THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, August 11, 1995 TAG: 9508100233
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 139 lines
In regard to the response of Commonwealth's Attorney Robert J. Humphreys (``For good reason, Joe O'Dell is on Death Row,'' Beacon, July 28) to an article by staff writer Joe Jackson, ``Slayer's innocence argued on the Internet'' (The Virginian-Pilot, June 13):
Jackson got every piece of information that he printed from court records and from other authenticated documentation.
Humphreys stated that I left the County Line shortly before the victim left. The court records and transcripts will show through testimony that was uncontradicted by anyone that I left the County Line at least 35 minutes, or later, after the victim had left.
I did not return to my girlfriend's home on the night of the murder with blood on my clothing. I returned to her home in clean clothing on Feb. 6, 1985.
The two versions of how the blood came to be on my clothing was one version to my girlfriend about bleeding ulcers to keep her from telling my parole officer. The other version was to the police when I was arrested: I told them I had been in a fistfight, which I had and which was proved.
The police checked out my alibi and found it to be existent, not non-existent, as Humphreys stated in his article. There was testimony by two witnesses that there was a fight. If the man was not in a fight with me, then why didn't the prosecutor's office bring him into court, put him on the stand and have him say he was not in a fight with me? This would have totally made their case for them. The prosecution knew where the man was at all times and could have easily had him in court. They chose not to for obvious reasons.
The bloodstains that Humphreys would like everyone to believe belonged to the victim could have been the bloodstains from over 3 billion people. Regardless of what serologists said in 1985, it has since been proved that they were wrong; the blood did not come from the victim.
Humphreys said Dr. Joseph Guth did not impress the jury. Dr. Guth never testified at my trial. Mr. Humphreys tries to impress the readers of your paper that Dr. Henry Li is a consultant for the O.J. defense team. The record will reflect that Dr. Li disrupted the trial with his jokes. Humphreys says Judge Spain allowed a circus atmosphere at my trial. Though Judge Spain sentenced me to death, I had a lot of respect for the man. He knew something was wrong with the evidence and the record is replete with his concerns. That is why he allowed DNA testing when there was no law that allowed it. This was a first in Virginia history.
Yes, I was convicted of second-degree murder 31 years ago. The record will show that I was attacked by a notorious homosexual who tried to have sexual relations with me and when I spurned his advances a fight broke out. In the fight the homosexual was stabbed. Three weeks later he died in the prison hospital. A reading of the transcript will convince any reader that it was self-defense and a reading of the autopsy report will reveal that the man died of neglect, not that I murdered him.
Humphreys says that my lawyers refused to turn over the results of DNA testing. There was no order in any court concerning any report we failed to turn over. All DNA evidence has been heard by two courts of law, one state and one federal. Both courts heard testimony from DNA experts for the defense and DNA experts for the commonwealth. All experts agreed that the blood on my shirt that the commonwealth said was the victim's was not the victim's, and the blood on my jacket could not be linked to the victim.
Humphreys says my lawyers fabricated DNA evidence in their brief to fool Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I would really be interested to know why the attorney general did not say anything about this ``fabricated'' evidence that fooled Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I have documentation, transcripts, autoradiographs from the laboratory that did the DNA testing and more evidence than I could possibly put in this response to prove that Humphreys is lying.
Humphreys states that a three-probe DNA match indicates the blood to be consistent with the victim's. The document Humphreys alludes to that says there is a match has been ruled by the federal court to be wrong. Humphreys attempts to fool the public by using documents that the courts have already ruled meaningless. There is no match in the DNA test results. There is exclusion that the blood does not belong to the victim.
Further, the victim was raped, but the sperm did not match me. Foot tracks leading to her body did not match mine. Soil samples from the murder scene did not match the soil in my car or on my clothes. A cigarette butt smoked by the murderer was not mine. There is overwhelming evidence of my innocence.
Humphreys states that my lawyers and I have contacted witnesses against me urging them to recant their testimony and threatening legal action against them if they do not. This is ludicrous.
I would like to invite Humphreys and deputy commonwealth's attorney Albert Alberi to appear on national television with me, my lawyers and my investigators, armed with their so-called evidence against me. The bottom line is this: The evidence that was used to convict me in 1985 has all been proved to be false.
Joseph R. O'Dell III
Boydton, Va.
As an investigator for Joseph O'Dell, I can say that Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Humphreys' response was full of blatant misrepresentations. His apparent reason to reach the readers of Virginia Beach was solely to besmirch the newspapers, Joseph O'Dell and his lawyers. I encourage him to meet with O'Dell investigators if he should require assistance in locating the information in court documents.
O'Dell placed himself at the County Line nightclub before even knowing that the victim was there that same evening and murdered the next day. Testimony placed the victim leaving between 11:20 and 11:30 p.m. while Joseph O'Dell was seen at midnight by an employee of the County Line Lounge, still in the club. (See Trial Transcript, Vol. 21, Tab 57, page 38).
Contrary to the suggestion that O'Dell gave two versions of the blood on his clothing, O'Dell told the police how he got the blood on his clothing: a fight outside a nightclub. His jealous and vengeful ex-girlfriend gave a different version.
Police did not thoroughly check O'Dell's alibi. Contrary to Humphreys, O'Dell's alibi was very real. In fact there was testimony at that trial that ``it appeared that he (Joseph O'Dell) had just been in a fight.'' (See Trial Transcript, Vol. 21, Tab 56A, page 38).
The now outdated methodology used to test the bloodstains on O'Dell's clothing at best said it ``could have been'' the victim's blood. New DNA testing revealed in both state and federal courts that the blood was not the victim's. Testimony came from two defense experts and two state experts. Does Humphreys refute the testimony of all scientific witnesses and the decisions of a state and federal judge? I should hope not.
While Humphreys states that Dr. Guth (O'Dell's expert witness) did not impress anyone, he fails to mention that Guth never testified, so how could he?
The allegation that witnesses have been urged to recant their testimony is a lie. Not a single witness placed O'Dell with the victim. The truth is that, upon learning of a recent re-investigation on O'Dell's behalf, one of the former prosecutors of the case (who interestingly enough is in private practice now) called the investigator and threatened him with criminal charges.
Humphreys makes several remarks about O'Dell's lawyers ``fabricating'' the results of the DNA evidence. The record speaks for itself.
I have not written to engage in a public battle over the issues. After a year and a half of a complete reading of the entire transcript (31 volumes) and all court records and decisions, I simply want the truth stated. What happened to officials in O'Dell's case? Can they not stop for a moment and be honest with themselves and the public? A mistake was made. Let's not bury the wrong one.
Lori Urs MEMO: Lori Urs, a private investigator, is a member of O'Dell's investigative
team.
by CNB