8. Botanical debris from 9 foot tall Elephant Grass was all over the
victim's body. There was no "trace-evidence" on the Defendant's
clothing, car or shoes from the botanical debris.
9. Soil samples taken from the "crime-scene-field," but not produced
at trial, could not be matched to soil on Defendant's shoes, clothing
or car. (this would have clearly shown that the Defendant could not
have been the killer, for no such evidence was found in his car,
clothing or shoes.) O'Dell changed clothes at the
landlord/girlfriend's residence and he put the clothing directly in a
paper bag and it was never touched until submitted to the police by
his landlord/girlfriend.
10. PROFESSIONAL JAILHOUSE INFORMANT'S STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S
"ALLEGED CONFESSION": The Professional Jailhouse Informant stated that
the Defendant bought drinks for the victim, danced with her, sat at
her table, and then left with him to go "riding in Defendant's car."
(All of this testimony was totally inconsistent with the KNOWN FACTS
OF THE CASE. The Informant had 4 felonies, and was in jail, along with
his wife, for breaking and entering, and arson. He was facing LIFE IN
PRISON. After his testimony of the Defendant's "ALLEGED CONFESSION,"
he received 3 years probation even though his pre-sentence report
states he was ineligible for probation. His record reveals he has
received probation after probation on several other charges.)
Facts Represented by Testimony at Trial
1. The victim left the nightclub between 11:15 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. at
the latest.
2. The Defendant left the nightclub after 12:00 midnight, as testified
to by the "DOORMAN," who remembered seeing the Defendant still inside
the nightclub, as he, the "DOORMAN," was counting the "cover charge"
receipts, which stop at midnight.
3. The Defendant did not talk, dance or leave at any time with the
victim. They never met or knew each other.
4. The landlord/lover of the defendant, was said to have been riddled
with jealousy and stated she "hated" the Defendant when she turned
over the Defendant's bloody clothing to the police. She was
purportedly jealous over his relationships with "younger women." (She
was 20 years older than the Defendant).
5. The man who found the victim's body never testified at the trial.
Allegedly he was hidden by the police and prosecution so he could not
testify to seeing a man, who was not the Defendant, crouched in the
weeds by the victim's body.
6. Statements of witnesses were allegedly hidden concerning the victim
having an argument with someone in the parking lot as she was leaving,
and she was heard to say, "I am not going anywhere with you." (She was
not arguing with the Defendant.)
7. A "CONFESSION" TO THE MURDER OF HELEN SCHARTNER WAS MADE BY A
SERIAL KILLER, by the name of David Mark Pruett, to several people.
This statement allegedly has been hidden, but was the cause of public
defender Peter Legler to withdraw from the defendant's case allegedly
due to a conflict of interest, because Pruett was represented by the
public defender's office. (Pruett has since been executed.) Court
records will verify that the Pruett confession was the reason for the
withdrawal of the public defender from the defendant's case.
Proof of Innocence
After he was convicted and sentenced to death, the Defendant insisted
on DNA testing of the blood evidence to prove that the blood on his
clothing did not belong to the victim, as the prosecutor convinced the
jury that it did. The MOTION FOR DNA testing was granted in 1989 by
the trial judge, who had adamantly stated throughout the trial that he
had problems and concerns over the reliability of the blood evidence.
DNA TESTING, conducted by LIFECODES LABORATORY, revealed that the
blood evidence on the Defendant's shirt, which was the main piece of
evidence, DID NOT BELONG TO THE VICTIM. These results were confirmed
by testimony from both the defense and prosecution, and by both state
and federal courts, which concluded that the blood could not be linked
to the victim. (Federal District Court, Richmond, Virginia Division,
Judge James R. Spencer Decision, September 1994.) The blood on the
Defendant's jacket was found to be inconclusive due to degradation.
The blood was the ONLY link to the victim, other than the PROFESSIONAL
INFORMANT'S testimony that the Defendant "CONFESSED" to the crime. The
blood evidence has now been proven, through DNA TESTING, not to be the
victim's. The Informant's testimony can now be proven non-credible,
and was considered "questionable" by the federal court judge. All
other "circumstantial" evidence in fact further proves O'Dell's
innocence as previously depicted.
Conclusion
The facts of the case clearly show the innocence of a man who was
prosecuted in Virginia Beach, Virginia. According to a statement which
appeared in the Virginian Pilot, "The Virginia Beach Commonwealth's
Attorney's office has a history of convicting innocent men." On
September 27th, 1995, Dennis Stockton was executed despite doubt cast
over his guilt. The State of Virginia executed Roger Keith Coleman,
May 20th, 1992, even in the face of controversy throughout America.
O'Dell's case is an even more obvious one of neglect by the Criminal
Justice System. One of the most atrocious and reprehensible aspects of
this case, on top of everything else, is that the State of Virginia
KNOWS that DNA now eliminates the ONLY bit of evidence that they had
to take O'Dell to trial, yet they refuse to set him free. He sits on
Death Row, suffering unbearably, death staring him in the face, and
not one iota of evidence against him. What has happened to the TRUTH?
Is our system just a "GAME OF WIN OR LOSE?" How many people must die
before the people of Virginia and other states, will stand up and
shout for the public and the government to hear the truth? Clearly,
Joseph O'Dell should not have to pay the price of a "FAILED SYSTEM,"
for surely he is an INNOCENT MAN. There is a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that
proves O'Dell's INNOCENCE, and NOT ONE SCINTILLA of evidence that
proves him guilty.
--- FMail/386 1.0g
(1:2629/124)
---------------