STORY: "Convicted rapist maintains innocence in 1987 case," published by WRAL on April 3, 2012;
GIST: "Raleigh, N.C. — A Hickory man serving a life sentence in prison for a rape he says he didn't commit testified Tuesday before a special state panel that will decide whether his conviction should be reconsidered.Willie J. Grimes, 65, told the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission that he had no idea why police wanted to arrest him in the fall of 1987 and that he offered to take a lie detector test when he found out he was the suspect in the rape of a 69-year-old woman. But police didn't take him up on the offer. Grimes said he also wanted police to collect hair samples from him for testing against a rape kit. "I knew I was innocent, and I knew that if they had something, mine wouldn't match whatever they had, because I didn't do anything," he said. Grimes was convicted less than a year later on two counts of first-degree rape and one count of second-degree kidnapping in the Oct. 24, 1987, crime. He is serving his sentence at Gaston Correctional Center, a minimum security prison in Dallas, N.C. The eight-member panel of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers and other individuals reviews claims of innocence from convicted criminals and considers new, credible evidence that might justify a new verdict. If it determines that Grimes' case merits further review, it will refer it to a three-judge panel to decide whether his conviction should be overturned......Investigators did find a hair that was "microscopically consistent" with Grimes', Troy Hamlin, a former hairs analyst for the state, testified Tuesday. But he said he couldn't say for certain that the hair – the only piece of physical evidence linking Grimes to the crime – matched him. Hair science has changed drastically since the advent of DNA technology, Hamlin said, and hair analysis is now used as a screening technique before DNA analysis – the only way to prove identity. Max Houck, an expert in microscopic hair comparison, testified that he would have likely recommended to prosecutors not to use the hair if there were no strong circumstantial evidence in the case. Today, he said, he would recommend a microscopic examination and then have DNA testing on it. But the hair cannot be tested again. All of the evidence, with the exception of the fingerprints on the banana, was inexplicably destroyed several years after the trial, a staff attorney investigating the case for the Innocence Commission said."
THE ENTIRE STORY CAN BE FOUND AT:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
