"WINFREY WAS LINKED TO A BRUTAL SAN JACINTO COUNTY MURDER IN 2004 IN A "DOG SCENT LINEUP," WHERE BLOODHOUNDS SNIFF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE AND TRY TO MATCH IT TO SMELLS OBTAINED FROM SUSPECTS. THE BLOODHOUNDS' TRAINER, A NOW-RETIRED DEPUTY SHERIFF NAMED KEITH PIKETT, TESTIFIED THAT HIS DOGS SMELLED WINFREY'S SCENT ON CLOTHES WORN BY THE MURDER VICTIM WHEN HE WAS BEATEN AND STABBED. DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PROSECUTOR BILL BURNETT WAS QUICKLY INTERRUPTED BY JUDGE CHERYL JOHNSON, WHO ASKED IF THE DOGS' SCENT LINEUP — EVEN IF ACCURATE — COULD ENSURE THAT WINFREY WAS WITH THE VICTIM AT THE TIME OF DEATH. NO, THE SAN JACINTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ANSWERED. JUDGE CATHY COCHRAN THEN ASKED WHY PIKETT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS SCIENCE-BASED CONCLUSIONS — THAT EVERY PERSON HAS A UNIQUE SCENT, BASED ON BACTERIA'S INTERACTION WITH LOST SKIN CELLS, THAT CAN LAST FOR YEARS — WITHOUT HAVING ANY SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND."
REPORTER CHUCK LINDELL: THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN; (Wikipedia informs us that, "The Austin American-Statesman is the major daily newspaper for Austin, the capital city of Texas. It is an award-winning publication owned by Cox Enterprises. The Statesman places focus on issues affecting Austin and the Central Texas region.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: This Blog has been delving into the havoc caused by the late John Preston and his magical dog who could purportedly trace scents across water. The focus has also been on Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer who was formerly with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office, just southwest of Houston. Time Magazine has reported on two apparent miscarriages of Justice involving Pikett; The first case studied involves Calvin Lee Miller, who was charged with robbery and sexual assault after Pikett's bloodhounds alerted police to a scent on sheets that Pikett said matched a scent swipe from Miller's cheek. DNA evidence later cleared Miller, but only after he served 62 days in jail. In a second case, former Victoria County Sheriff's Department Captain Michael Buchanek was named as a "person of interest" in a murder case after Pikett's bloodhounds sped 5.5 miles from a crime scene, tracking a scent to Buchanek's home. Another man later confessed to the murder.
Winfrey is serving 75 years in prison. Three bloodhounds, trained by their self-taught handler to sniff out criminals, indicated that they smelled his scent on gauze pads that had been rubbed on the victim's clothing three years earlier and preserved in Ziploc bags. No physical evidence tied Richard Winfrey Sr. to a brutal 2004 murder in East Texas. No witnesses placed him at the crime scene. Defense lawyers claim Winfrey was the victim of an unreliable, unscientific process known as "scent lineups," where dogs sniff crime scene evidence and try to match it to smells obtained from suspects or from items they have touched. Winfrey's lawyers are asking Texas's highest criminal court to toss out the conviction, saying it's unsupported by reliable evidence. They are also asking that lower courts be ordered to apply more rigorous scientific standards when prosecutors seek to introduce dog scent lineups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Asked to overturn a murder conviction that was based largely on the noses of three bloodhounds, several judges on the state's highest criminal court responded Wednesday with skeptical questions about the evidence used to sentence Richard Winfrey Sr. to 75 years in prison," reporter Chuck Lindell's American-Statesman story published on Aprik 14, 2010, begins, under the heading, "Judges question evidence from dog scent lineup."
"Winfrey was linked to a brutal San Jacinto County murder in 2004 in a "dog scent lineup," where bloodhounds sniff crime scene evidence and try to match it to smells obtained from suspects," the story continues.
"The bloodhounds' trainer, a now-retired deputy sheriff named Keith Pikett, testified that his dogs smelled Winfrey's scent on clothes worn by the murder victim when he was beaten and stabbed.
During oral arguments before the Court of Criminal Appeals, prosecutor Bill Burnett was quickly interrupted by Judge Cheryl Johnson, who asked if the dogs' scent lineup — even if accurate — could ensure that Winfrey was with the victim at the time of death. No, the San Jacinto County district attorney answered.
Judge Cathy Cochran then asked why Pikett should have been allowed to testify about his science-based conclusions — that every person has a unique scent, based on bacteria's interaction with lost skin cells, that can last for years — without having any scientific background.
"Don't we need an expert in biology to say how dog scent works?" Cochran asked.
Burnett replied that Pikett's knowledge, based on years of experience and training with dogs, differs from that of experts trained in the scientific method.
The most skeptical note was sounded by Judge Michael Keasler, who scoffed at Burnett's listing of evidence that he said tied Winfrey to the murder in Coldspring, about 20 miles east of Huntsville. The evidence included:
• A 2004 interview, when Winfrey raised suspicions by telling a Texas Ranger that he must be the No. 1 suspect.
• A cellmate who said Winfrey mentioned that guns were stolen from the murder scene. The guns were never found, however, and nobody could say for sure that they were in the home at the time of the murder.
• Winfrey was big enough, weighing about 300 pounds, to break the victim's jaw and eye orbit bone, stab him 28 times and drag the body between rooms.
Together with the dog lineup, the evidence gave jurors a proper basis for their guilty verdict, Burnett said.
Keasler disagreed, saying it fell far short of what was needed to convince jurors that Winfrey was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
"It's still a little bit of a stretch to me," Keasler said. "You need something positive to put him there at the time of the killing."
But Judge Lawrence Meyers, finding merit in the prosecution's case, challenged defense lawyer Shirley Baccus-Lobel's assertion that Winfrey's conviction hinged solely on the dog scent lineup.
"There's a lot of other evidence," he noted.
Joined by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, Meyers repeatedly reminded Baccus-Lobel that much of her argument challenging Pikett's lineup and methods was wasted.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, they said, can consider only whether there was a legal basis to convict Winfrey. It's up to lower courts to determine if there were enough facts to convict — and a Houston appeals court believed that there was, Meyers said."
The story can be found at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/judges-question-evidence-from-dog-scent-lineup-565987.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
