scene when the bodies were discovered and it stuck with him. Officially he wasn’t part of the original investigation, he kept up with it and at that time he was still working for the Waco Police Department. On September 3, 1982 the officers/detectives that were working the case decided to suspend the case. When Truman found this out he want a chance to work on it and went over the heat of Lt. Horton and went to Captain January Scott. Scott was unaware the case had been suspended and wasn’t too happy about it, so he allowed Truman to take it over. Kmowing this would ruffle some feathers in the department Scott teamed up Simons with Detective Dennis Baier, they took over the case starting September 10th. By the following Monday, September 13th, exactly 2 months after the murder they arrested Muneer Deeb. David Spence’s name had only been brought to the attention of Simons and Baier once to that point. That would have been when they talked to Lisa Kader on Saturday September 11th. With the information Lisa gave them; that David had raped her, used a knife and violently bit her which left a mark that was still visible and those things were similar to the lake murders of coarse David became a good suspect and then you add they were already looking at Deeb and David knew Deeb and hung out at his store things were starting to come together and then the insurance policies. Deeb was arrested before Truman and Baier had found out about the insurance policies, they wouldn’t find out about the insurance policies until the next day when they talked to Dana Diamond. That’s the girl that Deeb had told Gayle was suppose to be with the kids that got killed and if she had been he would have been rich and waved the policy around. There were actually two policies, one on Gayle Kelly, the beneficiary being Deeb, then there was a second one for Christine Juhl the beneficiary being David Spence, Muneer had paid for both. With that Truman Simons called Christine Juhl, she had moved away by that time, she was living with her sister in the Dallas area maybe Fort Worth. So they held Deeb until Saturday September 18th and he went through a rather lengthy lie detector test. When it was decided Deeb wasn’t lying he was released. Truman Simons wasn’t happy about this, it wasn’t so much about the lie detector test, they aren’t very reliable but it was more the grief he got from the other officers, especially the ones that had worked the case prior to Truman taking it over, office politics, that is when Simons decided to leave the Waco Police Department and go work for the Sheriff’s office being a jailer. Both Simons and Baier had some vacation time, so they took vacations and then Simons left the police department. David Spence had been arrested for the Darwin Pack assault on Thursday September 9th, the day before Truman and Baier had taken over the case. So Mr. Oliver when Truman Simons first took over the case on September 10th he hadn’t heard of David Spence and when Truman went to work at the jail he worked the case again in an unofficial capacity, it was still the Waco Police Department’s case, what Simons did was on his own, even though everybody knew about it.
Mr. Oliver by your response I take it you don’t remember talking to Lt. Horton a couple days after the murders? You do remember that you wrote a bad check when you got your car out of the impound and you had to return to the police station to take care of that? And what about your interview with Truman Simons when you returned to Waco in December 1982 after you had completed boot camp, I guess that actually took place in the Sheriff’s office, Mr. Oliver you don’t recall this either? Mr. Oliver have you ever read your testimony, both the Grand Jury and David’s first trial? Maybe you should to help refresh your memory it is available on-line. You can go to lakewacomurders.com and vicfeazell.com , I would suggest you should, take some time this weekend and read over it, it’s an interesting read but you were there so maybe not as much for you.
And I must point out you didn’t answer my question about when you say the first time David’s name was mention was when Naval intelligence asked if you were his friend, are you talking about when they interviewed you in the Spring of 83 or are you talking about a prior date? Also you didn’t get back to me about your mother, if she was the manager of the Ivy Square apartments whom do you think would know? Maybe there is somebody I can talk to? Thank you again Brian Lewis
LikeLiked by 2 people
The waiting is the hardest part – Tom Petty, may he rest in peace, as usual he was right on. So it is, last week I suggested to Mr. Clifford Oliver he should take some time to read over his trial testimony. He replied; “Give me a bit to read over some of the testimony of others and events and I,ll see if there’s anything that rings true or that I can clarify perhaps. Bear with me though. I’m not a fast typist and a bit slower in response. But I will do what I can”.
So I have been waiting. Now I guess it is time I push things a little and decided to see if Mr. Oliver could answer any of my questions or clear up things that seem so cloudy. I just thought I would share to keep everybody updated.
Mr. Oliver, I haven’t heard from you in awhile, I take it you are still reading over the testimony. Have you found anything interesting? There’s plenty there. I don’t know how much I can question you about others people’s testimony other than when it deals directly with you and that would be pretty much Todd Childers’ testimony. But if you found something you would like to discuss we surely can get into that. I would like to focus on your testimony because there is so much to question there.
Last week there was some question or I don’t think you could recall talking to some one about what you did on the night of July 13th. So first, if you read your Grand Jury testimony you will see you do state you did go to the police station and talked to some one, not much detail. You add other people that were at the lake that night were coming in to talk to the police, that is true. Mr. Oliver the police department broadcasted they were interested in talking to anybody that would have been at the lake that night on the local TV stations. O.K. so you went to the police station and talked, now that you have had a chance to read the testimony does that help refresh your memory? As I said at that time you didn’t give any detail, not unusual during a Grand Jury proceeding, you don’t mention the person you talked to and you don’t really give any information on what you told this officer. So this was during the Grand Jury session in November 1983, the Grand Jury testimony was sealed, that means no one can see it until it became unsealed. The judge during David Spence’s first appeal unsealed the Grand Jury testimony at that time. I’m not sure the exact date, David had an appeal hearing in 1988 but this could have been dealing with his conviction on the Darwin Pack incident because he filed an appeal on that also and I think that was heard first in 1988, So between that time, the Grand Jury and the testimony being unsealed, you testified during David’s first trial in 1984. It was during your testimony at this time that you gave a little more detail. You testify you met up with David the night after the murders and that David told you he had been at the lake with Tony and that the police officer you talked to about this a couple days later was Lt. Horton. Again now that you have had the chance to read this, is it coming back to you? Now for the questions.
Mr. Oliver I know I told you, when we were talking about this earlier, that there is no record of this interview you had with Lt. Horton, very strange and troubling. I guess there could be any number of reasons for this, Maybe Horton just forgot to put it in his report. Those whom think this is all just a made up story will say this interview never happened and it’s all just a lie, I don’t believe this mainly because Truman Simons and the Waco Police department and particularly the officers that had originally worked this case weren’t on good terms, so I can’t see Horton lying about a meeting that would help Simons’ case when he himself did not believe in it. Then that would leave me to what I think would be the obvious answer and your responses last week about when David’s name first came up would support. When Horton interviewed you a couple days after the murders you didn’t say anything about getting up with David that night, you didn’t say anything that Horton thought would help with the case so he didn’t even bother putting it in his report. And there’s something else that would point towards this. Mr. Oliver when the officers were getting names they would check their records to see if they had anything on that person in their files. You see it over and over in their reports, some one gives them a name and they check to see if they have anything on that subject, that’s common procedure. So if you told Horton, at that time, that you had got up with David and David told you he had been at the lake with Tony, Horton or the Waco Police would have run a check on them. Anthony Melendez had a warrant out on him at the time, the Waco Police Department would have been informed that Tony, a wanted fugitive, was in their midst, they would have picked him up and if they were having a hard time finding him they would have went to people they knew had had contact with him, that would have included David Spence. That this didn’t happen would point towards David and Tony’s names never being mentioned to them, not by you Mr. Oliver, a couple days after the murders. And Mr. Oliver you have to remember the police didn’t know, and some would argue still don’t know, the reason for the murders, why the murders occurred, what was the motive behind it all. That’s usually a step by step process, you go where the information leads you. Looking at a 35 year old case we are looking at the final product or at least what many would like to be the final product but to understand the case and how it evolved we have to take a step back or really many steps back.
Mr. Oliver the day Horton talked to you which was just a couple days after the murders the police had no idea why the murders happened. Here is what they did know by that time; they knew Jill and Kenneth had met at the Methodist Home, Jill had returned to Waxahachie to live with her mother recently, she had just returned to Waco that day to pick up a pay check, her friend Raylene drove Jill back to Waco. While in Waco both girls had cashed checks at the Piggly Wiggly before they were brutally raped and killed. The girls personal belongings, including their purses that one would think held the money the girls must have had because they had just cashed checks hours earlier. Mr. Oliver at this point with the little information they had you can see how the police could have seen maybe this was a robbery that went bad. And if you gave them the name of Anthony Melendez that was on the run or evading authorities for a robbery, a robbery where the victims were tied up and the teenage girl stated she was sexually assaulted and Tony’s cohorts had already given him up, don’t you think they would have been very interested in finding him? Mr. Oliver he would have been a serious person of interest at the minimum. Police look for crimes with similarities which you would have in this scenario. If they were given Anthony Melendez’ name at that time I would have to believe the police would have tried to track him down, they never did, so I would have to believe you didn’t mention David or Tony to Horton at that time. Mr. Oliver can you remember what you did tell Horton? From your later testimony we can say you left your car at Midway Park around 11:00 p.m. the night of July 13th to go drinking with John Arnett, Todd Childers and Cal Frazier in Todd’s truck and didn’t return until the next morning, July 14th, after you dropped Christine Juhl off at work and got more beer with David. Christine had to be at work at 7:00 a.m., so it would have been after that before your returned to Midway to find your car was missing. Mr. Oliver that’s at least 8 hours, what did you do for all that time, more importantly what did you tell Lt. Horton and especially if you didn’t mention that you were with David? And as I have asked you before if you didn’t mention this why?
Mr. Oliver, I know you probably aren’t going to like my tone again but honestly it is hard for me to apologize for asking questions when something in your story doesn’t seem to add up. And as I’ve told you other people have stated other things and at this point their stories make more sense. I talked to Christine Juhl again recently, she was nice enough to answer some questions for me. But in talking to her I think she might have shed some light on something, Mr. Oliver I don’t think you mentioned David or Tony in the beginning, I think you finally mentioned David’s name when some one finally connected your name to David and knew you were with David that night. Yes that would have been Christine Juhl. Once you realized you were connected to David you came up with your story, I know that probably sounds harsh to you but your story leaves questions that need to be answered and only you can answer them. Mr. Oliver I have more to ask you about regarding your testimony but I don’t want to put too much on you at one time.
To be fair here is what Christine had to say; I mentioned that Clifford was with David the entire evening when Truman showed me my time card. probably November… very early on!!! The first time he just made a note of it. Every other time Truman would get this pissed off set to his jaw and refuse to talk about Clifford.
And I know what I know about Clifford and David going out and starting shit with African Americans. As I have stated in the past they would set out to start shit. Clifford was with David when he was stabbed in the neck during one of their “outings”.
Well I take it I won’t be getting any questions answered from Clifford Oliver. Here is his last response.
No, I was not with David the entire day or night. It was after midnight before we even showed up at his doorstep. We sat at his apt until morning then went back to get my car. Which I expected would still be there. It was then, about 6 in the morning that David suggested we have a beer at the picnic table near where the murders occured. ( Which we had no idea of at the time.) And that I saw a small car with the tail lights still on and the seats leaned forward. But no one in it. Which I thought was very strange but didn’t know what to make of it.
I don’t know if Josie is lying or not about some things. But she is definitely twisting or blowing some things out of proportion.
I went through hell with this case once. And I really don’t care to do it again. As far as I’m concerned, they convicted the right people. And I know I had nothing to do with it, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Good luck with your research.
But as one door closes another opens again, that’s how it has been going the last couple years!!!
It’s been awhile but the other day I received another message from Bernadette Feazell/Harry Storm, usually I don’t post her comments because usually she’s going off on some crazy rant about her ex; Vic, their marriage and their son, personal matters I really don’t have interest in nor have anything to do with this case. But her latest message particularly makes a point and merits a response.
Her massage: “Just wait, DNA speaks loud, so does Clifford Oliver”.
First I do need to point out I had been trying to find contact Clifford Oliver for years, this proved more difficult than one would think. Finally a few months ago I was able to do so, at that time Bernadette Feazell/Harry Storm posted who cares what Clifford Oliver has to say. Well it seems she is changing her tone now, about time. Anyone that as followed this case for any amount of time would notice Clifford Oliver is lying. Simple and obvious question, WHY???
Hey I don’t know what to say about all the DNA, I’m far from an expert. The are two things I do feel comfortable in understanding. One, the first lab that the DNA was sent to in California did not find matches between the samples found at the crime scene and those collected for comparison taken from David Spence, Anthony and Gilbert Melendez, Terry “Tab” Harper, James Russell Bishop, Christine Juhl, Boatman and two or three of the Wilkins boys. Dr. Edward Blake the countries top DNA expert, that worked at this lab, has stated nothing was found, not that the samples were damaged or downgraded when the lab ran their test. The samples were fine at that point. This lab probably had something to do with damaging samples when they run their tests. Remind you this lab is a leader in finding more advanced ways to test DNA. They do this by running experiments on samples they obtain to test. For most people this isn’t a shocking revaluation but in the case when Fred Dannen and crew didn’t get the results they desired, they wanted the samples back, the lab informed them they had no samples to return, Dannen and company didn’t like this and decided to sue the lab, ridiculous. We could have easily found that these samples were probably damaged to some degree by this lab in a normal process. Not a conspiracy, not the state and D.A. and not Truman Simons. But when people start throwing frivolous lawsuits around, knowledgeable people know it’s best to not say a word. Then all we are left with are the voices from people like Bernadette Feazell and Fred Dannen,; those that have personal agendas and bend the facts and truth. Trying to be more open minded and leveled headed, all is not lost.
The second thing that I feel some people fail to realize about much of the DNA as it stands now is in question, the State as repeatedly stated it is going to contest any DNA Fred Dannen had access to, they are going to question the chain of custody and if the samples were properly handled and rightfully so. And if anyone read the files Bernadette Feazell/Harry Storm posted you would have come across the statement of one gentleman that states that one of the bags he was carrying opened and some samples fell out!!! The State doesn’t need anything else to make their case!!! Some one might try to argue about some of the other samples but at best all that will do is tie things up in appeals courts for years if not decades.
Here is what Bernadette Feazell and others are missing in regards to Clifford Oliver and his lying. Clifford Oliver and his friends; Todd Childers, Cal Frazier and John Arnett admitted to being in Koehne Park the night of July 13, 1982 and at some point got up with David Spence. Wouldn’t it make sense to collect DNA from these guys and compare them to the samples left at the crime scene. DNA samples were never collected from these individuals.
And there is some question when Clifford Oliver did admit he was with David Spence that night and that he had been to Koehne Park that night, again why lie!!! We know Clifford had to go to the police station to get his car out of the impound the morning of July 14th, he wrote a bad check at that time and had to return to take care of this a couple days later. According to Clifford’s testimony Lt. Horton questioned him at that time, there is nothing about this in Lt. Horton’s report, very strange. Answer, Horton did mention talking to Clifford because Clifford didn’t say anything of interest that Horton felt could be connected to the case. That would tell us Clifford did not tell Horton that he and his friends were at Koehne Park that night, that he was with David at some point that night and that David had told him he was at the lake with Anthony, again he was not being honest. By the time Clifford would testify he would state he told the authorities this but it just doesn’t look like this is the case, especially when we look at Anthony Melendez. Anthony Melendez had a bench warrant out on him at the time of the Lake Murders, if his name would have come up at anytime during the initial investigation he would have been picked up. Think about it, a police officer hears the name of a fugitive that is wanted for a robbery, and assault, an assault in which a teenage girl stated she had been raped and this fugitive was in the area where the murders occurred and the girls had been sexually assaulted and both girl had cashed checks and their money was nowhere to be found and you don’t try to find this fugitive or even make a note of this in your report. This isn’t in the report because Clifford Oliver didn’t tell Horton this at this time, a few days after the murders. The question becomes when did Clifford Oliver finally get the police this information. I think Clifford Oliver didn’t start to tailor this story until after someone else brought up Clifford Oliver’s name, that person was Christine Juhl.
I know at times it seems I give Christine Juhl an unjustified hard time and she gets upset and mad at me. But she does give me great information from time to time and I think she could come up with much more if she would be willing to do so. Anyway at some point when I was talking to Christine she told me she mentioned Clifford Oliver to Truman Simons, more like she asked Truman if Truman was looking at David being involved with these murders why wasn’t he looking at Clifford Oliver also because Christine knew David and Clifford were together that night. Christine has told me she remembers seeing David and Clifford together much earlier than Clifford has stated and testified to, she said she saw them drive by while she was a work, it was before dark she thinks about 7:00 p.m. if I’m not mistaken, intriguing to say the least. This looks to be when Clifford’s name first comes up, I asked Christine when she first asked Truman this she thought it was like early November 1982. That would beg the question why didn’t she say this anytime before this, Truman Simons first interviewed her on September 15, 1982. But her other details about this conversation make sense, she said Truman just made some notes about this and after this anytime she brought up Clifford’s name it was like Truman didn’t want to talk about it. If this conversation did happen in November Clifford was in the Navy by then, so Truman couldn’t get him, that would explain his reaction when Clifford’s name came up later. Then Clifford returns to Waco in December after boot camp and that’s when his girlfriend, Josie, calls the police and informs them that Clifford Oliver showed her where the murders had occurred, Truman finally is able to set up an interview with Clifford, an interview Clifford decides to miss. Truman interviews Clifford the next day, then shortly afterwards Clifford returns to the navy, Naval Intelligence would interview Clifford later in the Spring of 1983. So this looks like the change of events that brought Clifford Oliver into the picture. Clifford Oliver never mentioned anything to the authorities until Christine Juhl and then Josie Scionti brought up this name, by then he had plenty of time to try to work on his story and even with that the holes he leaves are so obvious.
Looking at Clifford Oliver doesn’t do anything about David Spence and the Melendez brothers, I would say it only strengthens the case against David and probably the Melendez brothers and this is why people like Bernadette Feazell have never been willing to look in this direction. I guess some could argue that Clifford just threw in Anthony’s name to throw suspicion off himself but when you take into consideration that one of the guys that was with Clifford that night was the Melendez brothers’ younger brother and the story about the guys in the truck at Koehne Park that the boys traded weed for beer and how both Clifford and Todd were shaky on the details about this on the stand, things start to come together a little clearer. Remember Gilbert stated he wanted to protect his brother, which brother was he talking about? He couldn’t protect Anthony, Anthony was getting sent to the big house for the Corpus Christi crime, his cohorts had already given him up. The bottom line is we need to question the stories of people we know were in Koehne Park that night and were with David Spence and haven’t been honest. Rather it’s tracking them down and questioning them as I have been doing or trying to collect DNA from these people, I confidently believe this is where we will find the truth. Not that David Spence, Anthony Melendez, Gilbert Melendez and Deeb Muneer are not guilty but that other people either had intimate or first hand knowledge that night of what happened and might have been involved in some way.
Just now finding your blog again. Trying to catch up on these last posts.
B. Feazell mentioning C. OLIVER surprises me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello rs, glad to see you’re back. As you can see nothing has been going on lately, I keep contacting people but it seems no one wants to talk for now, that’s disappointing and a little troubling. Usually you can find some one that has something to say or add that has never been mentioned before. I was also surprised by Bernadette Feazell’s comment on Clifford Oliver, usually she just goes off on stuff about her ex and son, totally irrelevant. But I have to say and I know I am totally bias, anyone that looks at this case would have to at least question Clifford Oliver at the very least, he can’t keep his story straight but I seriously believe he is just straight out lying. Even a few months ago when I was talking to him, when he was willing to talk to me, he kept changing his story. I know I probably have posted this stuff before but some things are worth repeating. At one time he told me he never heard about David Spence being possibly involved in the murders until he was interviewed by Naval Intelligence, which would have been in the Spring of 1983. Then later he said he was the first person that brought up David and the Melendez brother’s names up. I took that to mean when he talked to Lt. Horton a few days after the murders when he had to take care of the bad check he had written to get his car out of the impound, pretty much as he testified to. Then he said he never talked to Lt. Horton or anybody from the Waco Police Department about the murders, he stated to me he only talked about his car. I told him he needed to read his testimony to maybe help refresh his memory. He replied he wanted to do that and I know he was taking some time to go over it, then he didn’t want to talk to me any longer.
Rs, a couple things stick out with Clifford’s testimony and don’t add up and didn’t until I talked to Christine Juhl. One thing I feel gets over looked is the apparent interview between Clifford and Lt. Horton, it’s not in the police reports. Lt. Horton’s reports of the time say nothing about him talking to Clifford, why? Did Lt. Horton question Clifford as was testified to? I have to believe he was, why would the State bring this up in court if it didn’t happen, remember Lt. Horton wasn’t on board with the whole Truman Simons theory that David Spence, Deeb and the Melendez brothers committed this crime, so he definitely wouldn’t have lied about this to help them out. What doesn’t happen gives us a huge clue. Looking through the reports you will see when some one came forward with a name, the police would check their records to see if they had anything on this subject, this is regular procedure. So if Clifford did bring up David and Anthony’s name and said they were at the lake as he testified he did, their names would have come up, something Ramon Salinas and other officers that were working the case from the beginning say never happened. If you look at the reports David or Anthony’s names aren’t anywhere in the reports from July 14th until the case was suspended on September 3rd. If Clifford did mention their names it just doesn’t add up. Especially in the case of Anthony Melendez, Tony was a fugitive at the time, there was a warrant for his arrest. And when you look at the crime he was wanted for, a robbery where a teenage girl was also sexually assaulted with some one with a knife and Anthony’s cohorts in that crime had already given him up, if his name had come up the Waco police would have found this when they ran their check. Just the similarities in the two cases and that Anthony was at the lake that night would have been enough to put him on top of their list of good suspects. They would have been going all out to find him at that point. That none of this happened is very telling. Anthony Melendez’ name never came up, Clifford Oliver was/is lying he never mentioned that he was with David that night when he was interviewed by Lt. Horton and that’s why there is nothing in the reports, Clifford didn’t tell Lt. Horton anything that Horton felt had any connection to the case, so he didn’t even put it in his report. And remind you the police were interested in talking to anybody that was at the lake that night, so again if Clifford had said David had told him he had been at the lake earlier the police would have been interested in questioning him about this, again this didn’t happen. Clifford never said anything about being with David that night or being at Koehne Park that night, then in early August he took off to California, after he reported his car was stolen and the police found he was trying to pull off an insurance scam. Clifford returned to Waco and left for boot camp on October 1, his name hadn’t been connected to David Spence by that time. That wouldn’t happen until Truman tracked down Christine Juhl. Their first interview was on September 15, it seems not much came from that first interview for whatever reason. But in time, Christine told me she thought it was early November, she said it was early on when Truman started questioning her so it could have been earlier maybe sometime in October. Christine asked Truman if Truman thought David was involved in these murders why wasn’t he looking into Clifford Oliver because she knew they were together that night, this is when Clifford’s name first comes up in connection with David, by this time Clifford was in the Navy, almost untouchable, Truman or the Waco police couldn’t get him even if they wanted. Truman wouldn’t be able to get a hold of Clifford until he returned to Waco after he completed boot camp in December. By that time Clifford’s girlfriend at the time, Josie Scionti had already called the police and said she had information about the murders. At this time Truman finally got to interview Clifford but Clifford went back to the Navy a few days later. Clifford wouldn’t be questioned again until Naval Intelligence did so the following Spring. Rs, it all comes together and makes sense. Also Christine told me she saw David and Clifford together much earlier than Clifford testified to. Clifford testified he went to the apartment between 1:30 a.m. and 2 a.m., which would have been after the murders. Christine stated she saw them while she was at work, she wasn’t sure on the time, she said it was still light outside, she was outside smoking and they drove by in Clifford’s car. Christine went to work about 6;00 p.m. that evening so if it was still light outside that would give us a three hour window when this could have happened; 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., the prime hours that are in question. All this at least needs to be questioned and looked into.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello rs7236–we’ve been in contact re: Robert Frueh. I’m here again but under HGG.
Mrs. Thompson, as you know things are moving slow and when things are slow I go back and read some of the old stuff I can still find, go over stuff I have missed or forgotten over the years. Some time ago, many months, I remember you asked me about Terry “Tab” Harper’s alibi and if he gave the alibi that he was watching TV with his sister and her boyfriend the night of the murders when the police first picked him up on July 16, 1982 and this was the reason for his release. When you asked me this I replied I wasn’t absolutely sure but I didn’t believe that to be true. All I remember seeing Salinas say about this was he just didn’t believe Tab was a viable suspect at that time, it was a frequent occurrence when something bad happened in Waco, some of the local kids would call the police station and blame Tab Harper, exactly what happened here. I also stated that it looked like that alibi wasn’t checked out at that time, to me that would also show that wasn’t his alibi at the time, the police were still looking for the boyfriend (Boatman) weeks later, so they couldn’t have confirmed Tab’s alibi with him if they hadn’t even found the guy. And the other day I came across this from 2007, there are many inaccuracies, like most things we find, so I don’t know how much value to put into it. I can send you the whole thing if you would like. For now I will just share the part that mentions when Tab came up with the alibi he was just watching TV. This sounds more likely to me.
Harper refused to cooperate with the police, who nonetheless
decided that he was untrustworthy as a suspect because he had
previously (and untruthfully) bragged about being involved in other
murders. When Spence’s lawyers later questioned him, he denied his
involvement and signed an affidavit stating he was at home watching the
television program “Dynasty” during the murders. However, Dynasty
wasn’t shown that night. Incredibly, this was the “airtight alibi” that had
caused the police to dismiss him as a suspect.
Any news on Robert Frueh or the connection between Frueh and Richard Franks? BLK167 asked in 2016 which church Robert pastored–it was Bethel Baptist. He also asked at which church Richard Franks had once volunteered as a youth counselor–did anyone ever answer that question? Do we know for sure he was a youth counselor? Do we know for sure that Richard said that Frueh called him that night?
Also why wasn’t Robert’s homicide ever solved? It’s classified as an open case. Weird since I heard that Waco PD had arrested a young man at Robert’s house and a grand jury had been convened but no charges pressed. Still looking for info on Robert Frueh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HGG, I was having a hard time finding anything on Robert Frueh, I ended up sending a FOIA request to the Waco Police Department., Here is the response:
City of Waco City Secretary’s Office
Apr 27 at 1:16 PM
This message contains blocked images.Show images
orAlways show images
— Please respond above this line —
5642 Ross Neck Road
Cambridge MD 21613
RE: Response to Public Information Request
ORR No: W059513-042318
Dear Brian Lewis:
The City of Waco has received your request for public information, in which you asked for:
Homicide reports of Robert Frueh.
In response to your request, city staff has compiled records responsive to your request. The cost for these records is as follows:
Standard copies (8.5″ by 11″): $1.50
For your convenience, you can make your payment in person or over the phone with our Finance Department at 254-750-5758. Otherwise, please mail a check made out to the City of Waco, with “ORR No. W059513-042318” written in the memo section and mail to:
ATTN: Chris Charanza
Waco Police Department
P.O. Box 2570
Waco, TX 76702
Waco Police Department
I haven’t had the chance to call back to get the copies sent to me, I will try to do that this week.
HHG, I haven’t come across anything new in regards to Mr. Franks and/or Mr. Frueh. I’m not sure if Mr. Frueh’s homicide was ever solved, to tell you the truth I guess I always assumed it was, I thought it was a pretty cut and dry case. I will try to look for more details this week.
On Mr. Franks being a youth counselor, all I can remember at the moment was Larry Webb stated Mr. Franks was his counselor at church when he was younger. Webb felt close to the family and that was the reason he attended the funeral, this can be found in the police reports; Holstien 7/23.
Did Mr Franks and Mr. Frueh talk that night? Great question. I really don’t know what Mr. Franks did that night, I just know there are a few stories out there. I know some one else can provide you with a better answer on that one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding the Robert Frueh/Richard Frank’s comments:
Mr. FRANK’S and Frueh were close neighbors.I was not aware that Mr. Franks was a counselor at a church. I do not think the two men attended the same church. I know Mr. Franks told me that “someone” called him the night of the 13th. He did not give me a name. He said that was when he went out to look for the kids.
He did not go into details. I do not know the circumstances of Frueh’s death, other than what I was told by Simon’s. I have thought the young man was convicted and sentenced. I didn’t realize case remains open. If this is true, I am curious about that also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RS7236–are you open to sharing what Simons told you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
His response to me was he (Frueh) was killed by one of the young men he had proposition ed. It always seemed to me that none of the law enforcement people wanted to discuss information concerning Robert Frueh. Other than he held “orgies” in his home where he lured young people and he was known to frequent the parks at Lake Waco.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting to me that you thought the police were reluctant to discuss Robert Frueh. I wonder why that was? I trust your instincts here. According to one obituary I read recently, Frueh and the man who killed him had known each other 18 months. The obit said they argued over money. The info form that obit may have come from Robert’s family. Still looking for the police details. If Robert was breaking the law in so many ways, luring young people with drugs, rumors say underage people, why wouldn’t the police have put a stop to that? Sometimes I wonder if he wasn’t some sort of informant. I have nothing to base that one–just what I wonder when I can’t sleep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HGG , as with many things surrounding this case the history and criminal behavior of Robert Frueh leaves a lot to be questioned. Here is what it looks like to me, this is just my view and the facts are sparse, so take it for what you want.
I do believe the police had tried to stop Frueh at some point prior to the murders. Again I don’t have facts or dates but it does look like Frueh had been arrested by the Waco Police before his name came up during the investigation of the murders, don’t know what the charges would have been but going by what people were saying about him in the summer of 1982 and later I feel it would have been along those lines. Robert Frueh’s name was first brought to the attention of the Waco Police Department on July 17th. His name would come up a few times but it wouldn’t be until November that the police really took the time to check out this lead or information and interview him.
In November the police brought in Deanna Storst, she was the girl that had reported seeing Kenneth in Frueh’s car. She didn’t know Frueh, so during this interview they pulled a picture of Robert Frueh from their files, that would tell me Frueh had been arrested by the Waco Police before, I would guess the picture was a mug shot. With that I would say Robert Frueh had been arrested and charged but maybe never convicted. Again I don’t have much to go on for this but that he was still associated with a church and working at a college in 1982, I find hard to believe he had been convicted of any crime dealing with inappropriate sexual behavior with minors. I can’t see a church or college wanting to have any connection with him if he had been convicted. So I have to think he was never convicted and continued his behavior, which is even a little more scary, if this was the case, then he was a sexual predator that knew how to get away with this crimes. And then the question becomes not so much why didn’t the police stop him but why so many people knew about this behavior and never said anything until after the murders.
And this could be the reason the police were reluctant to talk about Robert Frueh afterwards, maybe they were still trying to make a case against him and it was an open investigation and they couldn’t discuss this in detail. Just my thoughts.
Looking back at the police report, the picture that was shown to DeAnna Storst is listed as PD#26151, I don’t know how the Waco Police file photos; if they are listed by case number or individually. But if you can track that number you should be able to find what case it is associated with.
BLK167–thanks for the info re your request for Robert’s homicide report. I will do same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HGG, I plan to have those records within the next week or so and I plan to post them as soon as I receive them.
Thanks so much.
Brian, I just got back yesterday. I tried to call you before I left. How are things going? I’m planning on being on the east coast late summer August September. Have you been keeping up with the Adnan Syed case?
Hey Veronica good to hear from you. I saw you had called and tried to call you but I guess you had left by then. At first I couldn’t place the number it wasn’t Tampa it was like Jacksonville or something like that. I hope you can make it to Maryland when you come east, crabs, shrimp and bonfires, things don’t change much around here. I keep up a little with that case but that guy is so guilty it would be a crime if he gets off because of some journalist’s half ass totally bias reporting. I focus my energies on this case.
Still opinionated and obnoxious I see. Looking at the activity or the lack thereof over the past 5 months have you found anything interesting over that time period?
Have you talked to Christine anymore?
Vero, I find interesting stuff all the time, I just don’t know how important it is or if it holds any significance at all. And yes I have talked to Christine some more, sometimes she answers my questions sometimes she doesn’t, it’s like a little cycle, I just haven’t been able to figure out how it operates. Also I was able to talk to Rhonda Evans for the first time in almost two years but then I guess my questions became to difficult for her to answer and now she doesn’t want to talk again, unfortunately that happens a lot, when the questions get harder people stop talking, very disappointing. But if the answers were easy to find we wouldn’t be here now 36 years later asking unresolved questions.
What questions did you have for Rhonda Evans that were so difficult to answer?
During the investigation there was a Robert the police were trying to find, maybe more than one Robert. I think most people agree, no matter if you think Spence and company are guilty or innocent, that whomever killed the kids, at least one of the victims knew their killer. One Robert was Robert DeLaRosa, the police got this name from Gayle Kelly. At that time she told the police that Jill was seeing this Robert on the sly, he was an older guy but Gayle told them she had never met this Robert. When I asked Gayle about this a couple years ago, she told me Robert DeLARosa was her boyfriend’s uncle, so she definitely knew him and must have lied to the police, surprise surprise. Back during the investigation the police only talked to Rhonda twice, once by phone and then the next day they interviewed her at the foster home where she was staying. The police had not been informed of Robert at this time, so Rhonda was never asked about him, so I thought I would ask her if she knew anything about this Robert DeLaRosa.
When I had talked to Rhonda before we had a little disagreement on the details of when she ran away with Jill in January 1982. The records show Jill and Rhonda ran away together, stay a couple nights at Bobby Brem’s and then Jill called her father she wanted to come home. Jill’s father picker her up on 15th street but would not allow her to return home, so it was worked out that Jill was allowed to return to the Methodist Home. Rhonda never returned. Her recollection was there was a third girl that was with them at the time, yes they had stayed at Bobby Brem’s but that Jill’s father did not pick her up. Rhonda stated they were sent to some juvenile center. Again this is not what the reports state and I asked Mrs. Thompson if Jill’s father had picked up Jill and she told me it was true. Bobby Brem has also verified that Jill and Rhonda stayed at his house. So Rhonda clearly has something mixed up.
After Rhonda had stopped talking to me back then I found that Jill had also run away in November 81 and at that time there were two other girls, I couldn’t find the names of the two girls that were with Jill at this time but remembering what Rhonda had told me and knowing that Rhonda had also run away multiple times, I asked her if she had been one of the girls that had run away with Jill in November. And this brought me to the other Robert; Robert Menchaca, he had harbored runaways from the Methodist Home in the past, I asked Rhonda if she knew this Robert. Again disappointingly Rhonda decided not to answer my questions and didn’t want to talk anymore.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Interesting, do you think one of these Roberts could be responsible for the murders?
Vero, honestly I still believe Spence, Deeb and the Melendez brothers are responsible for the murders. But it’s all the unknowns that still remain in this case and especially for those that doubt the guilt of those convicted, you have to look at some of the subjects that weren’t looked into very much or slipped through the cracks altogether. And the name Robert keeps coming up, I don’t know if it is the same Robert or not but neither did the police, you just can’t ignore it.
One Robert, and I know this is a different Robert, that I felt should have been at least a serious person of interest was Robert Watts. And it wasn’t just his story and how it didn’t match what other information the police had obtained but Watts had been at the party where Beth Bramlett had disappeared from and at least one witness stated Watts was one of the last persons to be seen with Beth Bramlett, apparently they had run into the woods together when gun fire broke out at that party. We also have the story of Greg Watts and Delano King. I don’t know if Robert Watts and Greg Watts are any relation, probably not, but their stories and travels of that time are strikingly similar.
Greg Watts and Delano King went to a party and told people they had picked up some kids in Waco, at the moment I can’t remember if they said 3 kids or just two girls, took them out to some lake outside Waco and killed them. Watts and Delano had stolen a couple vehicles, the information the police received was a little off, which you expect with rumors, the details change as the rumor spread. Watts and Delano stated they had stolen a van and dropped it off outside of Waco and then picked up another vehicle. The police did find a stolen truck/van parked at Fort Fisher, it had been stolen from San Antonio. Robert Watts said he had hitchhiked from San Antonio and when he got to Waco he spent the first night at Fort Fisher. He was picked up sometime later down the highway from Fort Fisher by Drury Singleton. There is some disagreement when Singleton picked up Watts. Singleton says it was Thursday July 15 and Singleton also states that it was Watts that first told him about the murders. When the police asked Watts about this he told them he was picked up on Monday but he also states he was in Waco during the murders. Either way Watts would go to Axtell with Singleton and attend the party that would be the last time Beth Bramlett would been seen alive.
The major weakness with this line of thinking is putting Watts with the victims, yes if he was at Fort Fisher on Tuesday July 13 he could have run into Jill and Raylene but by that chance encounter would they make some plans to get together later, I would have to say that is very doubtful. But what about Singleton?
Jill and Raylene were seen at the Ivy Square Apartments, while they were there they ran into three boys that were runaways from the Methodist Home. Apparently Jill knew these boys; she was talking to them. One of these boys was a Glen Singleton. Could Glen be related to Drury Singleton? Glen being a run away calls a relative to try to get out of town calls Drury. SOMETHING happens along the way and Glen and his friends need to get out of town, so they steal a car, just as Greg Watts and Delano King and maybe Robert Watts had gotten into Waco. Greg Watts and Delano go their way, Drury Singleton and Robert Watts go their way and the three runaways go their own way. Vero npt hat I believe this scenario but for people that are looking for other culprits other than Spence and the Melendez brothers, you have to make connections.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Brian, that is a big stretch a lot of people had to keep this secret and never say anything.
bkI67 commenting on the Robert (s), I have tried to research this and am coming up with no answer. I do know Jill mentioned a Robert In one of her letters. I think she said he played football. She was not very talkative about him.
All of her letters were given to the prosecution. Is there any way to find out what happened to the trial boxes. I was told that V, FEAZELL stated they were lost. Do you know if those boxes are considered property of The State or personal property of the DA (Feazell)?
I am also very confused concerning J Arnett, Jr. I spoke with him numerous times while Tony was living. Evidently, he was a very convincing liar.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Mrs. Thompson the unknown or mysterious Roberts are just one of many loose ends that were left hanging that we find in this case and unfortunately at this point I don’t know if we will ever be able to wrap up and provide a concrete conclusion. Unless some one will talk and we see how that is going.
I don’t know what to say about the trial boxes, back in 1992 the trial boxes, 56 boxes, were turned over to David Chapman of the Lane and Lane Law Offices. Bill Lane and David Chapman represented the State during Deeb’s re-trial. November 12, 1992, some of these files were released to Lori Youngblood and Max Courtney. I really don’t know whom these two people are but I guess they worked for the defense attorney DeGuerin, he was Deeb’s attorney for his re-trial. You would expect the defense to request the files that would have been relevant to their case. But this is the thing I can’t understand, when we try to find the records or files everyone says they are missing like there is only one copy of everything, that doesn’t make sense. Mrs. Thompson look at police reports,they are typed up in triplicate, so there should be at least three copies. Attorneys on both sides usually make copies from these originals. In this case we had multiple defendants and multiple defense attorneys, they would all have had copies. There were private investigators hired, they would have had copies. We are probably talking about at least a dozen copies.
When Vic Feazell took over the case or created his task force to work the case in January 1983 it’s a little different. The D.A.’s office nor a defense attorney for that matter have the protocol and procedures that a police department has, that’s one reason people have a problem when a D.A. takes over an investigation, a D.A. is given a great amount of latitude. The thinking being he has been entrusted by the people, if they didn’t trust him they would not have elected him. So the D.A.’s office can pretty much run an investigation anyway the D.A. feels is necessary, unchecked. And in response the defense is allowed to challenge that. So there probably won’t be as many copies of the investigated work either the State or the defense did. Each side would have to turn over their files to the opposite party through discovery, with that there would still be many copies. Mrs.Thompson so there should be multiple copies of most things out there somewhere. All these copies are missing? That just doesn’t make sense The police department, the attorneys that worked the case, for the prosecution and the defense, the county and the State, somebody has to have at least one copy of something. When Fred Dannen first got involved in 1997, Feazell shared his files with him, so Vic still had stuff at that point. When Michael Hall wrote his article in Texas Monthly in 2014 he states he went through the files for a year, so apparently the files were available then. So I have no clue where they are now, it’s very strange that it seems no one can find them. And yes the original copies would be the property of the State or County. I would add if for some reason this case is open, which I would like to see, the files might not be available to the public. I don’t know whom we would have to talk to to address this. Mrs. Thompson I know a few years ago, when there seemed to be a lot of support for Anthony’s release, I told you the family should get an attorney to make sure the victims’ families’ interests were represented, Anthony had his attorneys looking out for him and the State had their attorneys looking out for the State’s interests but unfortunately in this legal wrangling the victims families get left out of the equation. Again, I would make that same recommendation now, even if it is just to track down the records of this case, An attorney would be better equipped to handle this and get results. Last week or so I asked you about the Rice family, thinking this would be the best way to get the case re-opened, just think if that day ever came but then the old case files could not be found, where would that leave things. A case can be re-opened if it meets the standard to be found in the interest of justice, you need those old records to prove it is in the interest of justice,
LikeLiked by 6 people
And Mrs. Thompson,what can I say about John Arnett Jr., you know I’m a little bias about this, I try to keep an open mind but he’s lying just as Clifford Oliver and Todd Frazier are and they are lying for some reason. I know we have talked about this before but it still doesn’t sit well with me, you talked to him multiple times and he never mentioned to you that he was with David that night. Mrs. Thompson as I said before even if it was just to say hey I don’t think David committed those murders because I was with him that night, he should have said something to you. Mrs. Thompson you still have questions about what happened that night, I still have questions, a lot of people have questions. Honestly no one can say with 100% accuracy what David from sometime during the day of July 13th until around 7:00 a.m. July 14th. Then we have these people we know were with David at least part of the night, they definitely clear it up in the courtroom, Clifford Oliver couldn’t keep his stories straight and he still got a walk away free and clear. John Arnett never had to testified but Mrs. Thompson he should be able to explain, well at least better than Clifford did on the stand, what they did that night, that would clear up some things but he as chosen not to do that for some reason. I guess it can be understood that he doesn’t want to open up in public about that night but he could have at least talked to you about it answered some of your questions, maybe give you some answers he was talking to you already. Why not? What would be the harm? He has something to hide. Remember you told me he told you Gilbert never had a truck, we both know that is a lie.
I know I’ve put this out there before but as the story goes as it has been stated up to now Gilbert didn’t give up Anthony in the beginning because he wanted to protect his brother. Gilbert couldn’t protect Anthony, Anthony was already going down for the robbery and sexual assault in Corpus Christi, if he was really trying to protect one of his brothers it was John, didn’t want to see him get dragged into this. this was the kind of crime even at 17 if you were involved you were going to do some serious time. I’m not saying John had anything to do with the actual violent acts, I don’t believe he or Clifford or any of the guys that were with them had anything to do with the murders or rapes but I think it is very likely they either ran into David and the brothers in Koehne Park sometime that night or might have even known before hand what they were planning to do.And probably helped them in someway after the fact, which is still a crime, a felony when the crime that was committed was a felony
The records clearly show John Arnett Jr.grew up in an environment where lying to protect the family was expected. When the police went to Anthony’s mother after the Corpus Christi incident because they were told by Anthony;s cohorts in that crime that was where Anthony lived, she lied and told them she hadn’t seen Anthony in over a year, they knew she was lying. The uncle and cousin that Anthony worked with knew he was a fugitive from the law at that time, that’s why Anthony’s pay was put on the cousin’s paycheck, so the authorities couldn’t track him down. And some people really want to believe these people could give a reliable truthful alibi. If you seriously believe their alibi I would have to ask what are you smoking.
Some people try to make a big deal that the brothers had details mixed up or couldn’t come up with other details and they changed their stories, that is expected they were cons repeat offenders they thought they knew how to play the system. It really doesn’t matter what they said other than they said they were involved, of coarse they were going to try to lessen their involvement anyone would try to do that. From their own point of perspective they might not have been able to see some of the things that happened. I think it is safe to say they were highly intoxicated and that wouldn’t have helped with the accuracy of their recollection. The thing that stands out to me with Anthony’s testimony other than he admits his is involvement, really it’s the only thing I can say I actually remember was when he said rape wasn’t his thing, how appalling. Here we have his 24 year old guy that’s name has been connected to two sexual assaults and it’s not his thing. I’m 50 years old and I have never been accused of sexual assault. I guess there could be a situation especially if alcohol was involved and things get out of hand a situation like that could happen but if that was the case after one time you would think maybe you need to change your ways. But that’s not what we have in either case with Anthony in both cases he pulled out a knife or held a knife on his victim. Anytime you pull a knife out on a girl, you are doing something wrong and if you don’t know that you need to be locked up for a long time. And Anthony sits there on the stand and gets to say rape wasn’t his thing and his prior assault never gets mentioned the jury never hears about that and Anthony never gets prosecuted for that crime because of the deal he made. And he wants to cry he didn’t get a good deal, Appalling!!! This is the kind of people Anthony and Gilbert were, John Arnett Jr. grew up in their shadows and he got caught up in those shadows the night of July 13th July 14th and couldn’t escape, now all he can do is lie.
LikeLiked by 5 people
rs236, you are Jill’s aunt, do you think David, Anthony and Gilbert are guilty or innocent? What do you think about Robert Frueh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vero I’m not saying I believe this happened, just putting it out there. And sister either way a lot of people have kept secrets and haven’t told the truth for a long time.
Since I was just ranting about the all the lying that bothers me to no end I want to be fair because it’s not just John Arnett Jr., the Melendez brothers and Clifford Oliver that aren’t telling the truth and it is extremely troubling. I start talking to some one and explain there are questions that still remain or somethings don’t add up and they are usually willing to talk at first but when they start to realize some of the questions and things that don’t add up involve them they no longer want to talk. What is one to think. And since I was asked about Christine the other day, I will use her as the prime example, also there is plenty there to get into.
Just as I believe with Clifford Oliver and John Arnett Jr. I don’t believe they took part in the actual rapes and murders, at this point I still can’t see that and I do believe like him or not Vic Feazell truly tried to get the people that had committed those horrendous acts were locked up. I think he might have given some kind of deal to Clifford and John, he couldn’t give one a deal without the other and that goes with the other two guys that were with them, Todd Childers and Cal Frazier and he let those guys walk because he didn’t think they took part in the violence. The only problem with this is if this was the case he had an obligation to inform the court. What ever happened to the charges against Clifford Oliver, they are mentioned during the Grand Jury, was he ever prosecuted? If not, why? This is something I have been looking into to, trying to get the records.
With Christine it’s a different situation, again I have a hard time believing she would have been there when this terrible crime was happening, I would have a hard time believing any girl would just stand there or hang out while two girls were getting brutally raped and murdered but hey I could be wrong about that and if we try to speculate on what kind of girl or I guess any person could stand there and witness this and not do anything, the first type of person I would think could do this is someone that was suffering and had pain so much in their own life they couldn’t see or feel the pain and suffering of others, no empathy no matter how obtrusive the pain and suffering was. Christine Juhl with how her life was going at that time could fit that profile. I still have a hard time believing this was the case but we can’t allow the life she chose to live be a shield against reasonable inquiries. And that’s when we run into problems with Christine and this as always been the case, from the first time Truman Simons tried to question her on September 15, 1982 until now, her answers or recollections leave a lot to question and then when you try to pin something down she tries to change her story, this is the behavior of some one trying to hide something. I will give a few examples, to be fair I have to admit I really don’t know the truth, that’s the problem, Christine could provide a lot of answers if she wouldn’t keep changing her stories.
When Simons first interviewed Christine he states she had more questions than answers, Truman being an experienced officer realized this is a common occurrence of some one that was trying to pump the police for the information they had so they could fit their answers around what the police had, Christine still tries to do this. Feazell and Simons didn’t trust her and didn’t think they could use her on the stand. That’s why they didn’t use her as a witness after she testified at the Grand Jury. Remember there aren’t any defense attorneys during a Grand Jury, there is no one to defend at that point. Feazell knew a defense attorney would have ripped apart Christine’s recollections, he was right that’s exactly what happened in Deeb’s re-trial, DeGuerin was adequately able to convince the jury to question and doubt what Christine said. I understand it was 10 years after the events she was testifying about and being on the stand can be nerve racking and stressful so we should cut her some slack, Her willingness to testify after so long and to get into the depths of her history with David Spence has to count for something. Which made me think if Christine was less than helpful when she was first interviewed by Truman Simons what occurred and when did she have a change of mind. I think I have the answer, Christine was arrested for shop lifting around this time. Christine did mention this to me one time but we really didn’t get into it. I had read about it before but when she mentioned it to me she made it sound like it was something that had happened earlier so i didn’t press her on it at the time, I was pressing other issues at the time. But I can see this was make woke her up to the possibilities of cooperating with the police. She didn’t like the 5 days or week she spent in jail and she wanted to get out and there was Truman looking for answers. She didn’t have a place to stay, she says it was Truman that set her up to stay with David’s mother. Christine said they paid her $200 to do so. I don’t know about all that but I don’t know when she finally decided to help which at the time neither I nor her can accurately date, other than it was after October 1st, 1982. We know this because the information she gave Truman was he needed to look at Clifford Oliver because she knew Clifford was with David that night. Truman couldn’t check out Clifford when Christine told him this because he had already left Waco to go into the Navy which was October the first. But that Christine had this information and had not shared it until then raises red flags. And we this many times with Christine or at least contradictory testimony from others than brings further questions about what Christine knew and when.
Christine has stated many times that from the time David and the Melendez brothers had a fallen out in November 1981, which was also the time David destroyed his truck she only saw them one other time. Christine, David and the Melendez brothers went to Speegleville Park in a truck one time and shot guns. She would testify this was either June or July 1982. Ok that makes sense that would have been the one time she saw the brothers again. So let’s try to narrow the date down and this is when Christine starts to change her story. If they went to the park in the summer of 82 in a truck it could not have been David’s truck, his was destroyed by then, that leaves us with Gilbert’s truck, since we know Gilbert bought that truck on July 3rd it could have been before that, that narrows things down quite a bit. Christine left David, according to her own story, after they had a fight on the night of July 19th. That was a Monday night from the testimony of Dorothy Miles we know David spent that weekend at her house. Mrs. Miles wasn’t sure of the dates but remembered it was the weekend after the murders and that David’s birthday was that weekend because David asked her to cook breakfast for his birthday, David’s birthday was July 18th, Mrs. Miles testimony rings true, so we can discount those days as the day Christine was in the park with David and the Melendez brothers. Again from other testimony we know on July 4th Christine worked and after she got off, she and David went over to Kareem and Maria’s to go swimming, so that wouldn’t be the date they went to the park either. So that would give us a space of time from July 5th until July 16th, 11 days that really narrows things down. What does Christine then state; no it wasn’t the summer of 82 it was before that in David’s truck. Clearly she is lying, why? But this is typical Christine.
Christine one time testified she left Waco August 10 came back and got married about a week later either August 17th or 18th, then didn’t return to Waco until Truman called her, which was when she returned on September 15th. Doris Tucker would testify that she overheard an argument between Christine and Deeb apparently over money Christine thought Deeb owed David. This apparently happened Labor Day weekend September 4th or 5th. But remember Christine had testified she had been in Waco between August 10th and September 15th, of coarse she changed her story again, she was in Waco that weekend but the argument was about what Doris said. I don’t know what the argument was about Doris could be wrong, she states she never heard anything about any murders just money. Either way Christine had to change her story. And then when you look at the date you have to wonder did Christine have any contact with David that weekend? And if so what were the circumstances. Christine and I have talked about how her falling outs with David coincide with David’s likely criminal behavior. July 19th they get in a fight and Christine leaves, Patti Deis’ apartment is broken into. August 10th the day Christine leaves Waco and David begs her not to go and he chases the car crying for her to come back, later that day he rapes Lisa Kader. September 5th in the Darvin Pack incident, that was the weekend Doris Tucker said the argument between Christine and Deeb occurred, a time Christine had said she wasn’t in town before. Questions questions questions.
Whom closed the store the night of the murders? Christine says she closed that night, Kareem testifies he and Deeb closed that night, some one is not telling the truth. Kareem gives us more details, he says David cooked dinner for them that night and brought it to the store, this was about 6:00 p.m. and then Christine left with him when he left around 6:30 p.m., if that is true what did Christine do the rest of that night or until 7:00 am. the next morning. Again I don’t know whom is telling the truth, Kareem’s story has been consistent, Christine has changed her story so many times I can’t keep count. Maybe David gave her a ride home maybe Deeb, maybe David came home after she went to bed and some people stopped by later, maybe she and David went home together and people stopped by later, maybe David came home with some other people, maybe those people hung out all night at the apartment or maybe they left and came back in the morning, that’s a few versions of her story. That doesn’t deserve questioning?
When did Christine finally leave David, Christine states they got into a fight on the night of July 19th and she left that night and returned the next day to collect her things. Gene Deal David’s parole officer states Christine Juhl was there on July 21st and he gives some interesting details. His observations were that they were just moving in and he witnessed Christine and David get into an argument, he didn’t know what the argument was about but Christine said something to the effect she could say something about the two girls, with that David shared her down and she shut up. There’s so much there I don’t know where to start. I’ve tried to talk to Christine about this a few times, I don’t get to far. But here is what I find interesting, Christine is so sure on some dates that she won’t even consider any other probabilities although she clearly has so many other things mixed up. Like isn’t it possible that she got into a fight with David on July 19 and left just like she said but she didn’t know if she had a place to go and at that time she wasn’t sure if she could leave David for good at that point, they had fought before and she had left before. So maybe it took her a day or so to find another place to stay, let’s say a day, that would add up with what Gene Deal states that she was there on the 21st and what he observed as just moving in was actually Christine packing her stuff to leave. And the argument, that Deal witnesses but doesn’t know the cause was David trying to convince Christine to stay but she wasn’t hearing any of that that day and David probably thought about acting up and that’s when Christine brought up the two girls and this brought out David’s evil face. I ask is this reasonable is it possible? I think very much so and if so we have to ask what two girls was she referring to? And you know she doesn’t want to talk about that. Like I said I don’t know if Christine is guilty of anything but she is aware there are questions she could answer and she refuses to for some reason I can’t explain and I find that difficult to reconcile.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh Brian now you have me wondering about Christine. Is there anybody you don’t think is lying?
Vero, your question of do I believe Spence, Gilbert, & Tony were guilty can only be answered with: I still have my doubts. I DO FEEL that many more people were involved. And I still believe Robert Frueh was involved in some way. I cannot accept the scenario used by the State in prosecution of the case. I know some folks say the scenario doesn’t really matter, however I have a very hard time accepting the results because of this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Brian, what do you think about Robert Frueh? You talk about Clifford Oliver and Christine Juhl all the time but you don’t say much about Robort Frueh.