UPDATE: DOG SCENT EVIDENCE; GARY BENNETT: THE FOURTH INNOCENT AMERICAN TO BE PROVEN WRONGLY CONVICTED BECAUSE OF BASELESS DOG-SCENT EVIDENCE?

"IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE CONTINUING PATTERN OF USING INFORMANTS AND FRAUDULENT EXPERTS TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE," SAID SETH MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INNOCENCE PROJECT OF FLORIDA.

BOTH MILLER AND CASTELEIRO ARE COLLABORATING WITH CENTURION MINISTRIES, WHICH HAS WORKED TO FREE MORE THAN 40 PEOPLE SINCE 1980 WITH THE HELP OF DNA EVIDENCE.

PRESTON, WHO IN 1984 WAS EXPOSED AS A FRAUD, TESTIFIED THAT HIS DOG LINKED BENNETT'S SCENT TO THE ITEMS USED TO KILL NARDI, EVEN THOUGH CRIME SCENE TECHNICIANS HAD PRESERVED THE WEAPONS WITH STRONG-SMELLING CHEMICALS.

DURING ANOTHER "SCENT LINEUP," THE DOG STOPPED AND URINATED ON WASHCLOTHS SATURATED WITH BLOOD, INCLUDING ONE GATHERED FROM THE CRIME SCENE. THAT RUINED THE EVIDENCE."

JOHN TORRES: FLORIDA TODAY;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 is also on Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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. A recent post to this Blog indicates that Bill Dillon, who freed after 22 years behind bars (and put there after dog-handler John Preston manufactured evidence to "tie" him to the crime) can be considered case is a third person wrongly convicted on the basis of dog-scent so-called evidence - and the Innocence Project believes that Gary Bennett, who has been behind bars for 25 years, will likely prove to be proven by real science to be the fourth. But this Blog is also concerned about the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth and who knows how many other innocent people were wrongly convicted on the evidence of John Preston and Keith Pikett. This failure of the criminal justice system to protect people from junk science and pseudo-experts such as Preston and Pikett raises several hugely important question: If state officials are unwilling to restore confidence in their justice systems by aggressively rooting out the wrongful convictions and redressing the individuals who have suffered from them, why haven't the FBI and other and other federal agencies plunged into the task. And why haven't the jurisdictions involved acted with haste to order independent public reviews to satisfy the public that the lapses of their judges and public servants are not being swept away from public view?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lawyers for a Brevard County man convicted of murder in 1984 are asking a court to approve DNA testing they hope will overturn another Brevard conviction that relied partly on testimony from a fraudulent dog handler and jailhouse snitches," John Torres' November 2, 2009 "Florida Today" story on the Gary Bennett case begins.

"Gary Bennett was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his neighbor, Helen Nardi," the story, published under the headline "Convicted Brevard killer wants DNA testing" continues.

"He maintains his innocence. He passed a lie detector test and could not be tied to the case by a rape kit examination. Several people testified that he was elsewhere when Nardi was sexually assaulted and murdered.

"We're very hopeful the judge will grant the motion," said Paul Casteleiro, a New Jersey attorney representing Bennett. "We feel we have a strong case for innocence here."

In 2004, DNA evidence overturned the rape conviction of Wilton Dedge. Last year, the state dropped charges against William Dillon after DNA testing excluded him from a key piece of evidence in the original case against him.

Both men spent more than 20 years in prison.

In both cases, prosecutors used discredited dog handler John Preston and jailhouse snitches, who were promised reduced sentences for their testimony.

In their 80-page motion seeking DNA testing, Bennett's lawyers say Nardi's murder investigation was plagued by shoddy police work and questionable tactics by the Brevard-Seminole State Attorney's Office.

Nardi was 55 when she was stabbed to death with an ice pick, a pair of scissors and possibly a steak knife and a screwdriver.

Records in the case indicated that she was having regular sexual relations with her 65-year-old son-in-law, a man who married Nardi's 16-year-old daughter when he was 53.

The state allowed the marriage to spare Nardi's daughter from being put into the child welfare system because Nardi allegedly sold her for sexual favors to pay the rent.

The son-in-law, Kermit Parkins, was never considered a suspect in the case despite the unusual relationships. Later, police discovered that Parkins used to rent a trailer from the lead investigator in the case, Palm Bay police Detective Leroy Dunning.

In the Dillon case, the lead investigator had sex with a key witness.

In 1983, Circuit Judge John Antoon said, "Police misconduct was flagrant" in the Bennett case.

Bennett's legal team also is questioning prosecutors' efforts to reduce the prison sentence of rapist Kenneth Plemmons in exchange for his testimony against Bennett. Plemmons, who confessed to raping a 15-year-old girl at gunpoint, testified that Bennett confessed to the Nardi murder while in the county jail.

But Circuit Judge Tom Waddell said he could not "in good conscience" reduce Plemmons' sentence.

The judge later sent a letter to then-State Attorney Doug Cheshire, chastising his office for relying on jailhouse informants and promising them reduced sentences.

"It's important to note the continuing pattern of using informants and fraudulent experts to manufacture evidence where there is no evidence," said Seth Miller, executive director of the Innocence Project of Florida.

Both Miller and Casteleiro are collaborating with Centurion Ministries, which has worked to free more than 40 people since 1980 with the help of DNA evidence.

Preston, who in 1984 was exposed as a fraud, testified that his dog linked Bennett's scent to the items used to kill Nardi, even though crime scene technicians had preserved the weapons with strong-smelling chemicals.

During another "scent lineup," the dog stopped and urinated on washcloths saturated with blood, including one gathered from the crime scene. That ruined the evidence.

Evidence from the crime scene shows that Nardi had sex less than a few hours before the murder. During Bennett's trial, prosecutors said the sexual assault was the motive for the murder.

Bennett's lawyers want modern technology used to test swabs taken from the victim that may have semen on them as well as a swab of blood found on the refrigerator door, away from the where police said the murder happened.

The Bennett case is being handled by a prosecutor from Orlando. State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, who oversees Brevard County prosecutions, disqualified his office from working on the case because he briefly represented Bennett while he was a public defender."

This story can be found at:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009911020309

UP-DATE: DOG-SCENT "EVIDENCE", MORE ON INNOCENCE PROJECT OF TEXAS REPORT; LINK TO ACTUAL REPORT PROVIDED BY "GRITS FOR BREAKFAST."

"PIKETT ASSERTS OUTLANDISH SUCCESS RATES FOR HIS DOGS, CLAIMING ONE OF THEM HAD ONLY MADE ONE ERROR IN 2,831 LINEUPS. "ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH DONE BY THE DUTCH POLICE AND OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, THIS IS ABSURD. EVEN USING RIGOROUS TRAINING METHODS, EXPERTS BELIEVE THAT THE BEST DOGS WORKED IN PERFECTLY CONTROLLED CONDITIONS CAN ONLY BE RIGHT APPROXIMATELY 85% OF THE TIME."

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, "PIKETT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT HIS DOGS CAN IDENTIFY SCENTS MORE THAN A DECADE OLD AND THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW SCENTS LEFT BY CARS - CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED BY EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD.""

GRITS FOR BREAKFAST;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Grits for Breakfast," a quirky blog published out of Houston, Texas, which, by its own admission, "looks at the Texas criminal justice system, with a little politics and whatever else suits the author's fancy thrown in."

"All opinions are my own. The facts belong to everybody," says publisher Scott Henson, "a former journalist turned opposition researcher/political consultant, public policy researcher and blogger."

"Welcome to Texas justice," Grits for Breakfast warns the reader. "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

A Grits for Breakfast post on September 22, 2009, gives readers the opportunity to download the entire recently released Innocence Project of Texas report into the miscarriages of justice and wrongful murder convictions caused by dog-scent "evidence" - and sheds some light on the report's contents.


"Yesterday the Innocence Project of Texas released its report criticizing "scent lineups" used by Fort Bend County Sheriff's Deputy Keith Pikett, who as regular readers know has seen his dogs' identification of suspects debunked in several recent, high-profile cases, including two capital murders," the post begins, under the heading, "Texas Innocence Project report discredits unscientific dog 'scent lineups".

"See a copy here (pdf) and initial coverage from the Houston Chronicle and the Victoria Advocate," it continues.

"The brief report, written by IPOT legal director Jeff Blackburn, is well worth a full read but I thought I'd point out a few highlights.

One new fact-bite in the report concerns the use of scent lineups in communist Cuba, where "secret police have amassed thousands of bottles of scents taken from anti-Castro slogans painted on walls and other such 'crime scenes' and are using them as 'proof' against dissidents." A footnote pointed out this recent Miami Herald story on the use of scent lineups in Cuba, where we get a glimpse of the totalitarian origins of this bizarre practice:

the use of 'criminal odorology' started in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, was developed by the former East Germany and in 1972 was established around Communist-ruled Europe.

After East Germany collapsed in 1989, West German investigators found a warehouse packed with tens of thousands of sealed jars containing bits of cloth impregnated with the odors of criminals and dissidents -- used to identify or track them.

(See an academic paper in Spanish on the use of scent lineups in Cuba.)

But the meat of the report related to Deputy Keith Pikett, who along with his wife undertook training pet bloodhounds as police dogs in the early '90s "on their own without using any known or established program."

The most extensive scientific testing of "scent lineup" methods has occurred in the Netherlands says IPOT, citing this 2002 New York Times story. They use elaborate methodologies which include controls that Deputy Pikett has not adopted.

When he gets into the courtroom, Pikett has sometimes misrepresented his credentials. In one of his first big cases he "testified that he had a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry degree from Syracuse University and a Master's degree in Chemistry from the University of Houston. This was a lie: Pikett has never received degrees from either institution." In the case where appellate courts formally affirmed his status as an expert witness, he also misrepresented himself as having a masters degree in Chemistry. Defense attorneys in that case did not challenge his testimony.

Pikett asserts outlandish success rates for his dogs, claiming one of them had only made one error in 2,831 lineups. "According to the research done by the Dutch police and other experts in the field, this is absurd. Even using rigorous training methods, experts believe that the best dogs worked in perfectly controlled conditions can only be right approximately 85% of the time."

According to the report, "Pikett has also claimed that his dogs can identify scents more than a decade old and that they can follow scents left by cars - claims which have been criticized by experts in this field."

The report quotes police dog experts from the around the country (including from the National Police Bloodhound Association) and from the UK harshly criticizing Pikett's methods. One called him an "unprofessional charlatan." Another concluded Pikett had "intentionally misspoke concerning the capabilities and expertise of his scent discriminating bloodhounds in given situations."

Finally, the report calls on police agencies and prosecutors to immediately stop using scent lineups by Deputy Pikett, and for the Attorney General to "conduct a full and complete investigation into every case in which scent lineups have been used, and to aid in the release of any person convicted on such testimony."

The recommendation about the AG vetting these old cases is particularly salient. Who knows how many false convictions have been obtained using this type of garbage evidence?"


You can access this article at:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/09/texas-innocence-project-report.html

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

UP-DATE; BILL DILLON CASE; FLORIDA TODAY TRACKS DOWN CASES INVOLVING NOW DISCREDITED DOG-SCENT "EXPERT" JOHN PRESTON;

"SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS ONLY BOLSTERED THE DOG HANDLER'S CREDIBILITY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, TRIAL RECORDS SHOW. MOXLEY TOLD A JUDGE IN A 1982 MURDER CASE THAT PRESTON HAD HELPED SEAL CONVICTIONS IN 10 OTHER CASES -- FIVE OF THEM MURDERS -- AND WAS RECOGNIZED AS AN "EXPERT TRACKER" BY THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. PRESTON ONCE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD WORKED MORE THAN 100 CASES IN BREVARD AND MORE THAN 50 ELSEWHERE IN FLORIDA."

REPORTER JEFF SCHWEERS; FLORIDA TODAY;
PHOTO: BILL DILLON;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"By his estimate, Pennsylvania dog handler John Preston worked more than 100 criminal cases for Brevard County police and prosecutors from 1981 to 1984, earning tens of thousands of dollars to link suspects to crimes," reporter Jeff Schweers story begins, under the heading: "16 cases mired in dog handler's fraud: Evidence goaded false convictions, thwarted true ones."

"Since then, Preston has been exposed as a fraud, and Florida has freed three imprisoned men since 1987, including accused rapist Wilton Dedge in 2004 and accused murderer William Dillon this year," the story, published earlier today, continues.

"Both spent more than two decades in prison before modern DNA tests showed that they couldn't have touched the evidence to which Preston's dogs had linked them.

Which raises the questions: How many others did Preston help convict in the early 1980s? And how did bad evidence from his tracking dogs influence the outcome of cases?

Of 48 grand jury indictments in Brevard during those four years, FLORIDA TODAY found 16 murder and capital sexual assault cases in which the dog handler testified or provided key evidence. Archived trial records revealed that Preston's tainted testimony mostly helped -- but sometimes hurt -- prosecutors:

# In 13 cases, Preston's evidence linked suspects to the crime scene or to key evidence, helping prosecutors win convictions and long prison sentences. Four men remain in prison. Only an appeals court could determine whether the tainted evidence warrants a new trial or other remedy.

# In three other cases, Preston's dubious methods left prosecutors' cases vulnerable. Defense attorneys quashed Preston's testimony, leading prosecutors to drop murder charges against two suspects and a jury to acquit one accused murderer who raped and killed again.

After Dedge's 2004 release, Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- a public defender during the Preston era -- asked his staff to review all cases of people still imprisoned because of Preston.

"The system is set up to make it difficult to convict an innocent person. This should rarely happen," said law professor Charles Rose of Stetson University in St. Petersburg. "But DNA evidence shows what we've said all along, that people are human, and humans are fallible."

Wolfinger ordered another review after a FLORIDA TODAY report on June 21 identified others convicted with Preston's help.

In an interview Thursday, Wolfinger said he is reasonably sure that many of those convictions would have held up without Preston. "I think Preston hurt the state in many cases," Wolfinger said.

Expert witness

Brevard investigators first employed Preston in 1981 on the recommendation of an Orange County sheriff's deputy who had used him in the murder investigation of an Eatonville postmistress.

Preston died last year.

Trial records show that Preston used two methods to link suspects to a crime:

# "Man-trailing." Preston would allow his dog to sniff a piece of the suspect's clothing, then "man-trail" the scent from the crime scene to another location, usually the suspect's known residence.

# "Scent lineups." After a sample sniff, the dog would "alert to" an article of the suspect's clothing or the murder weapon out of a lineup of five similar items. Often, the other items were brand new and bore no distinct scent.

The Brevard County Sheriff's Office brought Preston in on the 1981 double-murder and sexual assault of two teenage Titusville girls. Witnesses said Mark Wayne Jones picked them up at a Cocoa Beach nightclub and heard him talk about killing them. After sniffing one victim's shoe, Preston's dog Harass II alerted to her scent in Jones' 1973 Ford Pinto.

Preston didn't testify in court, but then-Assistant State Attorney Dean Moxley mentioned the dog evidence at the hearing in which Jones pleaded guilty to murder to avoid the death penalty, court transcripts show.

Subsequent convictions only bolstered the dog handler's credibility as an expert witness, trial records show. Moxley told a judge in a 1982 murder case that Preston had helped seal convictions in 10 other cases -- five of them murders -- and was recognized as an "expert tracker" by the 18th Judicial Circuit. Preston once testified that he had worked more than 100 cases in Brevard and more than 50 elsewhere in Florida.

"Our job was to try the case as best you could using the evidence you had," Moxley, now a circuit court judge, said Friday during an interview in his Titusville chambers.

Attacking credibility

Nearly from the start, defense lawyers -- in many cases, public defenders -- tried to discredit Preston as a witness by attacking his credentials and his dogs' training and inconsistent performance. They criticized Preston for leading his dog, giving foot signals, standing near scented items in lineups in which one item was obviously different from the rest.

Phyllis Riewe, an assistant public defender in 1981, was first to move to suppress Preston's evidence, in the rape trial of Frank Berry. She said the dog naturally picked an old nightgown from a lineup that otherwise included four brand-new nightgowns and couldn't help but pick the knife bearing the victim's blood from a lineup with other knives washed clean.

The judge denied that motion. Berry was sentenced to 124 years in prison.

"You need a mountain of evidence to show this witness was not credible," said Rose, the Stetson University professor. And even so, he cautioned, "a dirty witness doesn't mean an innocent defendant."

Prosecutors have a responsibility to ensure that evidence doesn't merely conform to preconceived notions, said George "Bob" Dekle, a criminal law professor at the University of Florida and a former prosecutor for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida.

"You have to be wary," Dekle said. "You have to make dang sure it's the right evidence."

Second thoughts

Moxley continued to employ Preston as an expert, even as other prosecutors and law enforcement officers began to suspect that Preston was a fraud, trial records show.

Sam Bardwell, who prosecuted Frank Berry, testified in another man's appeal in 1987 that he had begun to suspect Preston after the dog handler refused to participate in a "scientific experiment" Bardwell recommended.

In another case, Preston's dog failed three times to call attention to anything in a "scent lineup" before it seemed to identify the murder weapons. Then it urinated on several towels marked as evidence from the crime scene.

Preston's credibility collapsed in 1984, costing prosecutors a murder conviction. A jury acquitted defendant James Elmen, who later, in 1985, raped and killed a Jacksonville woman.

Convicted murderer Juan Ramos was acquitted on appeal in 1987.

Testifying at Ramos' appeal, ex-prosecutor Bardwell said discrediting Preston was a high point of his career. That testimony, plus detailed accounts of how Preston manipulated scent tests, helped unravel the state's case against Ramos. "You couldn't see any competency in the action of the dog," Bardwell said.

At the time, Moxley said, he had no reason to doubt Preston's credibility.

"If you believe you have evidence that is not reliable or tainted, you do not use it," Moxley said. "Today, I wouldn't use Preston."

Contact Schweers at 242-3668 or jschweers@floridatoday.com.
Additional Facts
Still in prison

Four men indicted for rape or murder in the early 1980s remain incarcerated largely in part to evidence developed by discredited dog handler John Preston.

# Gary Bennett, convicted of murdering his neighbor in 1983, based largely on evidence provided by Preston's dog. His lawyers are trying to obtain DNA evidence that would confirm or deny his involvement.
# Mark Wayne Jones pleaded guilty to a double murder and rape in 1981 to avoid the death penalty after Preston's dog placed him at the scene of the crime and detected his victims' scent in his car. Jones is doing two life terms, plus 15 years.
# Frank Berry is serving a 124-year sentence for rape after Preston's dog tied Berry to the scene.
# Gary Dirk is serving life in prison for a 1984 rape in Satellite Beach. Although Preston's testimony helped build the case, he never testified because the prosecution and defense agreed to keep him off the stand.

The story can be found at:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090830/NEWS01/908300322&template=printart

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

MILLER/BUCHANEK CASES: FLORIDA INNOCENCE PROJECT REPORT ON INVESTIGATION INTO PIKETT'S SCENT-LINEUPS TO BE FINISHED "WITHIN WEEKS"; VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

"THE GROUP PLANS TO SHARE ITS FINDINGS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT ACROSS THE STATE. THE INNOCENCE PROJECT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO AN OUTSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN HOPES OF TRIGGERING AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION, BLACKBURN SAID."

SIDEBAR; LESLIE WILBER; THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A sidebar to reporter Leslie Wilbers August 12 story on Keith Pikett tells us that, "A report detailing the Innocence Project of Texas' investigation into Keith Pikett's scent lineups should be finished within weeks."

""We have done hundreds of hours of work so far in the last month," said Jeff Blackburn, the group's chief counsel. "It's pretty disturbing,"" the sidebar continues;

"The Innocence Project is investigating several cases in which Pikett's testimony was used to get a conviction, Blackburn said.

"This is a very flawed witness who is giving very flawed testimony," Blackburn said.

The group plans to share its findings with law enforcement across the state. The Innocence Project would also like to make a formal complaint to an outside law enforcement agency in hopes of triggering an official investigation, Blackburn said.

When the report is finished, it will be available online, Blackburn said."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

MILLER/BUCHANEK CASES: GREAT REPORTING; LESLIE WILBER ON THE SCENT OF SCENT-LINEUP'S FOR THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

"THIS IS JUNK SCIENCE. THIS ISN'T EVEN SCIENCE. THIS IS JUST JUNK," SAID JEFF BLACKBURN, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE INNOCENCE PROJECT OF TEXAS. THE GROUP WORKS TO FREE THE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND BEGAN INVESTIGATING PIKETT RECENTLY."

REPORTER LESLIE WILBER; THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporter Leslie Wilber has done a superb job of exposing the brutal injustice caused to innocent individuals such as Calvin Lee Miller and Michael Buchanek when a justice system blindly embraces a scientifically bereft charade such as "scent-lineups" as practiced by snake-oil salesmen such as John Preston and Keith Pikett;

I particularly admired Ms. Wilber's thorough examination of scent line-ups in a story which appeared in the Victoria Advocate on July 12, 2009, under the heading: "Does it pass the smell test?"

On the trail:
"A tall, soft-spoken black man robbed one elderly woman of her life's savings and sexually assaulted another. He attacked the women in their homes, early in the morning, as they left for church," the story began."

"Shops in the small town of Yoakum sold out of Mace. Women took self-defense classes," it continued;

"As pressure mounted on law enforcement to make an arrest, an unnamed source told investigator Collin Lee Campbell Jr. that Calvin Lee Miller was unemployed and "had been buying a lot of cocaine with cash."

Miller, a 43-year-old Yoakum native, is a former high school football player of imposing bulk. He speaks quietly. Police know him as an habitual - though petty and non-violent - criminal.

To divine Miller's connection, the investigator swabbed the suspect with a gauze pad. He took that pad and scent from the victim's sheets to Deputy Keith Pikett in Fort Bend County.

Pikett is the only dog handler in the state who performs scent identification lineups. Pikett's three bloodhounds indicated Miller's scent was on the sheets.

Miller spent 62 days in jail. Finally, he was cleared by DNA evidence and the victims' failure to identify him.

"It was just like my life was taken away from me," he said.

No laws or regulations govern scent lineups, but they're admissible in courts across the nation. Only tighter oversight can keep shoddy - and sometimes shady - scent IDs from becoming key evidence, a growing number of critics say.

"This is junk science. This isn't even science. This is just junk," said Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas. The group works to free the wrongfully convicted and began investigating Pikett recently.

Miller's case and several others across the country reveal problems with scent dogs:

- During a murder investigation, the home of a former Victoria County sheriff's captain was searched after Pikett's dogs led officers there, then identified his scent in a lineup. Another man later confessed to the murder.

- A California man, accused of arson, awaited trial in jail for two years. His arrest was based largely on scent evidence collected from charred shrubs. He was acquitted.

- Two Florida men each spent more than 20 years in prison - one convicted of rape, the other of murder. The evidence against both included testimony from a dog handler the Arizona Supreme Court later called a charlatan.

How scent IDs work

Two ideas underlie scent identification: Dogs have a keen sense of smell - sometimes 10,000 times more sensitive than humans - and everyone has a unique scent. The challenge is to train dogs to overtly and accurately alert observers to matching smells.

The best-run scent lineups can provide results as accurate as witness identification lineups, said Kenneth Furton, the chairman of the federally funded Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines. Furton is a chemistry and biochemistry professor at Florida International University. For a model, he points to the Netherlands, where lineups are closely regulated and happen in near-sterile rooms without human interaction.

But training for dogs in the United States is often left to lone handlers or agencies.

"There isn't really any requirement to adhere to any kind of best practice," Furton said. Lineups are not as widely used as other scent evidence - for example, drug sniffs - so the technique has glided under regulatory radars, he said.

The National Police Bloodhound Association quit endorsing the technique years ago, calling scent lineups unreliable.

"We don't even want to take a chance on that," said Doug Lowry, the group's president and a chief instructor.

Kevin Kocher, president of the National Bloodhound Training Institute, said he doesn't run lineups and finds them hard to defend.

Critics list several potential weaknesses of scent identification:

Handler or observer influence. Dogs are eager to please and can pick up subtle cues, especially if lineups are conducted on leash, said Steven Nicely, a police-dog handler-turned-defense witness. Handlers can read observers and unintentionally relay that information to the dogs.

"They learn about the pressure on the leash and the way you stand," Nicely said.

Sample contamination. Lineups typically include a suspect's scent and scents from five other people. The samples should all be fresh and about the same age because scent fades over time.

The pads should be handled carefully, to avoid contamination, and lineups should be conducted in clean rooms, without distracting smells. Human scent is best stored in glass jars at room temperature and out of direct light, Fulton said.

Handler reliability. Dogs can't talk, so handlers are their voice in the courtroom. Affidavits should be precise. Records should be detailed, showing errors and successes.

"As a dog handler, you'd better be acting as a scientist," Nicely said. "Otherwise, you're acting on myth and folklore."

Troubled cases

Michael Buchanek's federal lawsuit in January 2008 was the first complaint about Pikett's work, said Randy Morse, an assistant Fort Bend County attorney representing the deputy. A scent lineup and trail identified Buchanek as a suspect in the high-profile murder of Sally Blackwell.

Pikett's dogs, Quincy and James Bond, walked from the site where Blackwell's body was found, along Zac Lentz Parkway, to her home more than five miles away. From there, they went to Buchanek's house nearby.

The hounds also picked the former Victoria County sheriff's captain's scent in a series of lineups. The identifications were used to get a search warrant for Buchanek's home.

His lawyer, Rex Easley, represents Calvin Miller in another civil suit that names Pikett.

In one motion, Easley wrote Pikett's lineup was "so recklessly flawed that it violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff. First, the dogs were leashed during the lineup, which fails to exclude handler input. Second, the site, the pads and the cans were contaminated with countless other scents so as to render it unreliable and impermissible to base a warrant upon."

Easley hired Bob Coote, who led a police-dog force in the United Kingdom and worked with scent dogs guarding the British border, to review Pikett's work in Buchanek's case. The lineup was "the most primitive evidential police procedure I have ever witnessed. If it was not for the fact that this is a serious matter, I could have been watching a comedy," Coote wrote.

In California, Michael Espalin spent two years in jail awaiting an arson trial. Firefighters saw Espalin walking his dog near a Riverside, Calif., landscape fire in 2004. Fire Capt. Robert Rappaport knew bloodhound handler and community college professor Lisa Harvey.

Harvey used a method similar to scent lineup and claimed her bloodhound, Dakota, connected a scent from a matchbook wrapped in toilet paper to a series of fires. Then, she linked the fire-starting device to Espalin's home.

Espalin was arrested, although another suspect - a reported firebug - fit witness descriptions. The other man's truck looked like one seen near several fires.

"She was all fired up about this," said attorney Joseph De Clue, who represents Espalin in a civil suit filed in federal court in California. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. She looked at it as a new way of solving crimes."

A jury heard Harvey's testimony in January 2007 and deadlocked. Harvey did not testify in the second trial. Espalin was found not guilty.

Discredited handler

Dog handlers and criminal justice advocates draw parallels between current scent identification cases and the work of a man discredited more than 20 years ago.

John Preston's German shepherd, Harass II, gained a super-canine reputation for his work on high-profile, violent crimes. The team's techniques included scent lineups and trailing.

The Pennsylvania state trooper and his dog were called to investigations around the country in the early 1980s.

Florida authorities used Preston in scores of investigations, estimates Seth Miller, executive director of The Innocence Project of Florida. Preston's testimony was part of the evidence that convicted William Dillon of murder and Wilton Dedge of rape.

By the mid-1980s, the Kings County District Attorney in New York gathered a list of 14 dog handlers who said Preston's claims were "highly improbable." The Arizona Supreme Court called Preston a charlatan.

Dedge and Dillon were exonerated in recent years after each spent more than 20 years in prison. The state of Florida paid Dedge a $2 million settlement. Dillon has not been compensated for his 27-year prison stay, which is as long as any exonerated inmate's, Seth Miller said.

Preston has since died.

Agencies, including the FBI, continued to use scent identification even after Preston's work was debunked, former dog handler Nicely said.

Special Agent Ann Todd with the FBI office of public affairs responded to several requests for interviews with an e-mail.

"The FBI does not wish to participate in an interview at this time. The FBI Laboratory's Forensic Canine Program does not currently use dogs to do scent ID lineups," she wrote.

Handlers, too, resist the idea of regulation.

During a pretrial hearing, Harvey said no group would be qualified to evaluate her dogs.

Although Pikett works full time for a sheriff's office, supervisors have not set guidelines for his work, his lawyer said. No one else understands what he does.

"He would just be writing regulations toward himself," his lawyer, Morse, said.

Morse advised against allowing his client to comment for this article.

Legal standing

How does evidence few people understand, and no one monitors, make it into court?

Some prosecutors and investigators support scent identification because it can offer leads where there were none.

San Jacinto County District Attorney Bill Burnett used Pikett as an expert witness to prosecute three co-defendants in a murder case. One was convicted of murder, another of capital murder and the third was acquitted.

"I felt like this evidence was certainly credible," Burnett said. He grew up around hunting dogs and knows they can do incredible stuff, he said.

Big investigative agencies - the FBI, the Houston Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - have used Pikett, Burnett said.

An outright ban on a type of evidence is rare, said Eric Ferrero, director of communications for The Innocence Project.

"It's the jobs of courts to police whatever evidence should be allowed into the courtroom," Ferrero said.

Getting binding appellate court decisions about evidence is often a difficult, inefficient process, said Blackburn of The Innocence Project of Texas.

"It takes a good lawyer who raises the issue correctly at trial," Blackburn said. Many public defenders are ill-equipped to mount meaningful criticisms of questionable evidence, he said.

Because it is unmonitored, seeing the full picture of scent ID, with all of its potential flaws, is difficult, Blackburn said.

"As far as we know, no one disallows it," Blackburn said. "That doesn't mean it's being used."

But in prosecutor-friendly states like Texas, California and Florida, he said, scent IDs can get into courtrooms unchecked.

Pikett was disqualified from testifying twice when held to standards for scientific forensic evidence.

"There is no way to adequately examine the theory behind a dog's identification of a suspect," Houston defense attorney Daphne L. Pattison wrote in a motion that successfully barred Pikett's testimony. "We have no way to interview the dog and determine what the dog is smelling, no way to examine the dog's biology to determine the mechanism employed, in short, no way to understand the science."

Pikett's credibility has been upheld by at least one Texas court of appeals. The decision relied on Pikett's testimony that his dogs were almost flawlessly accurate.

The court also noted Pikett's experience and education, including a master's degree in chemistry.

According to transcripts from a pre-trial hearing, Pikett twice told the court he earned the advanced degree.

In a deposition for the Buchanek case, Pikett said that wasn't his testimony. Instead, he has a master's in education from the United States Sports Academy.

The Rin Tin Tin factor

Heroic, loyal dogs lope through the American consciousness in folklore, television and books. Consequently, scent evidence can be compelling once it's in front of a jury, Blackburn said. Most people are raised to trust cops and dogs, former handler Nicely said, and people are reluctant to question those values.

"They don't want to step on the nose or the ears or the tails of Rin Tin Tin or Old Yeller," Nicely said.

The demand for Pikett's services remains, and he performs scent lineups daily in the parking lot of Pilgrim Journey Baptist Church in Rosenberg. Although his attorney, Morse, contends the lineups are legitimate, he said more suits could halt Pikett's work.

"If he becomes a target, I don't know if it's going to be worth it," Morse said.

Waiting for courts to flush bad science from the legal system is slow, Nicely said, so he wants a legislative solution. Detailed records of training and field work should be mandated, he said.

"We need to make it a criminal act to fail to do this," Nicely said.

The Scientific Working Group for Dog and Orthogonal Detection Guidelines is drafting scent lineup guidelines. The group will likely suggest an international board to oversee certifying agencies, chairman Furton said. The agencies would regularly vet dog and handler teams, he said.

Even with certification, Furton said, no criminal case should be built on scent lineups alone.

The lasting effects

Innocence Project volunteers could work for years, Blackburn said, and never find out how many people are wrongfully imprisoned based on what one man says his dogs smelled. The group learns of cases slowly, one at a time.

The Innocence Project of Florida is still searching for cases in which John Preston testified, more than 20 years after the fact, executive director Seth Miller said.

In South Texas, Calvin Miller is trying to pick up the life he had before his arrest.

Good news came to Miller slowly in jail. In April, his defense lawyer, Bill Caraway, called to say DNA evidence proved Miller was not the rapist. The case against Miller unraveled from there, but he was not released until May 5.

Caraway met Miller in the lobby of the Lavaca County Jail. Both men cried. They drank ice-cold, bucket-sized soft drinks in celebration.

But Miller's relief and joy have not tempered his outrage or his fear of police. He moved away from Yoakum, the town where he grew up, attended high school and lived most of his life. He visits his parents there, but never strays far from their houses.

"The place you call home, you can never go there," Miller said.

The crimes he was accused of remain unsolved.

Miller still can't understand how an innocent man can be so easily locked away.

"His question was, 'If I didn't do it, how could those dogs say I did it?'" his attorney Easley said. "And I told him dogs can't talk.""

The story can be found at:

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jul/12/lw_scentlineup_071209_56411/?counties

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CALVIN LEE MILLER/ MICHAEL BUCHANEK CASES: MORE FROM REPORTER LESLIE WILBER OF THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE ON KEITH PIKETT AND HIS LINEUP SNIFFING HOUNDS;

"SAN JACINTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY BILL BURNETT PROSECUTED TAYLOR'S CLIENT AND TWO CO-DEFENDANTS, ONE OF WHOM WAS ACQUITTED. BURNETT WOULD CALL PIKETT AS WITNESS AGAIN WITHOUT HESITATION, HE SAID."

REPORTER LESLIE WILBER; VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reporter Leslie Wilber shed light on Keith Pikett's career in a story which appeared in the Victoria Advocate on July 12, 2009, which appeared under the heading, "Handler's credibility questioned in court," and the sub-heading, "Teacher turned hobby into a career of sniffing out suspects in more than 1,000 cases," on July 12, 2009;

"In 1989, a high school teacher and his wife bought a bloodhound named Samantha. For fun, they taught her to follow scents," the story begins;

"Two years later, Keith and Karen Pikett volunteered Samantha to search for lost children around Houston. The couple bought another bloodhound, and demand for their services grew," it continues;

"In 1998, Keith Pikett turned his hobby into a career with the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office.

Since then, police, prosecutors and the media have praised the deputy and his dogs' work in more than 1,000 investigations.

But Pikett's credibility is being tested in both civil and criminal court. Two federal lawsuits, filed little more than a year apart, claim Pikett's scent lineups are designed to implicate suspects - not to gather objective evidence.

Meanwhile, judges have twice excluded him from testifying as an expert because of questions about the science supporting his work or his honesty.

In 2007, Pikett testified that three of his dogs, Jag, James Bond and Clue, never erred in scent identifications, despite having sniffed hundreds of lineups. A fourth hound, 12-year-old Quincy, performed 1,483 scent lineups and made only two mistakes early in her career, Pikett said.

Victoria attorney Rex Easley represents both plaintiffs suing Pikett.

"The scent line-up was not performed according to any identified, recognized or established protocol, but were rigged to be result-oriented, that is, to maliciously and intentionally implicate plaintiff," Easley wrote in Calvin Miller's complaint.

Yoakum police used results of the scent lineup to get an arrest warrant charging Miller with robbery and aggravated sexual assault. Miller was later cleared by DNA results.

Easley's other client, former Victoria County Sheriff's Capt. Michael Buchanek, was briefly a person of interest in the high-profile murder of Sally Blackwell, of Victoria. Another man later confessed.

Victoria police and sheriff's investigators relied on a lineup and a trail run by Pikett's hounds to get a search warrant for Buchanek's Victoria home.

Before the lawsuits, news coverage of Pikett was overwhelmingly positive.

The 62-year-old's deep-creased grin, patient voice, khaki shorts and walking shoes seem like holdovers from his teaching past.

He's begun to curb his openness with reporters, though. Randy Morse, assistant Fort Bend County attorney, advised Pikett not to grant an interview because he feared it would turn into a debate.

After several phone calls, Morse agreed to a limited meeting. Advocate journalists could watch a morning of scent lineups and take photographs, but not film anything.

Pikett presented his work with flair and a clear intent to dispel common criticisms.

Conducting lineups on leash, as Pikett does, makes it difficult to exclude handler influence, said former K9 handler Steve Nicely, now an expert witness who has been hired to testify against Pikett at least three times.

Pikett does not know where the suspect's scent is during each lineup, his attorney said. As a Houston police officer laid out the scents for lineups, Pikett turned away and chatted with his audience.

But there seemed to be some clues - intentional or not - that pointed to the location of the suspect's scent. In the first lineup of the day, the bags in cans 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were rumpled. A crisp sample in a sharp-cornered bag sat in can 4. The dogs picked can 4.

As Pikett trotted the first hound back to its crate, the officer nodded, not hiding his pleasure from the handler.

Kenneth Furton, the head of the federally funded The Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines, recommends double-blind lineups - in which neither the handler nor the observer knows where the suspect's scent is.

Such precautions are designed to keep the observer from influencing the handler, who in turn can influence the dog, said Furton, also a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Florida International University.

The hounds aren't swayed by tugs on the leash, only by their noses, Pikett said.

During one lineup, James Bond walked down the line of cans without indicating a match.

"This is how I'm leading them and cueing them," Pikett said facetiously, then walked through the lineup again, this time jerking Bond's leash at every can.

The hound plodded on, ears and jowls waggling.

But the dogs seem to respond to some of Pikett's cues. In another lineup, each dog showed mild interest in can No. 2, where a suspect's scent had been placed.

Quincy, who typically spins and barks when she's found a match, walked in a small circle, but was silent.

"What happened to your voice?" Pikett asked, his arms spread in a questioning gesture. Quincy jogged down the line and barked as she passed can No. 5.

Clue's interest was similarly cool, merely a tail wag, though she typically plants her paws on Pikett's chest.

"Make it big," he prompted. Clue jumped up on him.

The hounds always pick the suspect's scent or no scent at all, and supporters say that proves the identifications are legitimate.

Stephen C. Taylor is so enthusiastic about Pikett's work that it's easy to forget the Conroe attorney defends criminal suspects.

He represented a convicted murderer in a case in which Pikett's evidence was key.

Pikett's hounds wowed Taylor by finding another client in a live lineup of six men.

"When they can do a live lineup like that, how do you explain it, unless my guy's scent is on it?" Taylor said.

San Jacinto County District Attorney Bill Burnett prosecuted Taylor's client and two co-defendants, one of whom was acquitted. Burnett would call Pikett as witness again without hesitation, he said.

Because dogs can't testify or be cross-examined, reliable testimony from handlers is crucial, Victoria County District Attorney Stephen Tyler said.

"A dog might be great, but if a dog handler is not good or not credible, it's only as strong as their weakest link," Tyler said.

According to transcripts from a pre-trial hearing, Pikett twice said he had a master's degree in chemistry. He does not.

In a deposition for the Buchanek case, Pikett denied the earlier testimony.

"It came out that way, but I didn't say it," Pikett said.

"It came out that way?" Easley asked. "The court reporter took it down wrong?"

"Well, I'm not gonna accuse them of that, but it came - I mean, I didn't see this until it came out in the appellate court ruling, and it said that, so I didn't have any idea what it said until I was given a copy of the appellate court ruling."

Pikett clarified that he has a master's degree in education from the United States Sports Academy.

Defense lawyer Steven Gilbert highlighted that discrepancy during a June hearing in Fort Bend County. Pikett was excluded as an expert witness in the case, but Gilbert's client was convicted of aggravated robbery.

Gilbert also questioned Pikett's scent lineup methods.

"There's no standards, no examination, no test," Gilbert said. "They're doing this stuff all over Europe, and there's strict peer review. Here, you make up the rules as you go along."

Houston defense lawyer Daphne Pattison successfully challenged Pikett's qualifications by questioning the science behind the lineups. The burglary charge against her client was dropped.

"The State has not provided any information to show that Deputy Pikett is competent to render an opinion on the identity of the suspect in this case," Pattison wrote in her motion. "Independent research has revealed absolutely no scientific analysis of this scent line-up procedure."

Pikett continues to lead his hounds in scent lineups daily, he said. Morse said the lawsuits might eventually halt Pikett's work.

That's good news to former handler Nicely, who summed up his thoughts on Pikett: "He needs to be stopped.""

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jul/12/lw_pikett_071209_56469/?counties

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

CALVIN LEE MILLER AND MICHAEL BUCHANEK CASES: LAWSUITS AGAINST DOG-SNIFFING "SPECIALIST" KEITH PIKETT ALLEGE DISHONESTY; VICTORIA ADVOCATE REPORTS;

"IN THAT TRIAL, PIKETT TESTIFIED HE EARNED A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY AND A MASTER'S IN CHEMISTRY IN HOUSTON. IN A 2000 PRE-TRIAL HEARING, PIKETT SAID HE HAD A MASTER'S DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY.

BUT IN DEPOSITION FOR BUCHANEK'S SUIT, PIKETT SAID HE HAD A MASTER'S DEGREE IN EDUCATION FROM THE UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY.

EASLEY FILED COPIES OF PIKETT'S DIPLOMAS FRIDAY: A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN ALABAMA AND A MASTER'S OF SPORT SCIENCE IN SPORT COACHING FROM THE UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY.

"HE APPEARS TO TESTIFY TO THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE," EASLEY SAID."

LESLIE WILBER; THE VICTORIA ADVOCATE;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 now turns to Deputy Keith Pikett, another so-called dog-scent "specialist", a canine officer 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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporter Leslie Wilber has been reporting on dog-scent "specialist" Keith Pikett for the Victoria Advocate;

"Court filings accuse a Fort Bend County Sheriff's deputy of lying about his schooling and the accuracy of his bloodhounds," Wilber's story begins, under the heading, "Pikett subject of two federal lawsuits" and the sub-heading: "Evidence mounts against dog handler named in lawsuits."

"Keith Pikett is the only Texas dog handler who performs scent lineups, and his technique is the subject of two federal lawsuits," the August 11, 2009 story continues;

""It would be irresponsible for any prosecutor to use him as a witness," Jeff Blackburn said in response to the latest documents filed in one suit against Pikett. Blackburn is the chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, a group that works to uncover wrongful convictions and is currently investigating Pikett.

The lawsuits, filed in Victoria, accuse Pikett of using shaky scent identification techniques that produce unreliable results.

In June, Pikett's attorney, Randy Morse, filed a motion asking Judge John Rainey to throw out former Victoria County Sheriff's Capt. Michael Buchanek's suit against Pikett.

Buchanek's home was searched after Pikett's bloodhounds picked his scent from lineups during the high-profile investigation of Sally Blackwell's murder.

Jeffery Grimsinger later pleaded guilty to killing the 55-year-old Victoria woman and is serving life in prison.

Rex Easley, who represents Buchanek, filed a lengthy response to Morse's motion on Friday.

The response included an excerpt from Pikett's testimony in the 1997 murder trial of Marcus Bridger Cotton. Cotton was executed in 2004.

In that trial, Pikett testified he earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry from Syracuse University and a master's in chemistry in Houston. In a 2000 pre-trial hearing, Pikett said he had a master's degree in chemistry.

But in deposition for Buchanek's suit, Pikett said he had a master's degree in education from the United States Sports Academy.

Easley filed copies of Pikett's diplomas Friday: A bachelor's of science from the University of Southern Alabama and a master's of sport science in sport coaching from the United States Sports Academy.

"He appears to testify to things that aren't true," Easley said.

Morse said he received Easley's response late Friday night.

"I have not even had a chance to review it," he said when asked about the allegations. Morse quickly ended the phone call.

News stories questioning Pikett's methods prompted former Harris County assistant district attorney Victor Wisner to call Easley. Wisner wrote an affidavit accusing Pikett and his hounds of picking out the wrong man in a lineup.

Wisner and Houston Police officers from the Westside Task Force were working on a case against a man accused in a series of burglaries. After the charges were filed, Wisner found out investigators from Houston's central burglary and theft had filed charges against another man. Those charges were based on a scent lineup by Pikett, Wisner wrote in his affidavit.

"The scent evidence was ludicrous and incriminated a person who was unrelated to the offenses," Wisner wrote. Wisner wrote an e-mail to all the prosecutors in the office, warning them that Pikett's evidence was unreliable.

"I also know the B&T officers he assisted had attempted to cover the incident up to protect Pikett's reputation," Wisner wrote.

Wisner did not want to elaborate on his cover-up allegations.

"I stand by everything in the affidavit," Wisner said.

The Houston Police Department did use Pikett in some cases, said Kese Smith, with the department of public affairs. He would not comment on the allegations in Wisner's affidavit."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/aug/11/lw_pikett_folo_081109_61247/?news&local-news

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

THE BILL DILLON CASE: (9); WIKIPEDIA'S TAKE ON JOHN PRESTON - THE MAN WHO CLAIMED HE COULD TRACK DOG-SCENTS OVER WATER?

"SAM BARDWELL, A FORMER PROSECUTOR IN BREVARD IN THE 1980S WHO USED PRESTON AS A WITNESS IN A RAPE CASE, CLAIMS THAT "EVERYONE" KNEW THAT PRESTON WAS A "TOTAL FRAUD". KAREN BRANDON, WHO WORKED IN THE SAME OFFICE AT THE SAME TIME, DENIED THAT ANYONE KNEW THIS."

WIKIPEDIA;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John Preston (? - 2008)[1] was a dog handler and former state trooper from Pennsylvania who testified for the prosecution in criminal cases across the country in the early 1980s, including dozens of times in Florida," the Wikipedia account begins;

Preston claimed that his dog (Harass II) could perform feats of forensic detection that are beyond the abilities of other investigative dogs, smelling human traces sometimes years after a suspect walked over the ground, even on heavily trafficked streets," it continues;

As an expert, Preston was paid $300 per day; in his previous job as a Pennsylvania state trooper, he was paid $20,000 per year. Brevard county, Florida, paid Preston $37,429 in the first half of 1984 alone.

Preston's testimony was repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and the Arizona Supreme Court, who called him a "charlatan". A U.S. Postal Service investigation in 1983 claimed Preston led Harass II to the results requested by investigators, which Preston requested before using the dog.

When tested by Judge Gilbert Goshorn during a 1984 trial in Brevard, Florida, Harass II failed to track a scent much simpler and fresher than those it supposedly tracked in other cases. Goshorn offered Preston another chance at the test the next day, but Preston left town instead. He did not return to Brevard to testify again.

Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor in Brevard in the 1980s who used Preston as a witness in a rape case, claims that "everyone" knew that Preston was a "total fraud". Karen Brandon, who worked in the same office at the same time, denied that anyone knew this.

Effect and fallout
Preston helped convict at least two men who were eventually freed by DNA evidence.
Each spent more than twenty years in prison.

Gorshon, the judge whose test Preston and his dog failed, claimed in a 2008 affidavit:

It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question. I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case.

The Innocence Project of Florida believes that as many as 60 people may have been convicted based partially or solely upon Preston's testimony. Florida Today found 15 cases in which Preston testified. The Brevard/Seminole State Attorney claimed that it would not be possible to discover which cases Preston testified in. Later, he announced that he would "re-review" those cases, but that the cases had already been reviewed.

This Wikipedia account can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (10) GERALDO RIVERA DEBUNKS JOHN PRESTON AND HIS MAGICAL DOG; SEE IT FOR YOURSELF;

"FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE"--THOSE ARE SERIOUS CHARGES. AND IN THE CASE OF PRESTON, PROVEN. BUT THE FALSE TRACKING AND TESTIMONY AREN'T NEWS NOW. GERALDO RIVERA EXPOSED THE CON JOB ON NATIONAL TV IN 1984. YET PRESTON REMAINED ONE OF BREVARD COUNTY'S STAR PROSECUTORIAL WITNESSES. THE INNOCENCE PROJECT OF FLORIDA, NOW WORKING ON THE CASE OF CONVICTED KILLER GARY BENNETT--ALSO NAILED IN LARGE PART BY PRESTON'S ANTICS--PROVIDED THIS CLIP OF RIVERA ON THE CASE."

PATRICIA PHILLIPS; OKLAHOMA CRIME EXAMINER;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Phillips is the author of a column which ran on June 27, 2009, under the heading: "K9 Con Man John Preston: the Geraldo Rivera debunking."

See it for yourself at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6121-Oklahoma-Crime-Examiner~y2009m6d27-K9-Con-Man-John-Preston-the-Geraldo-Rivera-debunking?cid=exrss-Oklahoma-Crime-Examiner

"The situation in Brevard County, FL was so bad that one prosecutor resigned because he couldn't stand the lies any more," the column began.

"Nevertheless, officials continued to use discredited K9 handler John Preston as an expert in dozens of cases. Their reliance on Preston put innocent men on Death Row and wrecked multiple lives," it continued.

"It's taken more than 20 years for the entire sorry mess to literally explode. As a behind-the-scenes, unofficial expert, I'm appalled that after my research caught Preston lying on the stand, he remained a key resource for then-State Attorney Doug Chesire (now deceased).

To me, it was a perfect pairing of egos. I sat in the courtroom and watched Preston's testimony be taken apart.

Yet he remained the "go-to"guy for Cheshire and other officials. Not that Preston, like a traveling salesman, didn't travel the U.S. with Harass II, reeling out his long lead and making claims for the dog that simply were not physically possible for any tracking dog, no matter how talented and well-trained.

And Preston's dogs weren't well-trained. In an upcoming stories in this series, I'll tell you how his self-promotion was as factual and reliable as the evidence he produced for Cheshire and his crew.

In a recent editorial, the hometown newspaper, Florida Today, quoted a former prosecutor, Sam Bardwell, who resigned from the State Attorney's office because of the lies.

Titusville attorney and former Brevard prosecutor Sam Bardwell, who encountered Preston in a 1981 rape case, says then-State Attorney Doug Cheshire, also now dead, as well as the Brevard Sheriff’s Office and most law enforcement officers at the time knew Preston was a charlatan.

“I left the State Attorney’s Office because I could not abide by the fabrication of evidence,” Bardwell says.

."Fabrication of evidence"--those are serious charges. And in the case of Preston, proven. But the false tracking and testimony aren't news now.

Geraldo Rivera exposed the con job on national TV in 1984. Yet Preston remained one of Brevard County's star prosecutorial witnesses.

The Innocence Project of Florida, now working on the case of convicted killer Gary Bennett--also nailed in large part by Preston's antics--provided this clip of Rivera on the case."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE: (6); FLORIDA TODAY RAISES SPECTRE OF NUMEROUS OTHER CONVICTIONS INVOLVING JOHN PRESTON'S MAGIC DOG;

"IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE ONLY WAY PRESTON COULD ACHIEVE THE RESULTS HE ACHIEVED IN NUMEROUS OTHER CASES WAS HAVING OBTAINED INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE PRIOR TO THE SCENT TRACKING SO THAT PRESTON COULD LEAD THE DOG TO THE SUSPECT OR EVIDENCE IN QUESTION," GOSHORN CONTINUED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. "I BELIEVE THAT PRESTON WAS REGULARLY RETAINED TO CONFIRM THE STATE'S PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT A CASE."


BY JOHN A. TORRES AND JEFF SCHWEERS: FLORIDA TODAY;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scorned as a "charlatan" by the Arizona Supreme Court and a fraud by a retired judge and others, a dog handler who helped the state convict dozens of people haunts Brevard County criminal cases 25 years after he was discredited," the ground-breaking Florida Today exposee began, on June 21, 2009,under the heading, Calls grow for reinvestigating cases from 1980's."

"John Preston, who died last year, testified in the 1980s trials of three Brevard men who have since been released with overturned convictions or dropped charges," the story continued;

"Now, the Innocence Project, which helped free Juan Ramos, Wilton Dedge and William Dillon, is looking into a fourth case involving Preston: the murder conviction of Gary Bennett in 1984.

Calls are growing for State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and his staff to reinvestigate and reopen more cases in which convictions may have been tainted by Preston's questionable word, as well as reliance on jailhouse informants. Some allege corruption by prosecutors at the time.

"If Norm Wolfinger had one iota of integrity, he would say it's outrageous and investigate the cases," said Titusville attorney Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor here. "John Preston was a total fraud, and everyone knew it."

The State Attorney's Office has said it couldn't provide a list of cases involving the dog handler, but a FLORIDA TODAY archives and records search found more than 15 of 60 reported Brevard cases.

In a fax Friday, Wolfinger said only Bennett and another man remain in prison after trials in which Preston testified as an expert.

FLORIDA TODAY's research showed some convicts in the Preston-related cases have been released after serving their sentences. Some have died.

A public defender in the 1980s when Preston was an active witness, Wolfinger had issued a statement Wednesday saying it's the responsibility of convicted people to seek relief. He did not answer questions from FLORIDA TODAY.

"Defendants have had rights in Florida to challenge their convictions through a well established post-conviction process," the statement said. "Historically, that has been through a Rule 3.850 motion. More recently, that right has been expanded to DNA testing through Rule 3.853.

"Those provisions have procedures which defendants must follow, as well as potential rights to appointment of an attorney and having the public pay for costs if a hearing or testing is allowed by the court."

Attorney quit
Bardwell first encountered Preston while working as a prosecutor in the Frank Berry rape case in 1981. Bardwell did not want to use Preston's testimony, but he said he was pressured by others.

"The guy would show up at the State Attorney's Office asking if anyone needed help with a case," Bardwell said.

Berry was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Though Bardwell thought Berry was guilty of the charges, he said the corruption he witnessed caused him to abandon prosecutions and take up private practice as a defense attorney.

"I left the State Attorney's Office because I could not abide by the fabrication of evidence," Bardwell said.

Berry is the second man Wolfinger identified as in prison in a Preston-related case. He called him a "serial rapist."

"Mr. Berry not only has a prior sexual battery and a subsequent escape sentence, his taped confession was played at trial, and he continues to admit his guilt to prison officials," Wolfinger said in Friday's fax.

Crist bows out
The Innocence Project of Florida has called for the governor to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Preston cases. Seth Miller, executive director of the nonprofit group, has been outspoken about what he calls "widespread corruption" in Brevard County in the early 1980s.

"Preston was being fed information that allowed him to understand certain facts about the case that enabled him to manufacture evidence in order to get the conviction," Miller said. "Not only do we have to free the folks who are innocent, who were put into prison because of this testimony, but we have to hold the people who did this accountable."

Through a spokesman last week, Gov. Charlie Crist said he won't appoint a prosecutor, agreeing with Wolfinger.

"We believe this is a judicial issue and should be handled on a case-by-case analysis through the judicial system," spokesman Sterling Ivey said after consulting with legal staff. "There are methods by which new evidence can be filed in a case, and this is the appropriate course of action to take."

Attorney Jennifer Greenberg, who helped exonerate Dedge in 2004, said it is unfair to expect inmates decades later to know of developments in related cases, nor how to file for relief.

"Just gathering up the info on all Preston's doings would be virtually impossible, let alone getting into court in a timely fashion to actually get the issue heard," she said. "Post-conviction time deadlines, the necessity of investigative work and the pleading requirements totally prohibit inmates from receiving due process or fundamental fairness."

Judge's action
In the late 1970s, Preston went from a $20,000-a-year job as a Pennsylvania state trooper to a highly paid expert who testified in cases for the FBI, the U.S. Postal Service and Orange, Palm Beach, Brevard and Seminole counties, as well as for Arizona, Ohio and other states. He was paid $300 a day, according to documents.

Retired 18th Circuit and appellate Judge Gil Goshorn put Preston and his dogs to a test and ultimately refused to allow him to present himself as an expert in 1984.

Goshorn was ready to testify late last year in hearings on behalf of Dillon, convicted of a 1981 murder in which Preston testified, but the state first granted Dillon a new trial because of DNA evidence.

"The elected state attorney at that time, Doug Cheshire, relied heavily on Preston in a number of cases and frequently offered him as an expert," Goshorn stated in a sworn affidavit in 2008. "Cheshire also was a prolific user of jailhouse 'snitches.' Cheshire's office often relied on such evidence of dubious reliability."

Cheshire was voted out of office in 1984, when Wolfinger became state attorney. Cheshire died in 1997.

Failed test
Goshorn's test of the dog handler's scent-tracking ability involved two lawyers jogging down separate paths. The following morning, the dog was given one lawyer's sweat-soaked shirt to see if the dog could follow the trail. The dog failed.

Goshorn told Preston that he would give him a second chance a day later, but the handler and his dog left town and never testified in Brevard again.

"It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question," Goshorn continued in his affidavit. "I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case."

Prosecutors, including ones in Brevard, continued using Preston's services after a 1983 federal investigation initiated by the U.S. Postal Service. It said Preston routinely asked investigators for information about a case before using the dog and that he led his dog to supply wanted results.

Newspaper accounts said Brevard agencies paid Preston at least $37,429 for work done in the first half of 1984, including in the Bennett trial.

Preston's cases were overturned in Arizona, where the state's highest court referred to him as a "charlatan."

Bennett case
The Innocence Project wouldn't address its involvement in the Bennett case, except to say it was one that their attorneys are looking into. The case fits a pattern similar to those of Ramos, Dedge and Dillon.

Bennett, now seeking new DNA testing, was convicted in part on evidence provided by Preston and testimony of two cellmates who said he talked about killing his Palm Bay neighbor in 1984.

Prosecutors argued that Preston's dog identified Bennett's scent on the murder weapon in the 1984 case. But two scent tests failed when the tracking dog -- after sniffing Bennett's clothing -- failed to pick the murder weapons from lineups of similar weapons.

Bennett's palm print and fingerprint also were reportedly found at the murder scene.

Innocence Project leader Miller has an investigator looking into Preston's Brevard connection, hoping to help more people such as Dillon out of prison.

Memories differ
Preston testified in the Dillon case after his dog tracked Dillon across State Road A1A to the murder scene, then tied him to a bloody T-shirt. DNA evidence has since precluded Dillon from wearing the shirt.

Former Judge Stanley Wolfman, who presided over the Dillon trial, called the dog-tracking evidence troubling.

"It was kind of flimsy. They had this dog tracking across A1A with all the traffic going by there, and I just shook my head internally and (the defense attorney) did not attack it," Wolfman said. "It was just poor evidence as far as I could see."

Defense attorney Karen Brandon, who helped prosecute Dillon, said she presented evidence to the jury that was provided to her by the sheriff's office. She denied knowledge of any corruption in the State Attorney's Office.

"At the time, there was absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Preston was less than forthright and that his evidence was less than valid," she said.

Dedge was awarded a new trial when Preston was discredited, but the introduction of notorious jailhouse snitch Clarence Zacke in his second trial sealed a second conviction against him. He was released in 2004 when DNA evidence proved that the semen found inside the rape victim did not belong to him.

Ramos, a Cuban immigrant, was arrested in 1982 for the rape and murder of his neighbor, even though no physical evidence tied him to the scene. Preston's testimony, however, was damning and Ramos was sentenced to death.

After four years on death row, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramos' conviction in 1986, citing the unreliability of the dog evidence. Ramos was acquitted at a retrial and released in 1987, when he moved to Miami.

Russo joins
In December, longtime Public Defender J.R. Russo joined those calling for an investigation.

"Mr. Wolfinger is very well-versed in the quality of the dog testimony," he said. "I'm surprised they are not going back to look at these cases."

But at the time, Wolfinger responded by saying defendants and their attorneys have been free to bring any motions they deem appropriate before the courts.

"Evidentiary challenges to the admissibility of the dog evidence by defense attorneys began and was well-publicized before I became state attorney," he said."

The story can be found at:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090621/NEWS01/906210319/-1/crime/Dog%20handler%20led%20to%20bad%20evidence?GID=gILl6OXLKuUzpDHUSJW1bIymGsYVi/8zD6YfByclUuU%3D

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;

BILL DILLON CASE; (5); J.D. TUCCILLE; A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE;

"A REPORT ON THE STATE OF FORENSIC MEDICINE FOR THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE CONCEDES THAT "THE FACT IS THAT MANY FORENSIC TESTS -- SUCH AS THOSE USED TO INFER THE SOURCE OF TOOLMARKS OR BITE MARKS -- HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO STRINGENT SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY." OVERALL, SAYS THE REPORT: [I]N SOME CASES, SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY BASED ON FAULTY FORENSIC SCIENCE ANALYSES MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS FACT HAS DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL DANGER OF GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY DERIVED FROM IMPERFECT TESTING AND ANALYSIS. MOREOVER, IMPRECISE OR EXAGGERATED EXPERT TESTIMONY HAS SOMETIMES CONTRIBUTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ERRONEOUS OR MISLEADING EVIDENCE."

J.D. TUCCILLE; CIVIL LIBERTIES EXAMINER;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background: Bill Dillon, was 22 when he was sentenced to life in prison in 1981, for killing a man in Canova Beach on the eastern coast of the state. During the trial, Dillon was adamant that he had not committed the crime. But a man named John Preston testified in court that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer’s bloody t-shirt. Preston, who billed himself as a "scent-tracking expert", said his dog, “Harrass 2,” even tracked Dillon’s scent repeatedly in later tests. Nearly three decades later, in 2007, DNA testing proved that Dillon’s DNA did not match the DNA on the killer’s shirt. The dog was wrong. Just eight months ago, after 26 years behind bars, Bill Dillon walked out of prison a free man. Preston was exposed by a Florida judge in 1984, who became suspicious of Preston and set up his own test for Harrass 2. The dog failed terribly. CNN unearthed documents which demonstrated that Harrass 2 could not even follow a scent for one-hundred feet. The judge determined the dog could only track successfully when his handler had advance knowledge of the case. Preston and his four-legged so-called expert were discredited in 1987 - but according to CNN, "the state of Florida never reviewed cases on which he’d testified . And nobody ever told Bill Dillon – who sat in prison another 20 years before he ever knew a thing about it. It wasn’t until 2006 that he heard Preston was a fake." The Dillon case is now attracting massive media attention in response to the Florida’s Innocence Project's well publicized concerns that dozens of inmates around the country may have been wrongly convicted as a result of John Preston and his dog. The focus now shifts to Florida's response to the Innocence Project's call for an investigation of those cases. Meanwhile, CNN informs us that Preston, the dog’s handler, died last year. He was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J.D. Tuccille's perceptive column on the Dillon case ran on June 15, 2009, on Examiner.com under the heading, "Prosecution dog put innocent people behind bars (and other bogus 'evidence' does the same)" - and the sub-heading "Police detection dogs can be helpful -- but they're at least as fallible as any other tool or technology."

Tuccille describes himself "a writer and editor based in northern Arizona" who can best be described as "a political junkie with a radical-libertarian bent."

"William Dillon spent 27 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit," the column begins;

"Wilton Dedge spent a similar stretch behind bars before finally being exonerated," it continues;

"Juan Ramos was sentenced to death before being freed from prison over a crime he didn't commit. The three men are linked not just by their innocence, but by the role played in their cases by dog handler John Preston, a one-time Pennsylvania state trooper, and his amazingly talented dog, Harass II. Preston was only one of many "scientific" experts later exposed as a fraud, some of whose victims may still wait to be revealed.

Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel has the details regarding Preston and the wreckage he left behind. But the fact that Preston and his "wonder dog" were so relied upon by prosecutors and courts until exposed in the media and humiliated by one judge demonstrates just how much suspension of disbelief (or outright dishonesty) is behind the acceptance of "forensic science" that too often turns out to be either poorly applied -- or even pure hocum.

Reason magazine's Radley Balko has made justified waves in recent years by exposing the nonsense disguised as medicine peddled by Dr. Michael West, a dentist who offered scientifically implausible evidence of guilt (in several cases, of defendants later proven innocent), based on his exclusive bite-mark "technique."

Balko was also largely responsible for (hopefully) ending the career of the notorious Dr. Steven Hayne, a medical examiner without credentials who seemed to customize his testimony to meet the needs of prosecutors.

But it's not just corrupt individuals who deserve skepticial consideration -- so do whole areas of forensic "science." Drug testing, for instance, is a highly subjective "science" that has a lot to do with the skill -- and honesty -- of technicians. It's not at all uncommon for ordinary soap to test positive for illegal intoxicants.

A report on the state of forensic medicine for the National Academies of Science concedes that "The fact is that many forensic tests -- such as those used to infer the source of toolmarks or bite marks -- have never been exposed to stringent scientific scrutiny."

Overall, says the report:

[I]n some cases, substantive information and testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to wrongful convictions of innocent people. This fact has demonstrated the potential danger of giving undue weight to evidence and testimony derived from imperfect testing and analysis. Moreover, imprecise or exaggerated expert testimony has sometimes contributed to the admission of erroneous or misleading evidence.

"Faulty" science has to include the evidence of dogs, which have become so ubiquitous in recent years because of their supposed ability to connect defendants to crime scenes, or to simply detect forbidden substances.

But, despite the legendary power of their noses, canine-based evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt. For starters, dogs' "testimony" is highly dependent on the word of their handlers. In fact, there's no standard way for a dog to tell us that something has been detected. Some dogs just sit, others jump up and bark -- interpretation is in the eye of the handler.

Dogs, also, are notoriously easy to manipulate, since they develop close bonds with their handlers. For a 2004 report on the unreliability of detection dogs, Auburn University professor Larry Myers, a leading expert on canine detection programs, told CBS News, “They can tell you that something's there, that's not there, simply to get praise, to get food, to get whatever they're working for.”

Through improperly training his dogs, or simply lying about their alerts, it was easy for John Preston to manufacture evidence of the guilt of innocent men.

But fallibility can be as dangerous as fraud. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2007 that canine testimony was acceptable in a case where the dog was only 54% accurate.

How many years of prison time are we willing to let ride on a 54% accuracy rate?

None of this is to say that forensic science is worthless. Properly used and understood it's absolutely necessary. After all, William Dillon and Wilton Dedge were freed of the shackles placed on them by bogus canine testimony because of the more rigorous standards set by DNA evidence.

But presenting fallible and sometimes fraudulent evidence as if it's beyond question runs the risk of discrediting good science along with the bad. The damage done by the John Prestons of the world can only be undone if we treat science as an imperfect part of an imperfect world -- not as the magic so-often peddled by charlatans."

The column can be found at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m6d15-Prosecution-dog-put-innocent-people-behind-bars-and-other-bogus-evidence-does-the-same

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;